Herochat

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please note that forum is still under construction.


heroes
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Black Panther: Slave Owner?  (Read 949 times)

g-train

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 11111
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2016, 12:48:21 AM »

Nothing says slavery (and mysoginism) like half dressed women serving their master:


This site is great:
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/if-not-for-the-slave-trade-chattel-slavery-invention-of-race-is-modern-africa-wakanda.470437/
Like a buncha Jellys all talking at once.

There are some iffy-ness to his statements, one of them being that europe didn't invent slavery.....that and lots of European countries were looking for resources.

Even without slavery, the Conquistadors would still have been just fine with taking all the aztec's gold and lands etc.....

And without chattel slavery and Europe's involvement in slavery in general, I mean they were pumping massive amounts of money into Africa to buy their slaves.

Some kingdom's were benefiting crazy-sauce from that.

Essentially Europe was already setting the stage for the possibility of a "Wakanda".  Giving African-nations and city states massive sources of wealth and exposure to technology they might not have had at the time.

As pointed out; The Congo already has crazy sources of wealth and isn't a Wakanda.

Thought it was interesting that they thought regardless of disease whites would still take over the America's.

Not like whites managed to keep their territories in India, South Africa or China etc......ultimately we failed in keeping all that.

Trying to invade a US, not in a post-apocalyptic scenario with organized societies all over the place.

Without disease, beating the Aztec's would have been a MF'er.

Could we have played them against each other?  Sure, plenty of tribes wouldn't mind the chance to dominate others, take land and resources etc.....but that's far from a given that we would win or have even remotely the control over the US we have today.
Logged

AP

  • Global Moderator
  • Lizardman
  • *****
  • Posts: 13276
  • Yep. We're boned.
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2016, 05:38:29 AM »

This site is great:
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/if-not-for-the-slave-trade-chattel-slavery-invention-of-race-is-modern-africa-wakanda.470437/
Like a buncha Jellys all talking at once.

Why is every sentence in every post punctuated by an emoji?  And why are all their emojis pictures of peoples' faces?
Logged

riv6672

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 19278
  • MAY 2000-MAY 2017
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2016, 05:49:40 AM »

^^^africans invented overkill.
Logged

Liam

  • King
  • ****
  • Posts: 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2017, 05:39:07 PM »

The simple fact that it's ancient pretty much guarantees that Wakanda had slavery at some point in its history. But I've seen no evidence that it had slavery in the Modern or even Enlightenment eras.
Logged

Liam

  • King
  • ****
  • Posts: 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2017, 06:21:46 PM »

On a side-note, slavery has meant wildly different things at different times in history. For a very long time, the world had no real merchant class. The world was divided purely into the aristocracy and everyone else. When the world worked that way, slavery was an iffy proposition that faded into and out of existence. The advantages of owning slaves versus simply oppressing free peasants was dubious and situational. You have to house and guard slaves, after all, which can cost just as much as paying peasants shit wages.

 There was also very little racism in the time when the world was just aristocrats and peasants. Egypt, Persia, and Rome were all multi-ethnic. That's not to say that peasants weren't racist, but they had no power and no influence. Aristocrats eschewed racism because it got in the way of their empire building. If a white aristocrat from the northern part of the Roman empire saw an advantage in marrying an aristocrat from the black African part of Rome, then they married and fuck what the peasants think of such things, the combined family now had holdings in both the northern and southern reaches of the Roman empire. 

 Because racism had almost no part in aristocrat-era slavery, slavery itself often wasn't very oppressive by the standards of the time. Slaves occasionally even had more rights than free peasants, because their education and training made them an investment that you didn't want running away.

 Two things changed that made the African slave-trade so much more egregious than previous forms of slavery. One was the rise of the merchant class. You now had peasants with real money. Real money but not enough land to make playing the let's-marry-to-fuse-our-holdings game a big factor in their lives. That meant that the bigotry and provincialism that had been irrelevant in the aristocrat-era now had real power, and there was no financial motive to put it aside. It ran rampant, and became a reason for peasants to think themselves superior to at least someone somewhere. The aristocrats had never needed that psychological boost, it was enough that aristocrats were superior to peasants. So what if one aristocrat was white and the other black? You were both aristocrats first and foremost.

 The other factor was improvements in sailing. It became practical to relatively quickly travel and ship things long distances via water. That meant that these bigoted, provincial peasants with money could now easily travel to places with people who looked and sounded nothing like themselves.

 The combination proved incredibly ugly. Bigoted, provincial peasants trying to compensate for the inferiority complex they'd lived with their entire lives now had someone they could dehumanize utterly for profit, and the means to ship people on an industrial scale.

 Wakanda seems unlikely to have experienced that particular combination. While Wakanda almost certainly experienced the rise of rich peasant merchants at some point, their isolationism probably meant that those merchants didn't have easy access to large numbers of people who didn't look or sound like them. The result would have been closer to China in the same period than it was to what you saw in Europe.
Logged

riv6672

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 19278
  • MAY 2000-MAY 2017
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2017, 07:49:32 PM »

What a nice read, thank you.
Logged

Animalia.

  • King
  • ****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Vaticanistan
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2017, 05:39:10 AM »

Well in Wakanda in order to become a Black Panther you have to defeat the former one,isnt it?
Problem is...royal family members are trained from birth for that role if not wrong.
Looks like white benefits here...
Logged


g-train

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 11111
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2017, 05:55:21 AM »

Well in Wakanda in order to become a Black Panther you have to defeat the former one,isnt it?
Problem is...royal family members are trained from birth for that role if not wrong.
Looks like white benefits here...

Naw; you need to be family and generally wait until the old one dies.

But if your not patient you can challenge them to a duel of combat.

Usually you just wait till' they die and fight a white gorilla.
Logged

Animalia.

  • King
  • ****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Vaticanistan
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2017, 06:05:50 AM »

Arent also other Wakandians allowed to challenge him?
Logged


riv6672

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 19278
  • MAY 2000-MAY 2017
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2017, 06:06:26 AM »

A white gorilla.
Logged

g-train

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 11111
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2017, 03:38:02 AM »

Arent also other Wakandians allowed to challenge him?

Thinking about it maybe so I remember one of the people Black Panther trained with challenged him once during his mini-series.

It's concievable the guy was some kind of distant cousin that worked for him I guess but I don't think it was so.

Though really; considering how relatively small wakanda is and how isolated it's been.....everybody probably is cousins there.
Logged

g-train

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 11111
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2017, 03:38:39 AM »

A white gorilla.

Yeah; kind of noticed that myself.
Logged

Thanos6

  • King
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2017, 03:42:22 AM »

Shouldn't this be in the Marvel Zombies forum?
Logged
Writer of The Reformers!

g-train

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 11111
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2017, 12:14:54 AM »

Shouldn't this be in the Marvel Zombies forum?

Maybe though I guess it could split off and discuss which Superheroes would be slave owners in DC, Image etc.....?

I mean; Krypto was pretty dang smart for a dog.

Clearly sentient, what was up with that?
Logged

riv6672

  • Lizardman
  • *******
  • Posts: 19278
  • MAY 2000-MAY 2017
    • View Profile
Re: Black Panther: Slave Owner?
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2017, 06:30:02 AM »

A white gorilla.

Yeah; kind of noticed that myself.
White apes keeping jungle bunnies down.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]