John HSOG said:So...they were African...ok.
More like paying someone else to do it.Vietcong said:it was other africans that sold them to us! not us kidnaping them and bringing them hear!
"African" is so generic it's practically meaningless. "Angolan" is still wide, but it narrows down the options no end by comparison. There's a LOT more specific things to be said about Angolans as compared to "Africans".Gelion said:I'm not mocking I really want to know....
What is the historical significance of this discovery?
You meant to quote someone else didn't you?Verbose said:"African" is so generic it's practically meaningless. "Angolan" is still wide, but it narrows down the options no end by comparison. There's a LOT more specific things to be said about Angolans as compared to "Africans".
"Europeans colonised North America" is a correct statement. It's not just very helpful for understanding what that meant.
Well the native African had been practicing slavery for a thousand years, the Europeans simply became the new market for their goods, instead of Arabia and Morocco.Verbose said:More like paying someone else to do it.
The colonies in the New World needed labour to make a profit. Getting Europeans to risk their necks was difficult. Arming one group of Africans to kidnap and sell another was much cheaper and surer.
You always hear of black people talking about this? I have heard numerous black people say that white people treated them like crap when they were slaves, and that the after-effects of slavery are still felt today, but I have yet to hear a single black person say any of the things you list.Vietcong said:i allways hear of black ppl talking about how the "White man" came to thear peacfull and peace loveing village, and burned it down, raped the weaman, killed the elderly, and took the healthy for slaves.