Is this true? Black slave masters

[Berkut]

Yeah, it is a total secret that blacks held slaves, you have to really dig around to find any kind of mention of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slaveholders

[viper37]

Yeah, it is a total secret that blacks held slaves, you have to really dig around to find any kind of mention of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slaveholders

you have to read about it.  That's hard.

[grumbler]

Seems an odd thing to teach in high school. I was never taught it.  It really isn't historically significant and there are many more important things to cover in limited time/space.  Which is why I said it was a quirk.  You guys read way too much into things sometimes.

Okay, Spicey.

[grumbler]

In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

[garbon]

In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

[CountDeMoney]

You know, the slaves that built the White House were paid very well, considering the time period.

[derspiess]

So "general narrative" is a Languish trigger term.  Got it.

[garbon]

So "general narrative" is a Languish trigger term.  Got it.

Well I think it is just some rhetorical device being used to make a claim with no support.

[Barrister]

In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

[Berkut]

In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

You specifcally remember NOT being told that blacks could own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that blacks could NOT own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that ONLY whites owned slaves?

Is it possible, counselor, that you actually weren't told anything at all about the allowed races of slave owners, and are simply projecting your assumptions onto your education?

[viper37]

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

They don't talk about slavery in the South, only States rights.

[viper37]

In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

You specifcally remember NOT being told that blacks could own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that blacks could NOT own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that ONLY whites owned slaves?

Is it possible, counselor, that you actually weren't told anything at all about the allowed races of slave owners, and are simply projecting your assumptions onto your education?

I'm gonna take his defense here, and I'll say it was #1 for me, and I guess it was the same in his province.

[celedhring]

Mulatto slaveholders were a not uncommon fixture of XIXth century colonial Spain, fwiw. Spaniards tended to mix up with the natives and black slaves more than anglosaxons did, sometimes even openly, but discrimination and the caste system still vetoed the mulatto sons of wealthy colonials from acceding to higher education and reputable jobs. So to the plantation it was.

[grumbler]

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

I was never taught that there were high schools in Canada, so I guess I would (if i were like you) use that fact to support an argument that the general narrative is that there are no high schools in Canada.

Luckily for me, I know that that is not how evidence works.

[grumbler]

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

They don't talk about slavery in the South, only States rights.

I don't think he meant southern Quebec when he referenced "the south."