AIBU to think that 'patriarchy chicken' isn't the whole story?

Not quite sure why you think I have no children. You are wrong with your definition - it has not been the case for a long time now. Anyway, I'm not going to engage with such an unpleasant person any further.

So have I. Ignorance of the definition of racism is no excuse for being so.

I have reported OP for racism. Racists do not deserve the oxygen of publicity.

That is only true if you take the (very outdated) view that racism = prejudice+power. Nowadays it is accepted that that formula defines institutional/systemic racism. It does not define individual/attitudinal racism - and you have demonstrated vast amounts of the latter.

We get it, OP, you hate white people.

Of course it might be that it was racist when you weren't being bumped into, people avoiding bumping into you because you were mixed race, now you are just part of the furniture, no one notices your race any more so you get your fair share of getting bumped into.😀

I blame it on half the population being on their phone and taking no notice of anyone else, or caring about anyone else. I think women think they are not threatening so don't worry about knocking into people, at least some men realise they are bigger and likely to hurt someone if they bash into them too hard. I find teenage boys worst, uncoordinated and mooching about in the way. There may be some racial bias, but I don't have a big enough sample of being barged into to tell!

Why do you think you are so racist op?
Do you think you would be happier living in a country that is not historically white?

There is non so blind.

But its good to see that you still excuse your own racism.

I am amazed anyone thinks this is unlikely - just not very observant I guess.

I too have sadly experienced this. I think, as another commenter said, it works on social hierarchy and not so much conscious thought. The same way, many women have noticed some men do this to them I have noticed some white women do it to me.

But I did. You just didn't like my point becuase you think it's really simple. The ultimate "cost-benefit" calculation point IS simple, but the facts included are far more complex than, "more slaves on the other side = more profit". Instead, the cost of getting those slaves where they can be sold needs to balanced carefully with the potential income you can earn by selling them on the other side.

And on that basis, the cost of keepping ALL slaves alive during the journey was not always necessarily worth it based on what the price of those slaves would then be on the other side.

This is a well known facet of the slave trade. To this end, many slavers purposefully overloaded ships on the basis that they knew they'd lose some, but they'd potentially get a few more to sell on the other side. And lets not forget that insurance meant that they'd get paid out for slaves that died in many cases.

"Acceptable loss" is a pretty standard approach to any process in which cargo is transported around the world. Have you never experienced something like an order that doesn't turn up becuase DPD screws it up - and then when you contact the supplier, they just send you a new one? why? Because it's cheaper for them to do that than it is to chase and hound DPD, particularly as DPD is probably offering them significant cost savings and bulk discounts.

Take a look at this website which talks about the losses and conditions in a quick summary. I think if it wasn't profitable, we an safely assume they'd have put a lot more work into reducing those losses....

But part of the profit/loss equation was to minimise transportation costs and allow for the loss of a certain percentage of those transported while in transit.

It's a balance like put 250 on a ship, provide decent rations not just bread and water and most will survive the journey. Put 500 on a ship decent rations and maybe get 300 to survive. Pack the ship with 1000, poor rations and get 500 to survive the journey. You make more money even if 500 die.

Of course they matter, they have family who are affected. My husband knew his grandfather. His grandfather was the first generation born free. His great grand parents were born slaves but were freed, no compensation for them. The stories are passed on, it is not forgotten.

I also have never said that because they're dead it doesn't matter. I said it doesn't affect anyone in living memory, not that it didn't matter. However I do think that it doesn't matter anywhere close to the amount those making it out to be an issue keep claiming it matters.

I don't think it's a male or female thing , sometimes I've been bumped into by men and women usually I'm not.
People lack spacial awareness, people are on their phones, or immersed in their own thoughts. I have honestly never experienced patriarchy chicken. , I suspect the women that do have an unconscious bias that they are unaware of

If you could defend your statement to refute what I said instead of a bewildered "hahaha.." it would help others, to indeed, understand what on earth youre talking about.

It certainly wasn't in the interest of any slavers for people to literally die in transit. Put aside the fact they're human beings. Whatever goods are being transported it is in the interest of those tasked with transport to ensure they arrive in good condition. This really isn't a contentious fact to most. Have you even thought of a reason that makes any sense why anyone would purchase high value commodities only to not be bothered about the condition that those commodities were maintained and delivered at the other end.

If you set out with the narrative that anyone connected to the slave trade was evil instead of being able to see the trade itself as evil you are likely to have a very skewed view of the reality on the ground.

As for complex calculations being used to maximise profit. Whos been telling you this? It isn't complex to work out that it might pay off to provide basic food rations of bread and water to valuable transit worth the equivalent of around £15,000 each in order to prevent death.

This is almost funny. You don't have a clue do you?

So becuase they're dead, it doesn't matter?

As for "it was in the slave owners interest to keep them alive". hahahahahahahaha.

it was a complicated financial calculation - how to spend as little as possible getting them across the oceon and still make a profit. In addition, a powerfu factor was the desire to get good prices - usually generated as a result of the fittest and strongest slaves being up for sale once they arrived.

I mean, I'm not entirely sure why this thread devolved into a debate about slavery but I guess it's this sort of attitude that leads to the sort of experience the OP is talking about.

How to tell everyone you're racist without saying you're racist.

And before the op tries saying they're not racist, I ask... If I, as a middle aged white woman who looks a lot younger than I am... Yes I'm bragging... Posted the exact same thing but saying black woman purposely barged into me, would you agree or immediately call me racist?

I'd usually end up with us doing that dance where we both move to the same side so still facing each other then doing it to the opposite side and then laughing and agreeing which way to go.

Imagine your male boss was walking towards you down the centre of a corridor at work - would you step aside or swerve round him, or expect him to?
Would he swerve?

You are mistaking the situation: people generally don't bump into each other. Bumping and barging is quite rare, considering how many people you walk past each day.
The reason it is so rare is because we all subconsciously react to the hierarchy and the lower status person steps aside, without even realising that is what they are doing.
It is only when someone decides to play 'chicken', to make a point or as an experiment, that collisions occur.