[ SECRET POST #5897 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5897 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #844.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Does it also address the part of black history where plenty of black Africans profited by selling their own people into slavery? Or owned slaves themselves?

[(Anonymous)]

DA No, it does not. Nor the many people who are still being held as slaves in Africa today.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a ridiculously feeble and tired argument

[(Anonymous)]

Not really, because it very much is part of the history of black Americans (and Africans, for that matter).

[(Anonymous)]

Of course it's part of the history of black Americans.

But it's a feeble and ridiculous argument when used as an excuse to look away from the reality of slavery in the United States of America, its scope and scale, and its historical importance in the country. It seems that's how it's being brought up in this context - as an attempt to distract or whatabout away a discussion of black slavery in America. And in that context it really is absolutely ludicrous, because it doesn't change any of the details or impact of black slavery in the Americas even to the slightest degree.

[(Anonymous)]

It's cute that you think it was only the United States where slavery was on a wide scale and has historic importance to the country.

[(Anonymous)]

I genuinely have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

The reason that the United States is relevant here is because we're talking about an American movie, and we're in a thread talking about American slavery. Like.... when someone starts a thread talking about the legacy of slavery in America, then yes, slavery in America is relevant to that conversation and slavery in other countries isn't? If slavery is of historical importance in another country, what does that have to do with this conversation?

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, you were the one who brought up the idea that anyone not from the US could not POSSIBLY be aware of all the implications and intricacies of slavery in the US and black history while wilfully ignoring a sizeable part of the issue.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not thread!OP

If you want to argue that thread!OP is wrong in saying that non-Americans are unaware of anti-blackness as a political issue, you can say that.

Bringing up African participation in the slave trade in Africa is not relevant to that point though. Frankly I don't think it is "a sizeable part of the issue" when talking about the specifically American experience of slavery in America (which is what OP was talking about); the people who perpetrated slavery in the United States of America, who kept it in being, and who benefited from it were white. None of that is altered by talking about the roots of the slave trade in Africa. It really is nothing more than a very well-worn and tired distraction used by people who are trying to pretend that slavery in the US somehow didn't have a racial basis, or was no big deal, or shouldn't matter, or whatever else. It's very dumb.