Larry Johnson calls for all black league

[UK2K]

dude hasn't even gotten air time on espn .. so lol@suspension .. he needs to be thrown out, not suspended .. the guy works in player development and he's prejudiced against white players ? I wonder who else he's prejudiced against .. probably looks down on asian/hispanic players as well

I wish the media wold report on it. But they wont.

I even called in to a local radio show, and the host didnt want to touch it.

[Straight_Ballin]

I wish the media wold report on it. But they wont.

I even called in to a local radio show, and the host didnt want to touch it.

If the media did report on it, they wouldn't adhere to the double standard.

[Pointguard]

That's just inaccurate

Until the invention of the maxim machine gun whites never managed to successfully colonize the majority of Africa.

The height of the slave trade was before than.

I won't even say you are inaccurate. The slave trade, was a product of the regular gun. Colonization is not the same thing as slavery and you can't use them interchangeably as you just did. The colonization of Africa has absolutely no relationship to slavery in terms of how slavery began and how the Atlantic slave trade developed.

Black people fought wars between each other and sold defeated people to whites rather than just kill them.

The Atlantic slave trade was the white mans sin/fault, but the idea that whites usually directly, caught the slaves is inaccurate.

Africans were usually caught up in the mechanisms of Europeans and Arab groups before these wars were physical. Arabs provided intelligence of which groups had beef with each other and told the Europeans to offer guns to particular groups. Africans rarely had large scale wars or large scale invasions because the style was to live in smaller regions and not fight much - this is why their DNA sequencing is more diverse than other parts of the world as well. So your distinction of who actually caught the slaves doesn't mean much at all. They were indeed pawns of Europeans.

[UK2K]

Africans were usually caught up in the mechanisms of Europeans and Arab groups before these wars were physical. Arabs provided intelligence of which groups had beef with each other and told the Europeans to offer guns to particular groups. Africans rarely had large scale wars or large scale invasions because the style was to live in smaller regions and not fight much - this is why their DNA sequencing is more diverse than other parts of the world as well. So your distinction of who actually caught the slaves doesn't mean much at all. They were indeed pawns of Europeans.

There was slavery in Africa between African empires LONG before they ever saw a white man. As far back as the 700's well into the 1400's, and the first African slaves didn't make it to Portugal until the late 1400's.

[NumberSix]

I won't even say you are inaccurate. The slave trade, was a product of the regular gun. Colonization is not the same thing as slavery and you can't use them interchangeably as you just did. The colonization of Africa has absolutely no relationship to slavery in terms of how slavery began and how the Atlantic slave trade developed.


Africans were usually caught up in the mechanisms of Europeans and Arab groups before these wars were physical. Arabs provided intelligence of which groups had beef with each other and told the Europeans to offer guns to particular groups. Africans rarely had large scale wars or large scale invasions because the style was to live in smaller regions and not fight much - this is why their DNA sequencing is more diverse than other parts of the world as well. So your distinction of who actually caught the slaves doesn't mean much at all. They were indeed pawns of Europeans.

Where do people get this stuff?

You know why Europeans bought West African slaves? Because that was what was for sale.

In America, they weren't even slaves anymore because slavery wasn't legal. They were bought as slaves in Africa and used as indentured servants in America. Later on, it became legal to own slaves under certain circumstances. A black man named Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in America. The system of racism came later as a justification as to why it was morally acceptable to keep slaves. If Africans weren't really humans, it was ok to treat them as property.

[Patrick Chewing]

[COLOR="Magenta"]
Wat larry sed wasnt racist

was A opinion and thought that isnt that far fetched [/COLOR]

He's excluding a race. Just like "Colored only" water fountains and rest rooms. If those whites in the past were labeled as bigots, then so is Johnson.

[Pointguard]

There was slavery in Africa between African empires LONG before they ever saw a white man. As far back as the 700's well into the 1400's, and the first African slaves didn't make it to Portugal until the late 1400's.

So what???

Do you even know what the conversation is about???

That has nothing to do with Transatlantic slave trade. I already addressed that the Arabs already were in the game - you didn't read that. That's an Arab map.

[UK2K]

Where do people get this stuff?

You know why Europeans bought West African slaves? Because that was what was for sale.

In America, they weren't even slaves anymore because slavery wasn't legal. They were bought as slaves in Africa and used as indentured servants in America. Later on, it became legal to own slaves under certain circumstances. A black man named Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in America. The system of racism came later as a justification as to why it was morally acceptable to keep slaves. If Africans weren't really humans, it was ok to treat them as property.

[Pointguard]

Where do people get this stuff?

You know why Europeans bought West African slaves? Because that was what was for sale.

In America, they weren't even slaves anymore because slavery wasn't legal. They were bought as slaves in Africa and used as indentured servants in America. Later on, it became legal to own slaves under certain circumstances. A black man named Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner in America. The system of racism came later as a justification as to why it was morally acceptable to keep slaves. If Africans weren't really humans, it was ok to treat them as property.

Why do you join history discussions? You rarely read or know dynamics at all. You don't even have a sense of time.

You are all over the place here and not making any sense.

So now you are saying the Europeans brought GUNS to Africa to BUY slaves? Created a whole system that took months to complete with all types of risk with no known economic advantage? That early European America, which was one of the most lawless societies ever and had a huge proportion or criminals and very few laws adhered to, was on some moral compass about slavery? There were some religious groups that were on their game but the system of slavery was the most brutal and atrocious crimes because those darn North Africans were just out there selling slaves.

Keep talking, I know this is going to get worse.

[Pointguard]

In America, they weren't even slaves anymore because slavery wasn't legal. They were bought as slaves in Africa and used as indentured servants in America.

An innocent indentured servant is a slave. Do you even think about what you write?