Is this true? Black slave masters

[Razgovory]

Siege, where did you find these "facts"?  Give up a source.

[grumbler]

yeah, Siege, the bottom line is that, even if the author twisted facts, he still had to ignore the real facts to get to a wacky and untrue set of conclusions.  "Facts" 1 and 2 are patently lies. Fact 3 is a non sequitur.  "Fact" 4 is a lie.  Fact 5 is a non sequitur.

[viper37]

Is what true?   That there were some free blacks who owned slaves?  Yes, that's true.

I mean, that proportionally so many free blacks owned slaves. 28% of free blacks owning slaves seem high to me when you keep in mind that prejudices against blacks would still be predominant regardless of economic success.

Back then, there were restrictions on manumission and there were restrictions on what free blacks could do.  To support one's family, it was often easier and cheaper for a free black to keep them as theoritical slaves and have them work with him on the farm/plantation.  It's doubtful free whites would have worked for a free black anyway, so having a workforce was out of the question.  Besides, paying white men to do a job when blacks were doing it as slaves elsewhere was not economically viable if a black man wanted to improve his condition.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist/2/

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa ... Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

[viper37]

Siege, what difference does it make to you (or should make to any of us) what proportion of free blacks owned slaves?  I don't understand the point you're trying to make... or maybe you just saw something you thought was interesting, wanted to share it with us, and there's no other motivation here?

If black owned slaves, it means they are just hypocrites about their presumed persecution, since slavery was for their own good.  If they are hypocrites, it goes to show that Black Lives Matters are just a bunch of thugs intent on disrupting civil order in the US.  If Black Lives don't matter, it means there is no problem with racism in the USA.  If there is no problem with racism in the US, then there's nothing wrong with having a white supremacist at the White House to re-establish balance from Democrats supporting civil disorder.

It's all logical, when you think about it...

[CountDeMoney]

yeah, Siege, the bottom line is that, even if the author twisted facts, he still had to ignore the real facts to get to a wacky and untrue set of conclusions.  "Facts" 1 and 2 are patently lies. Fact 3 is a non sequitur.  "Fact" 4 is a lie.  Fact 5 is a non sequitur.

But see, they're historical quirks that contradict the general narrative. 

[Valmy]

I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

[Habbaku]

I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That slavery was bad.  You know, since black people do it too, it means it wasn't so bad.

[derspiess]

I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That no blacks benefited from the system.  But I see Languish is already trying to put words in my mouth.

[grumbler]

I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That no blacks benefited from the system.  But I see Languish is already trying to put words in my mouth.

I didn't know that the "general narrative" was that "no blacks benefited from the system."  Maybe the general narrative isn't very general.

[derspiess]

Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

[Razgovory]

I'd still like to know the source.

[grumbler]

Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

There is a huge difference between being unaware that some blacks had slaves, and believing your "general narrative" that  "no blacks benefited from the system."  Most people who are not auto nerds are unaware that a Chevrolet 454 Big Block produced 255 hp, but there is no "general narrative" that  "no pickup truck engine ever produced over 250hp."

[The Minsky Moment]

Siege:

1) Please stop frequenting whatever place on the internet you get this stupid crap from.
2) If you have actual interest in the subject there is a really good novel relating to it: https://www.amazon.com/Known-World-Edward-P-Jones/dp/0060557559

[The Brain]

The first time a novel has been put forward as history on Languish.

[garbon]

Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

There is a huge difference between being unaware that some blacks had slaves, and believing your "general narrative" that  "no blacks benefited from the system."  Most people who are not auto nerds are unaware that a Chevrolet 454 Big Block produced 255 hp, but there is no "general narrative" that  "no pickup truck engine ever produced over 250hp."

I'm saddened by how it is cool now to go about with one's ignorance. I miss when it was shameful to be so openly ignorant.