how did black people get "white" last names?

[preslove]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
nothings black and white.
some were shackled, some weren't.

Again, you do not have to shackle someone if you can legally torture, kill, rape, and/or sell them to someone who will do these things to them. It is easy to manipulate someone when you have this kind of power over them, and it makes it no less monstrous. This is really a silly point.

some were sadistic, others relatively enlightened.
i think jefferson and others couldn't really rationalize slavery and thought it was a necessary evil at best.

The northern states disagreed with Jefferson and the rest of the slave states on this point. It's funny how evil becomes "necessary" when it is in your best economic interest to do it.

do you really think about that 3rd world farmer growing your coffee or the sweat shop laborer when you shop at walmart? it is how it is, we let some things go.. and they did back then.

I'm not certain, but I'm willing to bet you're the type of person that mocks people for buying fair trade coffee and refusing to shop at wal-mart.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
this is a serious question.

names like MacGrady, McNabb (just to name a few of the more popular black sports iconic names), or anything Mac*, Mc* are of Irish descent.
how did black people 'adopt' these surnames?

is it because in the days of slavery, slave owners raped their women and their kids took on the last name?

its because black people were completely stripped of their cultural wealth and therefore scavenged things like names from white people.

you know what the funny thing is - the root of slavery is africa itself.

coastal towns of africa would raid the inside of the continent and capture men, women, and children to sell to the europeans that stopped by during the colonial period. previously, female slaves were particularly wanted by the sultans of both arab empires IIRC (can't remember the 1st one, the second is the Abbasid (sp?) empire). slavery in africa goes much farther back than 1600ish.

This is a red herring because there was this thing called the Declaration of Independence that included this text:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The United States was supposedly more ethical and moral than Arab empires. Now, some states thought that it was hypocritical to affirm documents such as the Declaration, the US Constitution, the various state constitutions, and innumerable Enlightenment writings while also enslaving large populations of human beings. That's why the state supreme court of Massachusetts declared slavery unconstitutional in 1783, & why all northern states took various routes to emancipation following the Revolutionary war.

The southern states? They had a difference of opinion, and went the hypocritical route of moral equivalence with Arab empires.

Actually at the time of the signing of the Declaration slavery was not exclusive to the Southern colonies. The reason there became such a profound divide is because farming in the Northern colonies did not become established with large plantations due to the shorter growing season and rocky soil which tended to limit farm sizes to small family type operations. Furthermore slavery has been with humanity in one form or another throughout recorded history, it is not something that was unique to English North America or even to Europeans. The first blacks brought to Jamestown were somewhat of an anomaly and were originally considered to be indentured servants not really any different than any other indentured servant of the day. How slavery evolved from that has much to do with English common law and who and what was considered to be an "Englishman" in thos times. As for it not being addressed by the Constitution it was clear to the founders that had this issue been addressed there would not have been a Constitution or a Union so they dealt with the issue by not dealing with it.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
this is a serious question.

names like MacGrady, McNabb (just to name a few of the more popular black sports iconic names), or anything Mac*, Mc* are of Irish descent.
how did black people 'adopt' these surnames?

is it because in the days of slavery, slave owners raped their women and their kids took on the last name?

Aside from "X", the way most black folks got their last names was from their original white owners.

Along those lines, apparently a fellow named Jackson owned a crapload of slaves.
And we all know about Jefferson and Washington.

yeppers

 

[Baked]

Drive-by name jacking on a stolen carriage.

 

[aphex]

/lawnchair

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
this is a serious question.

names like MacGrady, McNabb (just to name a few of the more popular black sports iconic names), or anything Mac*, Mc* are of Irish descent.
how did black people 'adopt' these surnames?

is it because in the days of slavery, slave owners raped their women and their kids took on the last name?

its because black people were completely stripped of their cultural wealth and therefore scavenged things like names from white people.

you know what the funny thing is - the root of slavery is africa itself.

coastal towns of africa would raid the inside of the continent and capture men, women, and children to sell to the europeans that stopped by during the colonial period. previously, female slaves were particularly wanted by the sultans of both arab empires IIRC (can't remember the 1st one, the second is the Abbasid (sp?) empire). slavery in africa goes much farther back than 1600ish.

This is a red herring because there was this thing called the Declaration of Independence that included this text:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The United States was supposedly more ethical and moral than Arab empires. Now, some states thought that it was hypocritical to affirm documents such as the Declaration, the US Constitution, the various state constitutions, and innumerable Enlightenment writings while also enslaving large populations of human beings. That's why the state supreme court of Massachusetts declared slavery unconstitutional in 1783, & why all northern states took various routes to emancipation following the Revolutionary war.

The southern states? They had a difference of opinion, and went the hypocritical route of moral equivalence with Arab empires.

Actually at the time of the signing of the Declaration slavery was not exclusive to the Southern colonies. The reason there became such a profound divide is because farming in the Northern colonies did not become established with large plantations due to the shorter growing season and rocky soil which tended to limit farm sizes to small family type operations. Furthermore slavery has been with humanity in one form or another throughout recorded history, it is not something that was unique to English North America or even to Europeans. The first blacks brought to Jamestown were somewhat of an anomaly and were originally considered to be indentured servants not really any different than any other indentured servant of the day. How slavery evolved from that has much to do with English common law and who and what was considered to be an "Englishman" in thos times. As for it not being addressed by the Constitution it was clear to the founders that had this issue been addressed there would not have been a Constitution or a Union so they dealt with the issue by not dealing with it.

You completely misread my post. Yes, all colonies at the beginning of the revolution had slaves, but Massachusetts declared it unconstitutional in 1783, the last year of the Revolution (Commonwealth v. Jennison), and all the northern states followed suit in emancipation through various means. While some took longer than others (New York allowed owners to keep their slaves, but the children of slaves were set free), there was a clear ideological move away from slavery that began DURING the revolutionary war.

As for your agricultural determinism theory, slavery was actually quite prevalent in north at the time, especially in New York, where there were indeed huge plantations. The difference was that the large landholders in the north competed with the merchant class, whereas the landholders were the sole powers that be in the south. The ideology emancipation spread so rapidly in the north and not in the south because of this fact, yes, but it was the ideology that pushed emancipation through above the mason dixon line, not the absence of slaves.

edit: Oh, and at the time of the revolution the majority of slave owners were not large plantation owners with dozens of slaves, but smaller farmers with only a couple of slaves. While there were large plantation owners in the south in the 1780's, it didn't become the norm until the 19th century, especially after the end of slave trade, which increased slave prices beyond the reach of the small farmer.

 

[GG02]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
People think the plantations were like concentration camps, while there obviously were moral & ethical issues with all the issues around & about slavery, and of course the abuse of slaves, many slave owners weren't horrible people, and their slaves were akin to extended family.

For those people who make their "extended family" their property who cannot voluntarily leave their land, who beat them and whip them as adults if they don't behave, who allow them only hand me down rags to wear, who forcibly forbid the speaking of their native languages, who occassionally lynch or beat to death a few, who forcibly fuck some of the females on occasssion, and treat the issue of these unions as sub-human property, who may or may not allow their property to marry, but then can and do sell the wives and/or the children to other owners.

Yeah, those darkies sure had it good! :roll:

All I know is what I've read & heard, I wasn't there & I'm obviously not a fan of slavery, I've got no dog in this fight.

You are repeating what you heard in your revisionist "southern pride" history class. Extended family! Yeah, they were keeping them in shackles for their own good, to get them to heaven. The fact that these ideas that were used to justify slavery to other states that were free and to themselves are still around is disgusting.

Yeah, 100 % of all slaves were shackled, and did I in any way suggest that nice slave owners (and there were quite a few) were any justification for the practice?

Didn't grow up in the South, but live here now, I've read a bit and made a point to listen to interviews of black authors on the subject.

There was a similar thread in P&N and I did the research to prove my point and educate the poster that was calling me a liar & revisionist, I feel no need to educate anyone else.

<----runs from thread & topic as if I'm on fire and laughs at the retards...

What the fuck is a nice slave owner?

"Hey, Im only going to whip you on Wednesday - Saturday. That was, in the future, Im not looked upon as a mean slave owner. Never mind the fact that I own you, and am keeping you here to do everything I say, with the threat of whipping / death looming over your head if you dont comply."

I dont give a damn how "nice" a slave owner treated his slaves. The fact remains he kept them as slaves....not exactly the nicest thing you can do.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
this is a serious question.

names like MacGrady, McNabb (just to name a few of the more popular black sports iconic names), or anything Mac*, Mc* are of Irish descent.
how did black people 'adopt' these surnames?

is it because in the days of slavery, slave owners raped their women and their kids took on the last name?

its because black people were completely stripped of their cultural wealth and therefore scavenged things like names from white people.

You're a simple minded bigot. Great job distorting history, what else are you going to conceptually butcher today?

how in the hell is that post bigoted?

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
slavery exists everywhere to this very day.

fixed. and yes this includes the western countries.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
slavery exists everywhere to this very day.

fixed. and yes this includes the western countries.

Care to back that up other than with some tripe about "wage slavery"?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
this is a serious question.

names like MacGrady, McNabb (just to name a few of the more popular black sports iconic names), or anything Mac*, Mc* are of Irish descent.
how did black people 'adopt' these surnames?

is it because in the days of slavery, slave owners raped their women and their kids took on the last name?

its because black people were completely stripped of their cultural wealth and therefore scavenged things like names from white people.

You're a simple minded bigot. Great job distorting history, what else are you going to conceptually butcher today?

Uh, did you pay attention in history class? That's actually what happened. Do you really think the slaves were allowed to retain any aspects of their culture?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
People think the plantations were like concentration camps, while there obviously were moral & ethical issues with all the issues around & about slavery, and of course the abuse of slaves, many slave owners weren't horrible people, and their slaves were akin to extended family.

For those people who make their "extended family" their property who cannot voluntarily leave their land, who beat them and whip them as adults if they don't behave, who allow them only hand me down rags to wear, who forcibly forbid the speaking of their native languages, who occassionally lynch or beat to death a few, who forcibly fuck some of the females on occasssion, and treat the issue of these unions as sub-human property, who may or may not allow their property to marry, but then can and do sell the wives and/or the children to other owners.

Yeah, those darkies sure had it good! :roll:

All I know is what I've read & heard, I wasn't there & I'm obviously not a fan of slavery, I've got no dog in this fight.

You are repeating what you heard in your revisionist "southern pride" history class. Extended family! Yeah, they were keeping them in shackles for their own good, to get them to heaven. The fact that these ideas that were used to justify slavery to other states that were free and to themselves are still around is disgusting.

The fact that you think that all white people from the south are racist bigots is disgusting. You are no better than than people that would answer the OP's question by saying, "They got those names by stealing them from the whites"
As far as revisionist "southern pride" history, remember, history is written by the winners, and last I recall, the South lost, so it is possible that slavery was made out to be a lot worse than it was to make the North's fight all the more important.

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: preslove
The southern states? They had a difference of opinion, and went the hypocritical route of moral equivalence with Arab empires.

oooh... combo!

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
People think the plantations were like concentration camps, while there obviously were moral & ethical issues with all the issues around & about slavery, and of course the abuse of slaves, many slave owners weren't horrible people, and their slaves were akin to extended family.

For those people who make their "extended family" their property who cannot voluntarily leave their land, who beat them and whip them as adults if they don't behave, who allow them only hand me down rags to wear, who forcibly forbid the speaking of their native languages, who occassionally lynch or beat to death a few, who forcibly fuck some of the females on occasssion, and treat the issue of these unions as sub-human property, who may or may not allow their property to marry, but then can and do sell the wives and/or the children to other owners.

Yeah, those darkies sure had it good! :roll:

All I know is what I've read & heard, I wasn't there & I'm obviously not a fan of slavery, I've got no dog in this fight.

You are repeating what you heard in your revisionist "southern pride" history class. Extended family! Yeah, they were keeping them in shackles for their own good, to get them to heaven. The fact that these ideas that were used to justify slavery to other states that were free and to themselves are still around is disgusting.

The fact that you think that all white people from the south are racist bigots is disgusting. You are no better than than people that would answer the OP's question by saying, "They got those names by stealing them from the whites"
As far as revisionist "southern pride" history, remember, history is written by the winners, and last I recall, the South lost, so it is possible that slavery was made out to be a lot worse than it was to make the North's fight all the more important.

Where did I say that all white people from the south are racist bigots? Obviously the vast majority aren't, but I wonder what you are that makes you defend slavery as "made out to be a lot worse than it was". Institutionalized slavery is one of the worst crimes against humanity that a state can commit.

 

[zerocool84]

Just ask Al Sharpton.....

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: GG02

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
People think the plantations were like concentration camps, while there obviously were moral & ethical issues with all the issues around & about slavery, and of course the abuse of slaves, many slave owners weren't horrible people, and their slaves were akin to extended family.

For those people who make their "extended family" their property who cannot voluntarily leave their land, who beat them and whip them as adults if they don't behave, who allow them only hand me down rags to wear, who forcibly forbid the speaking of their native languages, who occassionally lynch or beat to death a few, who forcibly fuck some of the females on occasssion, and treat the issue of these unions as sub-human property, who may or may not allow their property to marry, but then can and do sell the wives and/or the children to other owners.

Yeah, those darkies sure had it good! :roll:

All I know is what I've read & heard, I wasn't there & I'm obviously not a fan of slavery, I've got no dog in this fight.

You are repeating what you heard in your revisionist "southern pride" history class. Extended family! Yeah, they were keeping them in shackles for their own good, to get them to heaven. The fact that these ideas that were used to justify slavery to other states that were free and to themselves are still around is disgusting.

Yeah, 100 % of all slaves were shackled, and did I in any way suggest that nice slave owners (and there were quite a few) were any justification for the practice?

Didn't grow up in the South, but live here now, I've read a bit and made a point to listen to interviews of black authors on the subject.

There was a similar thread in P&N and I did the research to prove my point and educate the poster that was calling me a liar & revisionist, I feel no need to educate anyone else.

<----runs from thread & topic as if I'm on fire and laughs at the retards...

What the fuck is a nice slave owner?

"Hey, Im only going to whip you on Wednesday - Saturday. That was, in the future, Im not looked upon as a mean slave owner. Never mind the fact that I own you, and am keeping you here to do everything I say, with the threat of whipping / death looming over your head if you dont comply."

I dont give a damn how "nice" a slave owner treated his slaves. The fact remains he kept them as slaves....not exactly the nicest thing you can do.

well there weren't any illegal Mexicans running around back then so who else could they get to pick the cotton?

 

[lyssword]

No, seriously, we get so pissed when we heard of an Austrian daughter/woman being kept hostage, well that's exactly what slavery is, so don't try to make it sound like it was much better..

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: lyssword
No, seriously, we get so pissed when we heard of an Austrian daughter/woman being kept hostage, well that's exactly what slavery is, so don't try to make it sound like it was much better..

:roll:

getting raped by your father and bearing 7 of his kids while locked in a basement for 20 years is not even in the same universe.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
One more time, the saddest part of all of this kind of BS is that the canned responses & name calling make even the discussion of the subject nearly impossible.

Did you really think you could have a nuanced discussion on this subject here given that there is so little history taught in schools today that the OP even had to ask the question?

Oh so we shouldn't blame ATOT for being racist or ignorant. Instead we should blame the American school system?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: preslove
nothings black and white.

Again, you do not have to shackle someone if you can legally torture, kill, rape, and/or sell them to someone who will do these things to them. It is easy to manipulate someone when you have this kind of power over them, and it makes it no less monstrous. This is really a silly point.

once again, its not black and white. degrees always matter. we execute prisoners sometimes. does that mean we are as bad as iran where they execute children for "crimes" of sexuality? of course not.

Originally posted by: preslove
I'm not certain, but I'm willing to bet you're the type of person that mocks people for buying fair trade coffee and refusing to shop at wal-mart.

i am, because its selective protectionism. i rarely see one that is consistent in their beliefs. oddly they care about some 3rd world farmer, but american jobs? oh americans can go to hell. mostly their coffee is a silly feel good purchase with little actual meaning.


anyways, at some point in history everyone has had an ancestor that led life in a compromised position. just a matter of how far back you go.

 

[mattjbak]

haha..

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
this is a serious question.

names like MacGrady, McNabb (just to name a few of the more popular black sports iconic names), or anything Mac*, Mc* are of Irish descent.
how did black people 'adopt' these surnames?

is it because in the days of slavery, slave owners raped their women and their kids took on the last name?

Mac is actually of Scottish descent. Mc is Irish.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: lyssword
No, seriously, we get so pissed when we heard of an Austrian daughter/woman being kept hostage, well that's exactly what slavery is, so don't try to make it sound like it was much better..

:roll:

getting raped by your father and bearing 7 of his kids while locked in a basement for 20 years is not even in the same universe.

Do you know what slavery is? That sounds about equivalent, with the exception of sunshine.

 

[JM Aggie08]

white ftw

 

[Kirby]

/facepalm