17
Buck Breaking movie promo artwork showing a man hunched over with his face in his hands.

Buck Breaking

Part of a series on Afrocentrism. [View Related Entries]

PROTIP: Press 'i' to view the image gallery, 'v' to view the video gallery, or 'r' to view a random entry.

This entry contains content that may be considered sensitive to some viewers.

Content Warning: Portions of the following entry contain mentions and/or depictions of sexual violence or abuse. If you need support or you or a loved one are in an abusive situation, please contact the National Sexual Violence Resource Center or call 1-800-656-HOPE.

About

Buck Breaking refers to the act of sexually abusing Black slaves publically and in front of other slaves, in order to assert dominance, punish them and ultimately emasculate Black men. This is sometimes painted to be a closeted gay slave owner's way of acting out their repressed sexual urges, which were largely criminal at the time. There is debate as to whether or not Buck Breaking existed and how popular it was, with little historical evidence surrounding it. In 2021, a documentary by Tariq Nasheed featuring Judge Joe Brown titled Buck Breaking covering the history of the practice was released, claiming the practice still exists in some form today. The term became popular on 4chan's /tv/ and /pol/ boards following the film's release, particularly in mocking and ironic posts against Nasheed for spreading Buck Breaking as legitimate, and posts claiming Nasheed is interested in buck breaking as a fetish.

Origin

The history of sexual abuse towards slaves has been studied by numerous researchers. The term "buck breaking" comes from "Black Buck," a post-Reconstruction era (1861-1865) racist term used to refer to Black men who were seen as stereotypically violent or unruly and refused to work with the law and society.[1] "Breaking a buck" refers to abusing the Black man to get him to follow orders. Specifically, it often pertains to sexual abuse.

Online Discussion

One of the earliest posts online about buck breaking is an October 17th, 2012 post to the now-defunct Wordpress[13] blog Diary Of A Negress. In the uncited post she describes the act of buck breaking and suggests the act was used largely by homosexual slave owners, writing:

The master, drunk on blood lust, would explain to all strong, young black men that if they do not follow strict orders and comply with the whims of the Overseer and the Master, this too would be their fate. He removed his own clothing and proceeded to savagely sodomize the buck in front his wife, family, friends and children. He then invited his associates from other plantations to join in the Nigger Festivities.

In order for his plan to take effect, he would require the buck’s male child to watch, front row center, so he too can witness his father’s sexual demise and humiliation. Buck Breaking was the slave master’s very effective tool to keep all young black slaves from ever being defiant and taking revenge. It also frightened the mother’s and wives from ever giving consent to an uprising.

Buck Breaking was so successful that it was made into a “Sex Farm” where white men could travel from plantation to plantation feeding their sadistic, homosexual needs.

In October 2016 an anonymous user of 4chan's /pol/[12] board posted a graphic showing a post to an unknown forum sharing the same information about buck breaking and sex farms, as well as a post from a Facebook user showing a drawing depicting buck breaking, with a white man undoing his belt over a black man (censored version shown below).


How Male Blacks Were Sodomized By Gay White Masters, During The Slave Trade Da by ponti93(m): 8:42pm On Feb 03 Kevin TF Black Yesterday at 10:44 PM Houston, TX Ras Iniejah Allen Did you know that during slavery in the U.S. gay white slaveholders would buy male slaves to engage in forced homosexual sex acts? Did you know that during slavery in the U.S. gay white slaveholders would buy male slaves to engage in forced homosexual sex acts? Black men were routinely r---- by their gay slave owners. It involves perhaps the most heinous and atrocious acts known to man on another man, the savage homosexual sodomizing of the black male in front of his wife, family, friends and children, a tool of pure pleasure to keep all young black slaves from ever being defiant. These male slaves were purchase based entirely on the prerequisite of them possessing a large joystick. Black men were routinely r---- by their gay slave owners. The process was known as "breaking the buck". It involves perhaps the most heinous and atrocious acts known to man. A strapping N---- slave, who was defiant, surly and may stir up trouble, was beaten with a whip till bloody in front of his entire slave congregation. The slave owner, deathly afraid of an uprising, would cut down a tree and, with the help of the overseer, would then pummel the deviant "buck" into submission. Once the slave was worn down, the white master had the other N---- slaves force him over the tree stump where his britches would be removed and he laid fully exposed and ripe for the taking. What came next caused fear and terror to ripple through every slave plantation across the South. The master, drunk on blood lust, would explain to all strong, young black men that if they do not follow strict orders and comply with the whims of the Overseer and the Master, this too would be their fate. He removed his own clothing and proceeded to savagely sodomize the buck in front his wife, family, friends and children. He then invited his associates from other plantations to join in the ****** Festivities. In order for his plan to take effect, he would require the buck's male child to watch, front row center, so he too can witness his father's sexual demise and humiliation. Buck Breaking was the slave master's very effective tool to keep all young black slaves from ever being defiant and taking revenge. It also frightened the mother's and wives from ever giving consent to an uprising. Buck Breaking was so successful that it was made into a "Sex Farm" where white men could travel from plantation to plantation feeding their sadistic, homosexual needs. 1 Like BUCK BREAKING AND SEX FARMS CORRUPTION AND EFFEMINIZATION

Buck Breaking Myth Debate

Many argue that, while sexual abuse towards slaves has been documented, the specific practice of Buck Breaking as a way of dominating and striking fear in slaves is a myth, with little-to-no substantial historical evidence to support it.

On July 31st, 2016, Redditor u/AristoPhilosor posted to /r/AskHistorians[3] asking whether Buck Breaking was real. That day, u/sowser[4] posted a long-form, cited comment denying Buck Breaking, noting that sodomy was a major crime at the time and not taken lightly, that it would never be used as a public punishment, and that the implication that slave owners were gay because of this is offensive among other arguments (shown below, click to expand). The poster acknowledges sexual abuse of slaves but says reports of Buck Breaking are exaggerated at best.


I'm going to address this in multiple parts, because there's actually quite a lot to unpack here - much more than it seems on the surface! I'll address your actual question about this 'buck breaking' practice first, though. To get to the heart of the matter from the outset: no, the practice described in the article you linked to did not exist. This is literally the first that I have ever heard of this practice supposedly existing, and when I went digging around to try and see if I could figure out its origin story, I essentially found two versions of the story: the one that you've linked to, which is the milder of the two, and another which is more overtly homophobic and black nationalist in its rhetoric. Like most of these memes that go around the internet, there are absolutely grains of truth to the story, but the practice of "buck breaking" they're describing simply did not exist. I have never seen any evidence for it, I know of no-one who studies the dynamics of sexual abuse in slavery who has mentioned it and the idea of it being a wide-spread phenomenon is really quite ludicrous when you consider the wider historical context. Sodomy, as such activity would have been considered during the time of slavery, was proscribed in harsh terms both by law and by cultural convention in antebellum America. The idea that 'festivities' revolving around male-on-male r---, involving a large number of white men in the upper echelons of southern society invited apparently to participate widely and freely, were a prominent part of slaveholding is really quite nonsensical. If nothing else the individuals involved would be exposing themselves to an incredible physical, legal and social risk, regardless of how prominent their status was in wider society, and it would seem to me utterly remarkable that we are supposed to believe this practice involving so many white men was completely widespread and yet never once acknowledged in the historical record. It is, frankly, a fanciful and unnecessary assertion. That is not say that male-on-male sexual abuse did not occur. It absolutely did - and the very fact that we have historical records testifying to it in a period so hostile to same-sex activity is quite significant. Though they are fleeting, we do have references to the sexual abuse of male slaves by white male owners in the historical record; a handful of slave narratives (including Harriet Jacobs' Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl) contain references that seem to clearly refer to non-consensual, exploitative same-sex activity; at least one study of abolitionist rhetoric has identified how some strands of abolitionist thought tried to imply that there was an inherently homoerotic component to the exploitation of male slaves that could and did culminate in sexual abuse. Indeed, abolitionists went to great lengths to highlight sexual abuse as a particular, masculine act of depravity in general. Plantation owner Thomas Thistlewood quite notably made explicit reference to the practice in Jamaica even in the 1700s, when he briefly drew attention in his diary to news that another slave owner had been accused of committing sodomy with one of his male domestic servants. Sexual abuse was a defining feature of the institution of slavery, and though the vast majority of victims were women, the abuse of men by other men - as well as the abuse of men by women, and women of women - certainly occurred as well. Fundamentally though, sexual exploitation in slavery was about more than physical gratification: it was about power. R--- and sexual assault were tools of violence, humiliation and dehumanisation just as much as the whip or the fist were. They were used both to realise and to express the power of the white slave owner over his or her black slaves. Male on male sexual violence was a means by which the incredible power of the slave owner could be demonstrated; to its victims living in a profoundly gendered society (and slave communities were strongly gendered even if in different ways to white society), it was a uniquely and profoundly humiliating act of violence that directly assaulted their masculinity and their dignity. That power and humiliation lay not only in the ability of slave owners to actually commit sexual assault against other men, but in the fact that they could do it, keep it a secret from a wider society that demonised same-sex activity, and get away with doing so. This is also true for the abuse of women, by the way, and for the abuse of men by women (although the abuse of men by women is a more complex affair in terms of what it means for structures of power, because that really challenges the gendered conventions of contemporary society - see this older answer which touches on this). The damage done by sexual exploitation goes beyond the physical and the individual; the motivations for such exploitation likewise do. In a similar vein, public violence and humiliation - including example-making - were very much a part of the dynamic of at least plantation slavery. We do know that many slave owners would make an example of a particular individual in full view of the other people living on the plantation including his or her family; such violent degradation and humiliation would often go so far as to making friends and family of the victim participate, usually by having them take responsibility for whipping or beating their loved one. Slavery was an institution that depended on not just on physical abuse to function but on relentless, systematic psychological violence as well - such public demonstrations of punishment, and especially the involvement of family and friends in tha process, served to enhance psychological as well as physical degradation. Whilst sexual exploitation certainly could have ritualised elements to it, it was not generally a 'public' affair in the sense that it was something done with an audience. Though it was often was an 'open secret on a given plantation and could be ritualised in some senses, it would not be as this article makes out. That kind of grand display of violence would usually typically be more 'conventional' in nature. That's not to say public displays of sexual violence did not or could not happen ever, just that that was certainly not the norm, and that there was certainly no widespread practice like this one. We do overwhelmingly find in the historical record that sexually exploitative relationships were usually intimate - with both men and women, abuse of this kind was much more likely to befall those whose tasks brought them into constant contact with white masters and overseers, rather than fieldhands on plantations. What I would be quick to emphasise, though, is that sexual abuse and assault are a lot more complex than the kind of extremely physically violent assault described here. Sexual exploitation includes all manner of activities - of which enslaved African Americans were not passive victims. As with all the degradation and abuse they were subjected to, enslaved people found a multitude of ways - some quiet, some profound - to resist and subvert white power. There were some men and women who made the best of a bad situation by engaging in a quasi-consensual relationship with their exploiters, in the sense that they would exploit the sexual attraction or desire of their master to try and improve their own conditions or win favours from them. Though this is something we only have record of women and men doing in the context of opposite-sex arrangements it isn't a stretch of the imagination to conceive it happening in same-sex arrangements, either, but it is doubtful we will ever have explicit evidence to that end. I stress the use of the 'quasi-consensual' here because such arrangements were always inherently exploitative and could never be consensual - but African American men and women were not without agency or self-determination, and even in the face of the most incredibly degradation within slavery, found a variety of means to pro-actively resist and subvert white power over their lives. Something else I'd like to unpack, though, is your description that "gay white slaveholders" were responsible for male-on-male sexual abuse in the context of racial slavery. In particular, the use of the word 'gay' here is problematic, particularly for a historian. Most historians would not describe anyone in antebellum America as gay - or, for that matter, straight. We understand today that the mechanics of sexual attraction are fundamentally biological; that people who experience exclusive or near-exclusive attraction to people of the same sex and gender have always existed. But Human societies have not always had the concept of homosexuality that we do today. Absolutely, there has always been an awareness and an understanding that men can have sex with other men - but the idea that someone could be gay, that it could be a defining characteristic of their identity or categorisation as a member of society, simply did not exist for most of Human history. That is a fundamentally modern phenomenon. For that reason, historians do not generally like to impose these identities or categories on figures in the past. Sexual attraction is perhaps fundamentally a biological phenomena, but sexual orientation is absolutely a social construct (although 'attraction' is also surely at least partially socially constructed - but that's taking us beyond the boundaries of this discussion). The reason why I particularly emphasise that for this answer is because our own use of these modern terms is imperfect, and that's especially significant for your question. Alfred Kinsey quite famously posited that sexual attraction works along to a spectrum, with a 7 point classification system for where individuals fell in that spectrum with 0 representing absolute heterosexuality and 6 representing absolute homosexuality. But our social construct of sexual orientation does not really accommodate that dynamic - you are straight, gay or bisexual. In Kinsey's language, as a society we say that you are either a 0, a 3 or a 6 - 1, 2, 4 and 5 have to pick a side. Someone who is a 1 by Kinsey's definition ("Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual") must identify either as 'straight' (which wrongly implies the total absence of same-sex attraction or activity) or 'bisexual" (which wrongly implies a state of equalit in sexual attraction or activity), even though neither of these terms properly captures the lived experience of an individual who might feel they are a 1. And this is assuming Kinsey's scale is a good measure of sexual orientation - there are plenty of people (myself included) who feel Kinsey's terms are still too restrictive and broad, even though he gives us more than double the number of classifications we use in popular culture! This is especially problematic because although they are intended and usually used as hallmark of sexual orientation, terms like 'gay' and 'straight' also have a cultural implication of action. As labels for categorising other people, they essentially serve a function of allowing you to get quickly get a reference to shared cultural understandings about the characteristics and behaviour of other people - "X identifies as gay and a man; this means X is attracted to other men; therefore X only has sexual and romantic relations with men". The problem with how we categorise people according to a few narrow sexual orientations is that you can't really make that third leap, the leap of exclusivity in attraction or behaviour. People can, do and have throughout history engaged in sexual behaviour - both consensual and non-consensual - with sexes and genders to which they do not experience predominant or, indeed quite possibly, any attraction. Physical capacity for attraction does not necessarily determine willingness for engaging in sexual activity, which is affected by all manner of different social, cultural and other factors. So when we see examples of male-on-male or female-on-female sexual abuse in the historical record, it is simply not possible for us to look back and attribute these things to the perpetrators being 'gay', especially in the context of slavery where the role of power assertion is especially significant. It would be anachronistic for us to impose that modern identity upon these individuals - they simply would not have identified as gay. The concept would have had no meaning to them in the same way it does today. If we were somehow able to deduce the complexities of their own sexual preferences and desires, it is simply not appropriate to make a judgement as to where they might have fallen in our modern, western understanding of the spectrum of sexuality because to them, that spectrum did not exist as it does to us. Even if it was appropriate for historians to put historical figures into modern groupings of sexual orientation, evidence for same sex activity between two individuals in the historical record is by no means sufficient for us to declare them gay - just as evidence for opposite sex activity is not enough for us to declare someone straight. These are imperfect and modern concepts, and they are best left out of historical discussions concerning the lives of people who lived long before they became part of our cultural fabric. One thing that did strike me in trying to find the variations on this meme is that they nearly all make a point of emphasising (some more than others) homosexuality or gayness in their descriptions. It rather feels to me that there is a presumption being made in the dissemination of this myth that this is somehow a particular and uniquely awful crime beyond the sexual exploitation of black women, and this presumption is not rooted in an appreciation of the historical dynamics of sexual and gender roles, but rather a disapproval of same-sex behaviour in general. There's little doubt in my mind that this particular myth has been constructed and disseminated with homophobic thinking and intentions colouring it. It invokes certain stereotypes of modern gay people being predatory and sexually violent, particularly the longer varieties of the myth that appear on some websites. In conclusion then, yes, the meme you have encountered is largely fictionalised. Whilst the sexual exploitation of male slaves by white men and women alike was absolutely a real thing, as was the use of ritualised public humiliation and violence as a means of dehumanisation and asserting control, the exact phenomena this article describes strikes me as being quite fanciful. It is doubtlessly circulated with an ulterior motive and an agenda in mind, one that is probably tinged with homophobic sentiments. There is no shortage of very real trauma in the historical record when it comes to slavery - these real people who suffered so much injustice do not need to have, nor do they deserve to be demeaned by, us inventing more. We should likewise be careful not to impose our own modern ways of thinking onto the people of the past, for similar reasons - as historians we must try to understand these people somewhat as they understood themselves. Our own ideas about which boxes people should be placed into aren't very useful for doing that. By which of e few quick-fire reacing recommendetions and sources for this: Ihomes lusier, "he senuel Abuse uf uleuk tien Under Atmericam slevery", Juurmel of the History of Sexuality (20113 445 - 404 • Thomat Paster, Iang hetane anwal He ef tame ev teuity in Farty Amerine mairly juhn Selliant • Fay Yarbaraugh, "Fower, Perceptiar, and Interracial Sex: Former Slaves Recall a Multiracial Southr, ihe ju • Trevor Bumard. 1L, "The Bleck Bedy Lrutic and the Republican Dudy Poitic) al of souter lisiury /1, m. 3(200 09-s. • Takng a glanee back at Fostor leadt me to also heleve Wlom Snnemann, Male Aoie Intimacy in Forly America: Sryond Ramantic endshp (2000) might be af interest, though Ive notread il mysel. And for mere general reading recommendatiors on the theme of gender, sexuality and gendered resislance in slevery, ellhough musl of these are aboul women ralher then men • zhode Reddock, Anterrogotng Cunbbeon Mascalinbes: heoretcal and Empricol Anclpes (2004 - Chapter (Hilary Deckles) mainly. • Hiary Reckien, Cntering kemen: Bender Desaret in Corthnean Sinve Socety (199 • Barbara Bush, Save Women in Carbbean Saonty 1650 - E (1990 • Seepharie Camp, Cinser ta Fnednm: Fntiovns iomen and Puerydeoy enittae in the Plantaien South (2004. • Marie Schwartz, Sirching a Slave: Motherhood ond Medicine in the Antebelum South (2006. • Deine Derry. Smng the Subie jor the tarvestsRpe: Cender andi Siavery in Anlebellum Georgio (2007). jenniter Margan, tannuring Whmen: Depmdurtion and Render in nw World Siovery(2n04 * Renee Herrisur, isioved onen ovd che Aetof Meaater m Antebellum Americo (200. As e yereral l YL, I wrule this aller a lony day and on the verge of sleep, so pleese ee erors in spelling or preserrationi Tve tned to catch most of them.

Believers in Buck Breaking often argue that there is little historical evidence of the practice because male-on-male sexual abuse is seen as taboo and embarrassing, especially back then, resulting in very little discourse about it.

On August 8th, 2016, YouTuber iAmBlackPlanet posted a video documentary on Buck Breaking, supporting its existence, garnering over 1 million views in five years (shown below). The documentary features narration detailing how Black men would be sodomized in front of their families to keep them from being defiant. The video does not offer sources.



On November 25th, 2018, director Tariq Nasheed, best known for his documentary Hidden Colors, posted to Twitter[9] describing buck breaking, writing, "In slavery, there was a tactic called Buck Breaking where slave owners would sexually violate African males to break them down psychologically. The new Buck Breaking tactic is where white supremacists use their negro flunkies to shame Black men into having sex with transexuals" (shown below). Three years later he would release a documentary on the subject.


Tariq Nasheed @tariqnasheed In slavery, there was a tactic called Buck Breaking where slave owners would sexually violate African males to break them down psychologically. The new Buck Breaking tactic is where white supremacists use their n---- flunkies to shame Black men into having sex with transexuals 3:19 PM · 11/25/18 · Twitter Web Client 880 Retweets 775 Quote Tweets 1,943 Likes Tariq Nasheed Replying to @tariqnasheed If you notice, Black men who DON'T want to have sex with other men, are being negatively labeled by white funded "Black" propaganda outlets. (ie The Root, Madam Noir, Ebony, etc). Straight Black men are being stigmatized with terms like "cis-gendered", "transphobic", etc @tariqnasheed Nov 25, 2018 ... 122 27 455 864 Tariq Nasheed The white supremacists are always trying to manufacture any type of comparative "bigotry" they can accuse Black people of. And because accusations of "reverse racism" don't work, they often accuse Black ppl of "homophobia" and "transphobia", as a way to deflect from white racism @tariqnasheed Nov 25, 2018 84 27 268 695

On November 26th, 2016, YouTuber VIRALBOOKMARK posted a clip where Tariq and other members of the Black community describe the act (shown below). The video's description uses the Diary Of A Negress article as a source.



Spread

Buck Breaking Documentary

On April 30th, 2021, Hidden Colors director Tariq Nasheed released a documentary titled Buck Breaking about the subject (trailer shown below).[8]



The documentary's description on Amazon[2] reads: "Buck Breaking is a documentary film about the historic sexual exploitation of Black people globally. The film shows the correlation between the historic exploitation of Black men during slavery and the Jim Crow era, to the Buck Breaking tactics used today."

The release of the film inspired a lot of discourse and trolling on 4chan[5] and Twitter,[6][7] many criticizing the director Nasheed for making a documentary about what they believe to be a myth and hypothesizing that he is a closeted homosexual who is into Buck Breaking as a fetish because of it (example shown below, left). Many also criticized Nasheed for hiring artists to create images depicting Buck Breaking (example shown below, right, art not confirmed to be from film).


Misheru Katorin ... @MKatorin > Tariq Nasheed makes documentary about buck breaking claiming slave owners would sexually dominate black ppl > Pays people to draw homoerotic art of black men being dommed >Turns out this entire practice is a myth Tariq basically created a made up black sissy fetish movie Luddite 'not femboy' Chwinky @Luddite_not_gay Anyone got the @ of the massa of the left? Saw this in the Tariq Nasneed(whatever his name is) buck breaking and the massa looking kinda fine actually

The documentary also inspired general shitposts about the term "buck breaking," including memes where the term is intentionally misunderstood, memes depicting people spreading the word on Buck Breaking, and memes depicting the practice as a fetish (examples shown below).


Bud Kramer ... @maclovinfeeling Boys, Buck Breaking anime just dropped. I hope it's as good as the manga. BUCK BREAKING www.BUCKBREAKINGMOVIE.COM Misheru Katorin ... @MKatorin 3 tickets for buck breaking please. : Anonymous (ID: XOouf79V ) E3 The state of the modern buck 06/08/21(Tue)08:07:15 No.325058844 tariq nasneed.jpg 7 KB JPG >be me Tariq Nasneed (in the closet buck) >Don't know how to come out >create white raceplay domination fetish where bucks like me are f----- by our white masters in order to garner sympathy from whitey >backfires >now bucks like me are the laughing stock >bbc posters on suicide watch >turns out buck breaking isn't real >no sympathy from whitey Absolute state of bucks.

Official Buck Breaking NFTs

On December 21st, 2021, Tariq Nasheed announced the sale of 10 official Buck Breaking NFTs on Twitter[10] (shown below). The NFTs are available on OpenSea.[11] Kiwi Farms[12] user drateR shared the update on Nasheed's thread that day.


Tariq Nasheed E @tariqnasheed ... The official Buck Breaking NFT artwork collection is available now at opensea.io/collection/buc...

Each NFT is an original cartoon depicting a white man abusing a Black man in various ways, including holding a whip to a basketball player, holding a Black man in chains, and a white police officer escorting a Black man to prison (examples shown below). By December 22nd four of the NFTs sold for prices ranging from 0.1 Ethereum (estimated $403 US at the time of purchase) to 0.3 Ethereum (est. $1,200 US at the time of purchase).



Various Examples


John ... @JohnRetvrned It's called "Buck Breaking", and it's going to be the next big thing Autistic La Forge @Geordilaforgei ... COMPUTER! TERMINATE BUCK BREAKING HISTORICAL PROGRAM! Lieutenant Ro ... @bajoranlemon Why yes Murray I mailed a copy of buck breaking to all my black neighbors. : Anonymous 06/08/21(Tue)10:43:06 No.152017597 >>152017343 (OP) # >BUCKA 36 KB JPG >>152018160 # >>152018319 # >>152018650 # >>152019480 # >>152019589 # File: Screen-Shot-2020-06-26-at(.).jrg (32 KB, 980x653) O Anonymous 06/07/21(Mon)22:36:40 No.152019931 >152019955 >>152020042 >>152020421 IT STARTS WITH O Anonymous 06/07/21(Mon)22:37:06 No.152019955 ► »152020010 >152020092 >>152019931 (OP) ONE BUCK Anonymous 06/07/21(Mon)22:38:21 No.152020010 ► >152019955 I DON'T KNOW WHY Anonymous 06/07/21(Mon)22:38:33 No.152020021 ► IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER HOW HARD I BREAK BUCK BREAKING Feea Seed (o)

Search Interest

External References

[1] NHC – On Slaveholders’ Sexual Abuse of Slaves

[2] Amazon – Buck Breaking

[3] Reddit – askhistorians

[4] Reddit – askhistorians answer

[5] 4chan (via 4plebs) – search for: 'buck breaking'

[6] Twitter – Anyone got

[7] Twitter – Tariq Nasheed

[8] IMDb – Buck Breaking

[9] Twitter – In slavery…

[10] Twitter – NFT announcement

[11] OpenSea – buck breaking collection

[12] Kiwi Farms – Mr. Nasneed has released a collection of Buck Breaking NFTs.

[13] Diary Of A Negress (via wayback machine) – Buck Breaking

[14] 4chan – pol post

Related Entries 1 total

Recent Videos 9 total

Recent Images 113 total


Top Comments

AnonBlah867
Delete
NSFW
AnonBlah867

in reply to AnonBlah867

In all seriousness though, this does not appear to be a real historical thing (there is nothing about it on Wikipedia, for one), and the documentarian likewise appears to be full of shit. I furthermore don't even get what he's trying to say; there are ample actual and universally accepted facts proving why slavery was such a horrible system and similarly plentiful evidence of some of the most horrific abuse ever being committed under it. Why would you make up and coin a name for a nonexistent practice to beat such a literal horse skeleton as slavery is by now?

+102
Reply

+ Add a Comment

Comments (263)


Display Comments

Add a Comment


Word Up! You must login or signup first!