Read on Twitter
The fact that South Carolina was majority Black doesn’t mean it would have been easy to establish “Black supremacy.” This claim is idiotic. 1. Enslaved Africans didn’t have demographic data sitting in front of them. 2. They lacked ready access to maps... https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1284349626238337027
...3. Most had no firearms or combat training. 4. Most couldn’t ride horses or pilot ships. And to reiterate, even if they could have, they had no direct connections with Blacks across the state because they couldn’t write letters or read the newspapers...
...”Enslaved Africans could’ve established Black supremacy where they were the majority,” is the kind of thing I’d expect a fifth grader to think. Even if you were the majority in your area, you may have had no idea that you were the majority state or colony wide...
...All you knew, was that despite seeming to outnumber the Whites, whenever somebody started resisting too much, suddenly, dozens if not hundreds of heavily armed white men on horseback came out of nowwhere to re-establish control...
...A minority can control a majority very effectively when the minority is kept uneducated and not allowed to freely communicate. A cursory study of history reveals this very clearly. Where White minorities have dominated Black majorities, it’s not because of our forebearance...
...I’m offended by the idea that my ancestors preferred to be treated like animals rather than overthrow their masters and establish themselves on top. It’s an utter mutilation of history...
...I see a lot of folks using history to drive their Twitter engagement. I try not to be elitist, because I know my own threads aren’t peer reviewed articles. But be aware: Just because someone can string historical facts together, doesn’t mean they can interpret them.
