That's racist!

[NashVol11]

Good job, State of TN.

View attachment 765503

 

[McDad]

Dang it.

The pic didn't post.

It was good news about test scores for black students by state. TN was up there in the highest group. I'll try to post the Pic again.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

one thing you and the State of Islam need to learn, is that one of the key items to helping yourself is to stop blaming others, and waiting on others to change for your benefit. You aren't responsible for what happened to you, but you are responsible for how you respond to it.

When have I or the nation ever asked for white folk to change? LOL. Yall must got us confused with liberal blacks. We're not waiting for yall to change cause we don't expect it. What we wanna do is educate our people on having knowledge of self so they know who they really are and what they're capable of. You might think the ingrained racial inferiority that came from slavery is irrelevant. Fine. I'm not telling you that so you feel sorry for us. I was simply explaining why things are the way they are today.

My views are simple. Us black folk need to do for ourselves. We don't need anything from anybody else. We don't need your sympathy and we don't need your help. Like Denzel told that white liberal girl in the movie "Malcolm X" when she asked what she could do as a good white person to help in the cause. "Just stay out of the way".

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

A lot of people call or consider themselves "conservative" while being far from it. I'm talking about the label as it's used now.

I want the US government to go back to the size and scope that the founders intended. If MN or MI want to become immigrant havens then so be it, no skin off my azz.

So if Minnesota becomes a mini-Somalia and Michigan becomes a mini-Arabia you would be fine with it? Now tell me this. How long can a nation still be considered a nation if it has states in it that are more similar to other countries halfway across the world? You think America will continue to prosper if we have balkanized states within our country that are nothing like the rest of the country?

FYI this is exactly why Africa is a steaming mess right now. Europeans through colonialism drew artificial borders grouping different tribes with little in common with one another into nations and then excepted them to govern each other fairly. What happened was corruption and civil strife that continues to plague the continent to this day. Crazy to me that you want the same thing for America.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Here the thing..chattel slavery is just a term made to make us feel bad . I promise you those enslaved in Africa at this moment feel less and are made to feel less then their slavers...as would any person who loses their freedom and is enslaved. That's how you keep enslaved people enslaved. It control. And it could have been totally race based in the US as those were major black slaves owners..so chattel slavery is a term made up by race baiters

I definitely agree with you that all slavery sucks for those enslaved. The difference is that a few generations from now nobody will know who was enslaved and who wasn't in Africa. Why? Because everyone there is black. Slavery wasn't tied to skin color and notions of racial supremacy. Same reason why slavery has no effect on modern Greece and Italy despite slavery being common in the ancient world. The slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome weren't just one race that was enslaved because they were considered racially inferior.

The reason slavery still plagues us here in the Americas and nowhere else on the planet despite being abolished 160 years ago is because we were the only ones that tied race to slavery. So despite it being generations since the end of slavery we still know who was enslaved and who wasn't. And that is why its still relevant. If nobody knew who was a slave and who wasn't because all races were enslaved here then we in the modern world would be fine. But because we racialized slavery its consequences still persists with us to this day.

 

[hog88]

So if Minnesota becomes a mini-Somalia and Michigan becomes a mini-Arabia you would be fine with it? Now tell me this. How long can a nation still be considered a nation if it has states in it that are more similar to other countries halfway across the world? You think America will continue to prosper if we have balkanized states within our country that are nothing like the rest of the country?

FYI this is exactly why Africa is a steaming mess right now. Europeans through colonialism drew artificial borders grouping different tribes with little in common with one another into nations and then excepted them to govern each other fairly. What happened was corruption and civil strife that continues to plague the continent to this day. Crazy to me that you want the same thing for America.

We became a great and prosperous nation with that exact model. The original 13 states were all different than each other.

And yes, as long as MN and MI abide by the bill of rights for it’s residents (which by doing so would prevent them from becoming Mini-Somalias and Arabias) I don’t care what they do.

 

[LouderVol]

I definitely agree with you that all slavery sucks for those enslaved. The difference is that a few generations from now nobody will know who was enslaved and who wasn't in Africa. Why? Because everyone there is black. Slavery wasn't tied to skin color and notions of racial supremacy. Same reason why slavery has no effect on modern Greece and Italy despite slavery being common in the ancient world. The slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome weren't just one race that was enslaved because they were considered racially inferior.

The reason slavery still plagues us here in the Americas and nowhere else on the planet despite being abolished 160 years ago is because we were the only ones that tied race to slavery. So despite it being generations since the end of slavery we still know who was enslaved and who wasn't. And that is why its still relevant. If nobody knew who was a slave and who wasn't because all races were enslaved here then we in the modern world would be fine. But because we racialized slavery its consequences still persists with us to this day.

2. Family history, slavery and knowledge of Black history

Learning about family history can be a challenge for Black Americans. Because of slavery, it is often difficult for them to trace their ancestry prior to

www.pewresearch.org

I don't think you can say that with any accuracy. At best you "knowing" is only a little bit better than a 50/50 racist guess.

According to this it's about 57% who think their ancestors were enslaved, and that includes about 3% who think they were enslaved outside the US.

I mean yeah you go to some reddit forum you will find claims of 97% think they were enslaved, but good luck getting any data on that.

To me it gets really fuzzy about how you claim this. Is one slave ancestor, the rest being free, enough to claim some ancestoral suffering to the point of being a negative? At seven generations we have 128 ancestors going back to the last of the slaves. Is 1/128 enough to say you, as an individual, suffer from some assumed racial inferiority from 7 generations ago?

 

[LouderVol]

When have I or the nation ever asked for white folk to change? LOL. Yall must got us confused with liberal blacks. We're not waiting for yall to change cause we don't expect it. What we wanna do is educate our people on having knowledge of self so they know who they really are and what they're capable of. You might think the ingrained racial inferiority that came from slavery is irrelevant. Fine. I'm not telling you that so you feel sorry for us. I was simply explaining why things are the way they are today.

My views are simple. Us black folk need to do for ourselves. We don't need anything from anybody else. We don't need your sympathy and we don't need your help. Like Denzel told that white liberal girl in the movie "Malcolm X" when she asked what she could do as a good white person to help in the cause. "Just stay out of the way".

I don't think its irrelevant. I think its self generated at this point. or at least maintained from within the community far more than it is maintained from outside the community.

your focus on what slavery is in this nation, while dismissing it elsewhere goes along with the problem. and it speaks to the change you want to see from the society around you.

 

[LouderVol]

I definitely agree with you that all slavery sucks for those enslaved. The difference is that a few generations from now nobody will know who was enslaved and who wasn't in Africa. Why? Because everyone there is black. Slavery wasn't tied to skin color and notions of racial supremacy. Same reason why slavery has no effect on modern Greece and Italy despite slavery being common in the ancient world. The slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome weren't just one race that was enslaved because they were considered racially inferior.

The reason slavery still plagues us here in the Americas and nowhere else on the planet despite being abolished 160 years ago is because we were the only ones that tied race to slavery. So despite it being generations since the end of slavery we still know who was enslaved and who wasn't. And that is why its still relevant. If nobody knew who was a slave and who wasn't because all races were enslaved here then we in the modern world would be fine. But because we racialized slavery its consequences still persists with us to this day.

what the eff are you smoking here?

they were absolutely enslaved because they were considered inferior. There is a reason the word "Slave" comes from a group of white people called the "Slavs". the romans saw the only worth in Slavs as slaves. you can go back to any point in time and find the same thing, even the Jews allowed slavery of others, but not Jews.

and there are plenty of cases of different races being enslaved because they were different. The Ottomans enslaved whites because they were white, the Mamelukes enslaved whites because they were white. How do you think the eastern mediterranean went from being Greek to being Arab/turkish? it wasn't because the new guys were nice. Some of the various Chinese dynasty's made it practice to only enslave different races because they were inferior. I am sure there are more. slavery has almost always been about finding who is different than you, and making them less than you. its not something special to America.

 

[whodeycin85]

I definitely agree with you that all slavery sucks for those enslaved. The difference is that a few generations from now nobody will know who was enslaved and who wasn't in Africa. Why? Because everyone there is black. Slavery wasn't tied to skin color and notions of racial supremacy. Same reason why slavery has no effect on modern Greece and Italy despite slavery being common in the ancient world. The slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome weren't just one race that was enslaved because they were considered racially inferior.

The reason slavery still plagues us here in the Americas and nowhere else on the planet despite being abolished 160 years ago is because we were the only ones that tied race to slavery. So despite it being generations since the end of slavery we still know who was enslaved and who wasn't. And that is why its still relevant. If nobody knew who was a slave and who wasn't because all races were enslaved here then we in the modern world would be fine. But because we racialized slavery its consequences still persists with us to this day.

There were white, Mexican and Indian slaves in America so no it wasn't entirely race based. This is you reading biased sources to create a divide and play on your emotional state. Just as there were slaves of all races in Europe and the rest of world for 1000d of years and they have all over come it except American blacks.

 

[McDad]

Good job, State of TN.

View attachment 765503

@NashVol11

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

2. Family history, slavery and knowledge of Black history

Learning about family history can be a challenge for Black Americans. Because of slavery, it is often difficult for them to trace their ancestry prior to

www.pewresearch.org

I don't think you can say that with any accuracy. At best you "knowing" is only a little bit better than a 50/50 racist guess.

According to this it's about 57% who think their ancestors were enslaved, and that includes about 3% who think they were enslaved outside the US.

I mean yeah you go to some reddit forum you will find claims of 97% think they were enslaved, but good luck getting any data on that.

To me it gets really fuzzy about how you claim this. Is one slave ancestor, the rest being free, enough to claim some ancestoral suffering to the point of being a negative? At seven generations we have 128 ancestors going back to the last of the slaves. Is 1/128 enough to say you, as an individual, suffer from some assumed racial inferiority from 7 generations ago?

I meant in terms of race not actual individuals. Obviously there are plenty of black people who descend from non-slaves in this country. Our first black President being one of them. But that doesn't change the fact slavery was tied to the black race in the Americas and no other race. That's the damaging thing. The idea of racial supremacy and inferiority that persists to this day because of it.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I don't think its irrelevant. I think its self generated at this point. or at least maintained from within the community far more than it is maintained from outside the community.

your focus on what slavery is in this nation, while dismissing it elsewhere goes along with the problem. and it speaks to the change you want to see from the society around you.

You can say its irrelevant but reality says otherwise. There are plenty of white and black people who think black folks are less intelligent but more athletic than white people. Ideas of racial differences in intelligence and physicality are believed by practically everyone. Whether you like it or not the idea of black people being inferior because of slavery is real.

The reason slavery outside of the Americas isn't as bad is because it wasn't tied to race like it was here. Greece has no racial problems today because in the past they didn't enslave just one group who looked different from all the free people.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

what the eff are you smoking here?

they were absolutely enslaved because they were considered inferior. There is a reason the word "Slave" comes from a group of white people called the "Slavs". the romans saw the only worth in Slavs as slaves. you can go back to any point in time and find the same thing, even the Jews allowed slavery of others, but not Jews.

and there are plenty of cases of different races being enslaved because they were different. The Ottomans enslaved whites because they were white, the Mamelukes enslaved whites because they were white. How do you think the eastern mediterranean went from being Greek to being Arab/turkish? it wasn't because the new guys were nice. Some of the various Chinese dynasty's made it practice to only enslave different races because they were inferior. I am sure there are more. slavery has almost always been about finding who is different than you, and making them less than you. its not something special to America.

The Ottomans and other Muslim nations also had black slaves. So it wasn't just one color being enslaved. Also when the Slavs or European Jews were enslaved by other Europeans, since everyone was white, after a few generations nobody knew who was a slave and who wasn't. My argument wasn't that during the period of slavery there were notions of supremacy and inferiority. I'm sure there were. My argument was after a few generations nobody could tell who was free and who was a slave because they either mixed or looked the same.

Just look at North Africa. As you pointed out millions of European slaves were imported by the Moors into North Africa. The difference is in Islamic culture children follow the status of the father. So when the Moorish slave master had a child with his Slavic female slave the kids borne from that relationship didn't become slaves themselves. Instead they became free and took on the father's status. So all the race mixing in North Africa between white slaves and black slave masters resulted in a mixed population that was largely free. And after awhile nobody knew who was free and who was enslaved because they all started to look the same.

In America the children of the white slave master and the black female slave didn't become free. They remained slaves. And these light skin children also didn't take on a status similar to white people. They stayed in the same racial category as fully black people. Its why in America we will say Barack Obama is the first black President despite being 50% white.

 

[LouderVol]

You can say its irrelevant but reality says otherwise. There are plenty of white and black people who think black folks are less intelligent but more athletic than white people. Ideas of racial differences in intelligence and physicality are believed by practically everyone. Whether you like it or not the idea of black people being inferior because of slavery is real.

The reason slavery outside of the Americas isn't as bad is because it wasn't tied to race like it was here. Greece has no racial problems today because in the past they didn't enslave just one group who looked different from all the free people.

you don't believe there are any differences between the average of the races? like at all?

and that the only differences that exist today are due to slavery?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

There were white, Mexican and Indian slaves in America so no it wasn't entirely race based. This is you reading biased sources to create a divide and play on your emotional state. Just as there were slaves of all races in Europe and the rest of world for 1000d of years and they have all over come it except American blacks.

I agree that there were "slaves" of other races and the historical narrative has been changed to fit a certain viewpoint. But with that said if you asked most people they wouldn't know that. Most people assume only black people were enslaved. And they probably think that's because black people are inferior to other races hence why only they got enslaved.

This idea persists even outside America. You won't believe how often slavery is used as an explanation for why there are people of African descent in random parts of the world. I don't know if you where Ablhazia is. Its located in Europe near the Caucasus mountains and Black Sea. Well there's a native black population in that region that has been living there for a long time. So long that nobody knows how they got there.

Afro-Abkhazians - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

One theory they are descendants of an ancient group of black people described by Ancient Greek historian Herodutus. The other theory is they were descendants of slaves. Basically anytime black people are not where they're supposed to be the explanation is they must be slaves rather than just accepting that Africans could travel around the world by their own volition.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

you don't believe there are any differences between the average of the races? like at all?

and that the only differences that exist today are due to slavery?

There's no difference between the races. There are differences between ethnic groups. People just confuse ethnic groups with race. For example, I'm assuming you think black people are faster than other races. Well not exactly. A small subset of black people tend to be faster than everyone (including other black people not of their ethnicity).

The best example I can think of is distance running. Black people aren't any better at distance running as a whole than any other race. Its only East Africans that are great at distance running. And it's not even East Africans as a whole but a few select ethnic groups. Everyone knows Kenyans dominate distance running but did you know that almost all the best distance runners in Kenya are from just one tribe? The Kalenjin. And they're not even the major tribe in Kenya. They are a minority tribe.

Same holds true for sprinting. Most black people aren't any faster in short distances than white people. Its mainly people of West African descent that dominate in sprinting. And its not all West Africans but a small subset of West Africans just like distance running isn't dominated by all East Africans but a select group of ethnic groups. I'm sure if we were to dig deeper into it most of the great sprinters from America and Jamaica can probably trace their roots to a specific couple of ethnic groups in West Africa

You can't go to Kenya and just by looking at someone tell if they're a great runner or not. That's why racism is dangerous. Because despite it being true that there are differences between us as human beings you can't necessarily tell that just by looking at someone. Because despite looking the same not all black groups are great runners.

 

[LouderVol]

The Ottomans and other Muslim nations also had black slaves. So it wasn't just one color being enslaved. Also when the Slavs or European Jews were enslaved by other Europeans, since everyone was white, after a few generations nobody knew who was a slave and who wasn't. My argument wasn't that during the period of slavery there were notions of supremacy and inferiority. I'm sure there were. My argument was after a few generations nobody could tell who was free and who was a slave because they either mixed or looked the same.

Just look at North Africa. As you pointed out millions of European slaves were imported by the Moors into North Africa. The difference is in Islamic culture children follow the status of the father. So when the Moorish slave master had a child with his Slavic female slave the kids borne from that relationship didn't become slaves themselves. Instead they became free and took on the father's status. So all the race mixing in North Africa between white slaves and black slave masters resulted in a mixed population that was largely free. And after awhile nobody knew who was free and who was enslaved because they all started to look the same.

In America the children of the white slave master and the black female slave didn't become free. They remained slaves. And these light skin children also didn't take on a status similar to white people. They stayed in the same racial category as fully black people. Its why in America we will say Barack Obama is the first black President despite being 50% white.

there were free blacks. even in the south. so no being black did not equal being a slave. and I don't just mean the ones who escaped and avoided capture. there were communities of blacks who were never slaves even throughout the south. its how a lot of the slaves were able to avoid capture, they would find the african communities and hide as one of them.

also you are only telling half the story in the bolded: Partus Sequitur Ventrem. your status followed your mom in the US, so a white mom would give birth to free children even if they were mixed with black, even a slave. so again no, you couldn't just look at their skin color. that is just another of YOUR racist assumptions. those children were considered "black" but not slaves.

 

[volfanhill]

there were free blacks. even in the south. so no being black did not equal being a slave. and I don't just mean the ones who escaped and avoided capture. there were communities of blacks who were never slaves even throughout the south. its how a lot of the slaves were able to avoid capture, they would find the african communities and hide as one of them.

also you are only telling half the story in the bolded: Partus Sequitur Ventrem. your status followed your mom in the US, so a white mom would give birth to free children even if they were mixed with black, even a slave. so again no, you couldn't just look at their skin color. that is just another of YOUR racist assumptions. those children were considered "black" but not slaves.

His Duke education really failed him

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

also you are only telling half the story in the bolded: Partus Sequitur Ventrem. your status followed your mom in the US, so a white mom would give birth to free children even if they were mixed with black, even a slave. so again no, you couldn't just look at their skin color. that is just another of YOUR racist assumptions. those children were considered "black" but not slaves.

Come on now. They hung black men from trees in the 1950s for simply looking at white women. You really think black men were having children with white women during slavery? The reason the law was written that way was to ensure that the only mixed children that were likely to be borne during that time stayed slaves. Because the writers of the law knew there would race mixing in only one direction. The white slave master having his way with his black female slaves.

 

[whodeycin85]

I agree that there were "slaves" of other races and the historical narrative has been changed to fit a certain viewpoint. But with that said if you asked most people they wouldn't know that. Most people assume only black people were enslaved. And they probably think that's because black people are inferior to other races hence why only they got enslaved.

This idea persists even outside America. You won't believe how often slavery is used as an explanation for why there are people of African descent in random parts of the world. I don't know if you where Ablhazia is. Its located in Europe near the Caucasus mountains and Black Sea. Well there's a native black population in that region that has been living there for a long time. So long that nobody knows how they got there.

Afro-Abkhazians - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

One theory they are descendants of an ancient group of black people described by Ancient Greek historian Herodutus. The other theory is they were descendants of slaves. Basically anytime black people are not where they're supposed to be the explanation is they must be slaves rather than just accepting that Africans could travel around the world by their own volition.

So I think we agree aon somethings here..where we disagree is that American slavery being race based is unique to America is a false narrative ment to keep black Americans down. American dive into the slave trade was using a system that was established in Europe long before the US existed. And it was race based slavery then as well. The idea it was exclusive to the US come from historians using the writing etc from ships that refered to Africans as heathens and barbarians and those same historians attributed it to their skin color as opposed to the originals use of those words. Which was that Africans were often see has not being Christians...so again because of slanted historical views it made the American black population victims years later when other populations overcome it.

Now I think that people believe when Africans show up on places they were expected that most likely is has to do with the African slave trade. Idk if that train of thought is good or not because I haven't studies the movement of African tribes out of mother Africa of their own accord.

 

[LouderVol]

There's no difference between the races. There are differences between ethnic groups. People just confuse ethnic groups with race. For example, I'm assuming you think black people are faster than other races. Well not exactly. A small subset of black people tend to be faster than everyone (including other black people not of their ethnicity).

The best example I can think of is distance running. Black people aren't any better at distance running as a whole than any other race. Its only East Africans that are great at distance running. And it's not even East Africans as a whole but a few select ethnic groups. Everyone knows Kenyans dominate distance running but did you know that almost all the best distance runners in Kenya are from just one tribe? The Kalenjin. And they're not even the major tribe in Kenya. They are a minority tribe.

Same holds true for sprinting. Most black people aren't any faster in short distances than white people. Its mainly people of West African descent that dominate in sprinting. And its not all West Africans but a small subset of West Africans just like distance running isn't dominated by all East Africans but a select group of ethnic groups. I'm sure if we were to dig deeper into it most of the great sprinters from America and Jamaica can probably trace their roots to a specific couple of ethnic groups in West Africa

You can't go to Kenya and just by looking at someone tell if they're a great runner or not. That's why racism is dangerous. Because despite it being true that there are differences between us as human beings you can't necessarily tell that just by looking at someone. Because despite looking the same not all black groups are great runners.

weren't you the guy who argued a QB was going to suck because he was ugly?

as for the rest of the argument I think you are parsing it in such a way as to have an argument.

the assumptions based on race go far beyond just sprinting and marathons. which is why it is a racial thing vs an ethnic one. you generally look at most physical based traits and an African group is going to be better than most in the world. so when you zoom out its fair to say Africans are more "athletic" than the rest.

its why most sports are dominated by Africans, not just sprinting. I have no idea if a study has been done, but I doubt the NFL is dominated by any particular African tribe. yeah you can point curling or something as white dominated but that is more likely do to exposure and talent concentration.

there are always going to outliers from the racial collective, but that doesn't disprove the point. just like you could make the same argument in those tribes, not every one of those east africans is a great sprinter. if you are picking at random you would be ignoring statistics to say a given white person is as athletic as a given black person.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

weren't you the guy who argued a QB was going to suck because he was ugly?

as for the rest of the argument I think you are parsing it in such a way as to have an argument.

the assumptions based on race go far beyond just sprinting and marathons. which is why it is a racial thing vs an ethnic one. you generally look at most physical based traits and an African group is going to be better than most in the world. so when you zoom out its fair to say Africans are more "athletic" than the rest.

its why most sports are dominated by Africans, not just sprinting. I have no idea if a study has been done, but I doubt the NFL is dominated by any particular African tribe. yeah you can point curling or something as white dominated but that is more likely do to exposure and talent concentration.

there are always going to outliers from the racial collective, but that doesn't disprove the point. just like you could make the same argument in those tribes, not every one of those east africans is a great sprinter. if you are picking at random you would be ignoring statistics to say a given white person is as athletic as a given black person.

You're totally missing the point. Yes black people dominate most sports. Why? Because most sports involve explosive fast twitch movements. I used sprinting and distance running as examples because they are purest sports in a sense. No ball just your body.

Let's look at football for example. Black people dominate it. But which black people? Last I checked there are no East Africans or Southern Africans in the NFL. But there are plenty of Nigerians in the NFL. And where did many slaves that came to America originate? Oh yeah the coast of West Africa near Nigeria. So is it "black people" that dominate sports or West Africans? And remember it isn't all West Africans or Nigerians represented in the NFL. Most Nigerian NFL players are from the Igbo tribe which is just one of hundreds of ethnic groups in Nigeria.

So is it really black people dominating sports? Or a small group within the larger black race that is dominating? And if its just a small group then why think of this as a race thing? Most Africans aren't any better at explosive sports than any other race. Its just one small group within this larger group that is doing all the domination.

 

[hndog609]

weren't you the guy who argued a QB was going to suck because he was ugly?

as for the rest of the argument I think you are parsing it in such a way as to have an argument.

the assumptions based on race go far beyond just sprinting and marathons. which is why it is a racial thing vs an ethnic one. you generally look at most physical based traits and an African group is going to be better than most in the world. so when you zoom out its fair to say Africans are more "athletic" than the rest.

its why most sports are dominated by Africans, not just sprinting. I have no idea if a study has been done, but I doubt the NFL is dominated by any particular African tribe. yeah you can point curling or something as white dominated but that is more likely do to exposure and talent concentration.

there are always going to outliers from the racial collective, but that doesn't disprove the point. just like you could make the same argument in those tribes, not every one of those east africans is a great sprinter. if you are picking at random you would be ignoring statistics to say a given white person is as athletic as a given black person.

Last I recall there are a little over 200 people to have ever gone under a 10.00 100m. It will surprise you not at all how strong a certain correlation can be found regardless of it being an event that's worldwide in competition.

 

[LouderVol]

Come on now. They hung black men from trees in the 1950s for simply looking at white women. You really think black men were having children with white women during slavery? The reason the law was written that way was to ensure that the only mixed children that were likely to be borne during that time stayed slaves. Because the writers of the law knew there would race mixing in only one direction. The white slave master having his way with his black female slaves.

I don't know if you know this, but the baby usually survives if the dad is killed. dad being hung doesn't mean there are no babies.

the law was written to make sure mixed children stayed BLACK. not slaves. race didn't confer slavery. and its racist as hades to say the mixing was only in one direction. sure it was dominated by the slave owners due to access, but the census tracked mixed race so it wasn't an insignificant number. looks like it was a pretty consistent 10%.