the guy seems to be talking out his bellybutton and contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next.
for example in his 11th paragraph he states that white refused to distinguish between different tribes and cultures for the purpose of dehumanizing them.
African cultural and ethnic differences were neither recorded nor considered important in making distinctions, any African was black, and any black was a Negro, and Negroes had no cultural heritage. To recognize Africans as Asante, Yoruba, Ibo, Ibibio, Hausa, Mandingo, Fulani, Wolof, Serere, Kikongo, Fante, and so forth would have meant ascribing history, cosmologies, indeed, humanity to those who were enslaved. Without humanity, Africans could be called the worst epithets thinkable by white Americans.
but in his 12th paragraph he says that slave owners treated slaves differently based on perceived differences from one tribe to another, and that there is an abundance of stories of slave owners who had a preference for slaves of one tribe or another based on these perceived differences.
Thus, Mandingo people were treated one way and Asante another based upon what was perceived to be temperamental differences. The literature of slavery is abundant with stories of slave-owners indicating preference for certain Africans because of perceived value based on difference traits, real or imagined
so how is it that you could have a preference for one ethnic or cultural group, or value one group over another if you neither recorded nor considered important their ethnic or cultural heritage, and any African was black, and any black was a Negro, and Negroes had no cultural heritage.
the man doesn't even agree with himself, so maybe he can try and figure out what he thinks happened and give it another try.
