First off, are you really going to try and get away with using "proportionally" to justify what whites did to blacks for a few hundred years? First you can't even prove there was proportionality and second it completely disregards segregation and Jim Crow. Your article (the 10% that isn't anecdotal evidence) says that there were 27,000,000 whites and 385,000 people who owned slaves which amounts to between 1.4 and 4.8% that owned slaves. At this point I would like to know if all family members of the slave-owners were in this number or not, but beyond that the article then states that there were 4 million blacks at the time. The article then only finds 3,000 of those that are slave owners. This is .075%. Would you care to try your ‘proportionality" argument with more facts or are you going to concede it is a shit argument? As for segregation and Jim Crow are you going to try and say that white got the raw end of those too?88 wrote: But they did. And in greater numbers, proportionally, than whites:
Not sure why you think I'm a liberal when I hate Wickard and love the 2nd Am., but I will answer anyways.Since you libs blame gun manufacturers instead of the shooters when a murder is committed, why don't you also blame the black Africans who sold blacks into slavery instead of the whites who purchased them?
What makes you think I don't blame both? Only a racist would blame one and not the other.