Look Away! a Politically Incorrect History of Slavery in the CSA, America, and World History

[O'Hea]

He was expanding on the origin of slaves, the slavs captured by Germans sold into slavery to the Turks and ending up on another continent to be be expolited for profit. Prior to the Enlightenment, slavery was simply a fact of life, unquestioned, the natural fate of the defeated since man recorded his military actions. society required them in a proportion to free men, re plata. Race, on the other hand, is a much more recent idea, tied up with the founding of the USA and was used to justify the continued use of slavery, largel;y from biblical arguments on when negros came from and why they had yet as a group all been allowed freedom, while some could be manumatted.In colonial America, Africans weren't enslaved because they were thought to be racial inferior. On the contrary, they were valued for their skill as farmers and desired for their labor. whites were unable to compete with them, when coerced as slaves. Hence free States ( see D wilmot) came about to remove the slaves and labour comptetion of the slave gang system to allow free white labour to flourish without unfair economic compiteion.

There's still some pretty significant differences between American slavery and previous forms. Classical slavery would see slaves working in almost all fields, including highly skilled or specialized ones, slave status was not always hereditary, manumission was fairly common, and in the Muslim world in particular slaves were often brought in as soldiers or administrators, not menial labor. Slavery was not a key part of the economy because in the Old World, you generally already had the population you needed to work all arable land. They weren't buying up slaves in the tens or hundreds of thousands to run highly-profitable export enterprises in some depopulated area. They also weren't getting their slaves almost exclusively from one source. So you have a lot of cross-cutting factors coming together (racial divide between masters and slaves, profitability of unskilled slave labor, large pool of slaves available and many vacant lands to ship them to) to make slavery in the US a totally different beast (a lot of these factors were mitigated in Latin America, where there were larger surviving native populations and mixed-race people quickly became a majority, but Brazil has a lot of the same traits).

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

twc01, I think you are struggling with trying to rationalize the existence of slavery in the the South.

I wouldn't. Move on.

Maybe you can take comfort in knowing slavery in the Deep South was not born there, it was brought to the shores of South Carolina by extremely wealthy British planters from the Caribbean; especially those from Barbados. In the 1600s, the Carolinas were considered to be a northern stretch of the Caribbean. Younger sons of island planters, who could not inherit lands of their own due to limited space, moved to what would become the Deep South and founded cities like Charleston. They brought with them vast sums of money, the brutal form of slavery practiced in the Caribbean, and a very authoritarian political ethos.

[twc01]

twc01, I think you are struggling with trying to rationalize the existence of slavery in the the South.

I wouldn't. Move on.

Maybe you can take comfort in knowing slavery in the Deep South was not born there, it was brought to the shores of South Carolina by extremely wealthy British planters from the Caribbean; especially those from Barbados. In the 1600s, the Carolinas were considered to be a northern stretch of the Caribbean. Younger sons of island planters, who could not inherit lands of their own due to limited space, moved to what would become the Deep South and founded cities like Charleston. They brought with them vast sums of money, the brutal form of slavery practiced in the Caribbean, and a very authoritarian political ethos.

Thanks for the advice sir. However I can say my motivation has been more to the effect of telling the truth of something that has been reported in a not so truthful way. One of the books i was reading the historian said, when you are told about american slavery and what it is like, your really reading about slavery thousands of years ago. That of course is not totally true, but it is generally true, more often than not. I hate when things are twisted used for a modern political purpose. I would rather have truth and history as it really was. So I cannot move on from this as you may, because truth IMO is worth discovering.

Hopefully I take comfort in truth, whatever that may be. Actually well truth often is not as nice. I am from the north, it would be much easier to believe as i was told and say south= evil racist slave owners, north= christian abolitionist. That would give comfort, but not truth.

[O'Hea]

Hopefully I take comfort in truth, whatever that may be. Actually well truth often is not as nice. I am from the north, it would be much easier to believe as i was told and say south= evil racist slave owners, north= christian abolitionist. That would give comfort, but not truth.

This is a tricky issue, especially for a southerner like myself (none of my ancestors were wealthy enough to be full-on planters but we know at least a few of them owned slaves). On the one hand, in 'pop history' there is a strong drive to exaggerate the strength of the abolition movement and the regional nature of racism. They do this because they don't want to be 'depressing' or 'negative' by acknowledging that slavery was considered downright benevolent by many and was tolerated by most others, regardless of region. They want to emphasize that "we weren't all bad" or "deep down, we always knew slavery was wrong." In practice, the message is that Northerners were decent and humane while Southerners were savages. This is unfair and inaccurate, it exonerates the North of all wrongdoing and makes the South a national scapegoat.

But on the other hand, Southerners WERE savages. Slavery in the American South was one of the most awful institutions in human history, and even after the end of slavery lynchings carried on into the 20th century and almost nothing was done about it, by either Northerners or Southerners. Where large numbers of blacks settled in the North they also experienced hate, discrimination and violence, but the sheer scale of it in the South was unique. So we can say, hypothetically, that violence against blacks was worse in the South because it was a target-rich environment and Northerners would have done just as badly if they'd gotten the chance, but that's not what happened and we do have to acknowledge the fact that while the North was bigoted and should own up to it, even by the standards of the rest of the US the South had taken it to extremes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think the mainstream treatment is unfair because it puts all attention on the South and ignores the crimes of the North. The South deserves just about all the blame it gets, and in many ways things were far worse than the average American knows, but the North was no beacon of reason, tolerance or liberty itself.

[twc01]

This is a tricky issue, especially for a southerner like myself (none of my ancestors were wealthy enough to be full-on planters but we know at least a few of them owned slaves). On the one hand, in 'pop history' there is a strong drive to exaggerate the strength of the abolition movement and the regional nature of racism. They do this because they don't want to be 'depressing' or 'negative' by acknowledging that slavery was considered downright benevolent by many and was tolerated by most others, regardless of region. They want to emphasize that "we weren't all bad" or "deep down, we always knew slavery was wrong." In practice, the message is that Northerners were decent and humane while Southerners were savages. This is unfair and inaccurate, it exonerates the North of all wrongdoing and makes the South a national scapegoat.

But on the other hand, Southerners WERE savages. Slavery in the American South was one of the most awful institutions in human history, and even after the end of slavery lynchings carried on into the 20th century and almost nothing was done about it, by either Northerners or Southerners. Where large numbers of blacks settled in the North they also experienced hate, discrimination and violence, but the sheer scale of it in the South was unique. So we can say, hypothetically, that violence against blacks was worse in the South because it was a target-rich environment and Northerners would have done just as badly if they'd gotten the chance, but that's not what happened and we do have to acknowledge the fact that while the North was bigoted and should own up to it, even by the standards of the rest of the US the South had taken it to extremes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think the mainstream treatment is unfair because it puts all attention on the South and ignores the crimes of the North. The South deserves just about all the blame it gets, and in many ways things were far worse than the average American knows, but the North was no beacon of reason, tolerance or liberty itself.

Yeah I generally agree. Only the 3 bold sections I may disagree with. I use to agree with you on the first section, I would agree it was in certain circumstances. But given the standard of living for the african slave who came to america was a vast improvement over their previous life, and many of the slaves preferred slavery and so many great relationships were formed, its hard to see it as a vast evil. As just one example one slave said if heaven was what her slave days were, she would be happy

“That was a happy time, with happy days. I’ll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preach about. I wants to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough heaven for Adeline.”
-Slave Adeline Johnson Slaveor

“De young folks don't know nothing about good times and good living, dey don't understand how come I wish I wuz still in slavery."
-Adam Smith, Mississippi Slave NarrativesNarratives

I think we need to understand the slave better. In many cases they were more than content knew they had a good situation, had loving masters and regretted the end of it.

“ I wuz happy den...untill dem yankees come we wuznt happy at de surrender an we cussed old Abraham Lincoln all ober de place”
John Beckwith North Carolina Slave Narratives

I was happy all de time in slavery days, but dere ain’t much to git happy over now…”
-Mary Rice, Alabama Slave Narratives


I think we see slavery as such a evil because of the picture and idea we are taught of what slavery was like [a great evil] yet that is not really based on truth.



Yeah the way slavery ended was bad for all involved.

“We had better then than now cause white men lynch an burn now and do other things they couldent do then”
-Henry brown South Carolina Slave narratives




Your last bold section I must outright disagree with. I think it is the opposite, slavery is presented as far worse than reality.

[O'Hea]

Are you familiar with the concept of Stockholm Syndrome? Or with battered spouses who refuse to leave their partners? A few cherry-picked quotes of freedmen who miss slavery (and one even explicitly saying it was because of the terrorism freedmen experienced!) don't tell us much.

My case that American slavery was one of the worst institutions in history, worse by far than any form of classical slavery, goes as such:
-Up to half would die of disease, starvation or abuse during the trip over the Atlantic
-Many more would die of disease, starvation or abuse during "seasoning" in the Caribbean
-Original languages and customs were totally supressed
-There were virtually no legal protections against violence or rape
-Families had no rights whatsoever, and were regularly broken up
-Manumission was extremely rare and actively discouraged; freedmen were constant targets of harassment
-Slavery was strictly hereditary (their children had no chance of being born free) and strictly racial
-Slaves could not even join a religious congregation without the master's express consent and a white man present at all times
-Free black men were sometimes impressed into slavery just on the basis of their skin color
-Racial slavery brought with it brutal punishments for miscegenation
And of course, let's not forget that once slavery was formally abolished, Southern whites used both state and non-state terrorism to keep social reality as similar to slavery as possible, literally up until federal armed forces returned 100 years later to force them to integrate.

I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find any single institution that affected so many people in such a horrific way right up until the industrial slavery of 20th-century totalitarianism, which was free to be completely murderous because it wasn't driven by profit. The fact that some slaves were lucky enough to have masters that didn't abuse them to the full extent of their power doesn't make the institution as a whole any less awful or shameful.

[twc01]

Are you familiar with the concept of Stockholm Syndrome? Or with battered spouses who refuse to leave their partners? A few cherry-picked quotes of freedmen who miss slavery (and one even explicitly saying it was because of the terrorism freedmen experienced!) don't tell us much.

My case that American slavery was one of the worst institutions in history, worse by far than any form of classical slavery, goes as such:
-Up to half would die of disease, starvation or abuse during the trip over the Atlantic
-Many more would die of disease, starvation or abuse during "seasoning" in the Caribbean
-Original languages and customs were totally supressed
-There were virtually no legal protections against violence or rape
-Families had no rights whatsoever, and were regularly broken up
-Manumission was extremely rare and actively discouraged; freedmen were constant targets of harassment
-Slavery was strictly hereditary (their children had no chance of being born free) and strictly racial
-Slaves could not even join a religious congregation without the master's express consent and a white man present at all times
-Free black men were sometimes impressed into slavery just on the basis of their skin color
-Racial slavery brought with it brutal punishments for miscegenation
And of course, let's not forget that once slavery was formally abolished, Southern whites used both state and non-state terrorism to keep social reality as similar to slavery as possible, literally up until federal armed forces returned 100 years later to force them to integrate.

I think you're going to be hard-pressed to find any single institution that affected so many people in such a horrific way right up until the industrial slavery of 20th-century totalitarianism, which was free to be completely murderous because it wasn't driven by profit. The fact that some slaves were lucky enough to have masters that didn't abuse them to the full extent of their power doesn't make the institution as a whole any less awful or shameful.

I suggest we ask the same of holocaust survives, i bet they are real neo nazies. Plus this assumes this is going on when that was not the case. This syndrome idea is built on assumptions and false philosophy and falls on its assumptions. Simply read on it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Basically you have to be a illogical nut to accept this philosophy. Plus this would not apply decades after the effect when the slaves were interviewed. Plus it is refuted by the numerous slaves that said they were beat, they almost universally hated slavery and their masters. The ones that were not beat, generally liked slavery. its almost like common sense, those taken care of and treated well liked slavery [the majority] those beaten and mistreated hated slavery. Of course we did not have some brilliant physiologist to tell us of the syndrome they dreamed up yet, so slaves could only be logical and honest.


What your really doing is trying to deny first hand accounts of slavery from the slaves perspective. Trust me when they were mistreated they let you know about it. You also assume my quotes were "cherry picked" proving you have not read the slave narratives. But lets see from a non slave perspective. Maybe you can come up with some phyco babel to try and explain away this as well.

“To say that they are under worked and overfed and are far happier than the labors of great Britan would hardly convey a sufficiently clear notion of their actual condition. They put me much more in mind of a community of grown children, spoiled by to much kindness, than a body of dependents. Much less a community of slaves”
-Louis F Tasistro of Great Britain

“The slaves do not go around looking unhappy, and are with difficulty, I fancy, persuaded to feel so. Whips and chains oaths and brutality are as common, for all that one sees, in the free as the slave states. We have come thus far, and might have gone ten times as far, I dare say, without seeing the first sign of negro misery or white tyranny”
- Bostonian Charles Elliot Norton, while in South Carolina

“One might almost imagine one's self to be in Hayti [Haiti] and think that colored people had got possession of the town and held sway, while the whites were living among them as sufferance”
-Englishmen James Silk Buckingham, visited Virginia in 1840's


“ They fare better than the poor of any of our citizens are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented”
Daniel Hundley viewed slavery in Alabama



- please support.
- please support
- or language gained, and schooling,education and traits.
-simply false read op
-- false again read op
-I will give that one to you, but there were large numbers of free blacks
-false read op
-True sometimes. read op sometimes given complete freedom.
-yes union solders did this often
-please give an example
-? are you speaking of segregation? read slave narratives black and white wanted this, blacks universally from what i read. This is celbrated today

http://www.infowars.com/mizzou-prote...healing-space/


I would say your view of slavery is inaccurate, thus so is your conclusion.





You have proven what I said before. When we are told of slavery in the south, we are really reading of slavery thousands of years ago in another country.

[O'Hea]

I suggest we ask the same of holocaust survives, i bet they are real neo nazies. Plus this assumes this is going on when that was not the case. This syndrome idea is built on assumptions and false philosophy and falls on its assumptions. Simply read on it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Basically you have to be a illogical nut to accept this philosophy. Plus this would not apply decades after the effect when the slaves were interviewed. Plus it is refuted by the numerous slaves that said they were beat, they almost universally hated slavery and their masters. The ones that were not beat, generally liked slavery. its almost like common sense, those taken care of and treated well liked slavery [the majority] those beaten and mistreated hated slavery. Of course we did not have some brilliant physiologist to tell us of the syndrome they dreamed up yet, so slaves could only be logical and honest.

Holocaust survivors were previously free people, forced into a system that was expressly designed to exterminate them. There was never any illusion that it was 'for their own good' and they knew exactly what they had lost. You're mistaking these freedmen for aware, educated people who had a full appreciation for what their freedom meant. Their ancestors as far back as they could know had all been slaves. They were deprived of any knowledge or memory of a time or place where black people were not enslaved by white people. The only religious messages they were permitted to receive were "pie in the sky" stories about how their subservience would be rewarded and how they should be grateful for the civilized Christian life they'd been given (this is echoed in your quotes). They were victims of two and a half centuries of brainwashing. Go to China and you'll find millions still revere Mao Zedong, or millions who revere Joseph Stalin in the former USSR. The fact that some people were fine with living under evil systems has no bearing on what we think of the system as a whole. Again, my whole point: some were fortunate enough to have 'kind' masters, but if they weren't fortunate they had no recourse at all. They were property, to a greater extent even than slaves elsewhere in the world.

Consider, for a moment, the plight of a freedman. You're now free, and recognized as a human being by the faraway federal government. You're still surrounded by the same people, and the white ones now have a massive chip on their shoulder. You're still, most likely, illiterate and with no skills besides farming. You have no property at all. You know next to nothing about the outside world other than what your master and handlers have wanted you to know. The Republicans made a lot of grand promises to you before, but after a few years they completely abandoned you for reasons you don't quite understand. You have two real options: leave the South (as millions did), or keep on working a white man's land for him. But where your relationship to that white landowner used to be pretty straightforward, now it's got all this about debt and loaned equipment and splitting the crop (you've traded de jure slavery for debt slavery! huzzah!), and whereas the master used to just have you whipped if he felt you got out of line, now you're more likely to get lynched by some boys in hoods and left to hang as a message to others. Unfortunately for you, the whites around you still hate you, but they no longer view you as a significant investment. Weren't things so much easier when you were young? It's not difficult to see how some slaves, raised from birth to expect nothing and view themselves as inferior, would be confused and scared by their new circumstances and reminisce about "the good old days."

So we've established that the years following emancipation were marked by mass exodus out of the South on one hand, and widespread violence against those who stayed on the other. This is not a happy, peaceful, benign society. So what, are you going to suggest that everything was going fine under slavery, and the Union ruined it by giving blacks suffrage and basic legal protections? Do you think modern African American social problems have their origins during, or after slavery? I think you're dangerously close to suggesting that blacks were 'better off' under white tutelage.

What your really doing is trying to deny first hand accounts of slavery from the slaves perspective. Trust me when they were mistreated they let you know about it. You also assume my quotes were "cherry picked" proving you have not read the slave narratives. But lets see from a non slave perspective. Maybe you can come up with some phyco babel to try and explain away this as well.

They're cherry-picked in that they're anecdotal. Four quotes do not represent all the millions of American slaves. And I did not deny that the quotes are real, nor did I accuse the people who said them of lying. I'm saying that those are based on the combination of nostalgia (an incredibly powerful force on the human mind), the harsh treatment they experienced as free people, and the ways that they had been psychologically conditioned under slavery.

“To say that they are under worked and overfed and are far happier than the labors of great Britan would hardly convey a sufficiently clear notion of their actual condition. They put me much more in mind of a community of grown children, spoiled by to much kindness, than a body of dependents. Much less a community of slaves”

-Louis F Tasistro of Great Britain

“The slaves do not go around looking unhappy, and are with difficulty, I fancy, persuaded to feel so. Whips and chains oaths and brutality are as common, for all that one sees, in the free as the slave states. We have come thus far, and might have gone ten times as far, I dare say, without seeing the first sign of negro misery or white tyranny”
- Bostonian Charles Elliot Norton, while in South Carolina

“One might almost imagine one's self to be in Hayti [Haiti] and think that colored people had got possession of the town and held sway, while the whites were living among them as sufferance”
-Englishmen James Silk Buckingham, visited Virginia in 1840's


“ They fare better than the poor of any of our citizens are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented”
Daniel Hundley viewed slavery in Alabama

You mean foreigners who were very familiar with the social problems of their own countries, went on a stroll through the South and viewed what they saw with rose-tinted glasses? Again, the relative poverty of someone elsewhere has no bearing on whether or not slavery was an evil institution. The fact that you are chattel in a relatively-prosperous society doesn't make you any less of chattel.

- please support.
- please support

I checked, the figure was that a typical ship could lose half of its onboard slaves and still turn a profit (the margins were good). Current estimates are for 12-15 million shipped across the Atlantic (millions more sent elsewhere), with 1-2 million dying in transit and 5 million dying in the Caribbean during seasoning. So somewhere between a third and a half of those transported died before even reaching market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlant...ade#Human_toll

- or language gained, and schooling,education and traits.

That's an extremely generous way to look at millions of people being deprived of all knowledge of their own origins and forced to accept their master's faith and customs. There's no getting around the fact that they were taken against their will, and they lost their cultures against their will. And again, a unique trait of American slavery was the strong aversion to letting them become literate.

-simply false read op
-- false again read op
-I will give that one to you, but there were large numbers of free blacks
-false read op

I've tried, but... good lord, that post is long.

-True sometimes. read op sometimes given complete freedom.
-yes union solders did this often
-please give an example

Well the penalty for black men who raped white women was death for most of the era, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an antebellum white woman that would confess to a consensual relationship with a black man. If the courts didn't kill him the mob would. Of course, miscegenation was fine if it was the white master who was doing it.

-? are you speaking of segregation? read slave narratives black and white wanted this, blacks universally from what i read.

Yes, segregation. The thing upheld by police brutality and lynching and brought down when a mostly-black social movement managed to get the attention of the federal government. The thing that millions of blacks fled from. Again, we've established the phenomenally low expectations that freedmen had for their future lives in the South. At that time they probably deeply believed they would never be accepted peacefully into white society (what with all the white people going around insisting loudly that this was the case).

This is celbrated today

http://www.infowars.com/mizzou-prote...healing-space/

Infowars is not a credible source, as it's run by a conspiracy theorist and bona fide crazy person. At any rate, you should be able to see how setting aside one black-only event out of a months-long series of protests over racial issues is NOT an endorsement of actual social segregation. These protests ran from September of last year until at least this February- but you're seriously going to use a night of black-only focus groups to argue that they really want legal segregation, in employment, housing, education, justice, and so on, and that they represent blacks nationwide? Please stop and think critically about this.

You have proven what I said before. When we are told of slavery in the south, we are really reading of slavery thousands of years ago in another country.

No we're not, Old World slavery lacked many of the characteristics that made American slavery what it is, as I've covered in previous posts. The helots of Sparta maybe come close, but they were a conquered people who grew crops to feed the elite, they weren't captives from another continent hauled in to grow cash crops for export, and they only ever made up a polis-sized population. Slaves under the Roman Empire had higher odds of manumission, were employed in a wider range of fields (Polybius, the political theorist and tutor, was a slave), could intermarry with free people and had much more robust legal protections than American slaves would have. Similarly slaves in the Muslim world came from diverse origins and many served in government office or the military, not as laborers. In tribal societies slaves were collected as a display of wealth, not to generate it. You could maybe argue the lower castes of Indian or Japanese society would count, but again these covered diverse professions and although they were marginalized, their quality of life could be pretty high, and were also ethnically identical to other castes. American slavery is a special case, in scale, scope and basic nature.

[twc01]

Holocaust survivors were previously free people, forced into a system that was expressly designed to exterminate them. There was never any illusion that it was 'for their own good' and they knew exactly what they had lost. You're mistaking these freedmen for aware, educated people who had a full appreciation for what their freedom meant. Their ancestors as far back as they could know had all been slaves. They were deprived of any knowledge or memory of a time or place where black people were not enslaved by white people. The only religious messages they were permitted to receive were "pie in the sky" stories about how their subservience would be rewarded and how they should be grateful for the civilized Christian life they'd been given (this is echoed in your quotes). They were victims of two and a half centuries of brainwashing. Go to China and you'll find millions still revere Mao Zedong, or millions who revere Joseph Stalin in the former USSR. The fact that some people were fine with living under evil systems has no bearing on what we think of the system as a whole. Again, my whole point: some were fortunate enough to have 'kind' masters, but if they weren't fortunate they had no recourse at all. They were property, to a greater extent even than slaves elsewhere in the world.

Consider, for a moment, the plight of a freedman. You're now free, and recognized as a human being by the faraway federal government. You're still surrounded by the same people, and the white ones now have a massive chip on their shoulder. You're still, most likely, illiterate and with no skills besides farming. You have no property at all. You know next to nothing about the outside world other than what your master and handlers have wanted you to know. The Republicans made a lot of grand promises to you before, but after a few years they completely abandoned you for reasons you don't quite understand. You have two real options: leave the South (as millions did), or keep on working a white man's land for him. But where your relationship to that white landowner used to be pretty straightforward, now it's got all this about debt and loaned equipment and splitting the crop (you've traded de jure slavery for debt slavery! huzzah!), and whereas the master used to just have you whipped if he felt you got out of line, now you're more likely to get lynched by some boys in hoods and left to hang as a message to others. Unfortunately for you, the whites around you still hate you, but they no longer view you as a significant investment. Weren't things so much easier when you were young? It's not difficult to see how some slaves, raised from birth to expect nothing and view themselves as inferior, would be confused and scared by their new circumstances and reminisce about "the good old days."

So we've established that the years following emancipation were marked by mass exodus out of the South on one hand, and widespread violence against those who stayed on the other. This is not a happy, peaceful, benign society. So what, are you going to suggest that everything was going fine under slavery, and the Union ruined it by giving blacks suffrage and basic legal protections? Do you think modern African American social problems have their origins during, or after slavery? I think you're dangerously close to suggesting that blacks were 'better off' under white tutelage.


They're cherry-picked in that they're anecdotal. Four quotes do not represent all the millions of American slaves. And I did not deny that the quotes are real, nor did I accuse the people who said them of lying. I'm saying that those are based on the combination of nostalgia (an incredibly powerful force on the human mind), the harsh treatment they experienced as free people, and the ways that they had been psychologically conditioned under slavery.


You mean foreigners who were very familiar with the social problems of their own countries, went on a stroll through the South and viewed what they saw with rose-tinted glasses? Again, the relative poverty of someone elsewhere has no bearing on whether or not slavery was an evil institution. The fact that you are chattel in a relatively-prosperous society doesn't make you any less of chattel.


I checked, the figure was that a typical ship could lose half of its onboard slaves and still turn a profit (the margins were good). Current estimates are for 12-15 million shipped across the Atlantic (millions more sent elsewhere), with 1-2 million dying in transit and 5 million dying in the Caribbean during seasoning. So somewhere between a third and a half of those transported died before even reaching market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlant...ade#Human_toll

That's an extremely generous way to look at millions of people being deprived of all knowledge of their own origins and forced to accept their master's faith and customs. There's no getting around the fact that they were taken against their will, and they lost their cultures against their will. And again, a unique trait of American slavery was the strong aversion to letting them become literate.

I've tried, but... good lord, that post is long.

Well the penalty for black men who raped white women was death for most of the era, and you'd be hard-pressed to find an antebellum white woman that would confess to a consensual relationship with a black man. If the courts didn't kill him the mob would. Of course, miscegenation was fine if it was the white master who was doing it.

Yes, segregation. The thing upheld by police brutality and lynching and brought down when a mostly-black social movement managed to get the attention of the federal government. The thing that millions of blacks fled from. Again, we've established the phenomenally low expectations that freedmen had for their future lives in the South. At that time they probably deeply believed they would never be accepted peacefully into white society (what with all the white people going around insisting loudly that this was the case).


Infowars is not a credible source, as it's run by a conspiracy theorist and bona fide crazy person. At any rate, you should be able to see how setting aside one black-only event out of a months-long series of protests over racial issues is NOT an endorsement of actual social segregation. These protests ran from September of last year until at least this February- but you're seriously going to use a night of black-only focus groups to argue that they really want legal segregation, in employment, housing, education, justice, and so on, and that they represent blacks nationwide? Please stop and think critically about this.


No we're not, Old World slavery lacked many of the characteristics that made American slavery what it is, as I've covered in previous posts. The helots of Sparta maybe come close, but they were a conquered people who grew crops to feed the elite, they weren't captives from another continent hauled in to grow cash crops for export, and they only ever made up a polis-sized population. Slaves under the Roman Empire had higher odds of manumission, were employed in a wider range of fields (Polybius, the political theorist and tutor, was a slave), could intermarry with free people and had much more robust legal protections than American slaves would have. Similarly slaves in the Muslim world came from diverse origins and many served in government office or the military, not as laborers. In tribal societies slaves were collected as a display of wealth, not to generate it. You could maybe argue the lower castes of Indian or Japanese society would count, but again these covered diverse professions and although they were marginalized, their quality of life could be pretty high, and were also ethnically identical to other castes. American slavery is a special case, in scale, scope and basic nature.

I was using you own claim of the stockholm syndrome [now ss] and directing as it does to oppressed and victimized persons. Given their treatment by their captives in concentration camps is worse than slavery, than they should in fact even more so speak good of the nazies. Of course we know this is not so and hopefully we can admit the ss is crap, and built on assumptions and worldview philosophy.

I also must add you have mistaken the slave narratives as people who never knew what freedom was, because you have not read what you criticize and reject. Your worldview must reject slaves liking slavery, so you will find any excuse needed, even to go so far as ss. Had you read what you reject, you would see sometimes the salves interviewed did not even remember slavery, given they were young when they were freed. But the slaves had lived in freedom more than slavery, had free relatives, friends and were all eventually freed, thus they can compare both freedom and slavery. i suggest you at the very leas, read up on something to get the basics before rejecting them. You have also made multiple claims above, yet have not supported, so I must of know consider claims such as "The only religious messages they were permitted to receive were "pie in the sky" stories about how their subservience would be rewarded and how they should be grateful for the civilized Christian life they'd been given" wishful thinking. Given the documents themselves had you read, would show this wrong. I would also let you in that the north, the south, slaves, masters, English, Spanish, scientist, abolitionist, historians, Africans, slave traders, missionaries to Africa all would agree, the slaves in america was far superior in treatment, than in Africa. What you call brainwashing, the rest call reality.


The second paragraph I actually agree very close with. Multiple false assumptions of race relations in antebellum america, but i shall let that go. the claim millions left the south I would like to see support for. That is actually related to a upcoming thread i will do.


So we've established that the years following emancipation were marked by mass exodus out of the South on one hand, and widespread violence against those who stayed on the other. This is not a happy, peaceful, benign society. So what, are you going to suggest that everything was going fine under slavery, and the Union ruined it by giving blacks suffrage and basic legal protections? Do you think modern African American social problems have their origins during, or after slavery? I think you're dangerously close to suggesting that blacks were 'better off' under white tutelage.


This seems to be a recurring thing with you, you make a claim, act like its fact with nothing to back it up. Please provide support if you are to make a claim. There was no mass Exodus from the south, blacks knew they were treated better in the south [read op and also future thread for numbers and more in depth]. I think you may be drawing us off topic. Those are good questions but lets finish our first, if you read my op you may find the answers within. The questions is was american slavery one of the worst crimes in humanity history as you suggested.


They're cherry-picked in that they're anecdotal. Four quotes do not represent all the millions of American slaves. And I did not deny that the quotes are real, nor did I accuse the people who said them of lying. I'm saying that those are based on the combination of nostalgia (an incredibly powerful force on the human mind), the harsh treatment they experienced as free people, and the ways that they had been psychologically conditioned under slavery.

If you get around to reading my op you will find dozens of quotes, than in the apendex many, many more. But i agree you can find horrible quotes in them as well, but we never hear of the kind of quotes i posted. The rest i would say has very little legit, and mostly all worldview and does not apply for reasons i gave this post and last. i do agree life after slavery was generally not good at all. One example is food, even terrible treated slaves who hated the master, still often talked good of all the food. because it was hard to provide post slaver compared to slavery.But that does not make the true good times during slavery false, would you agree?.



That is the whole point, they are slaves, yet treated well and happy... generally. Read my entire op you will find northerns,solders, abolitionist, Europeans all saying the same thing [more to come as well in next thread].



Ok I am sorry I missed you were referring to the slave trade, not slavery in the south. i cant argue with you on that can i?. I would just say that only 6% of slaves that were shipped from Africa west, came to america, most went to Jamaica, Brazil etc.


That's an extremely generous way to look at millions of people being deprived of all knowledge of their own origins and forced to accept their master's faith and customs. There's no getting around the fact that they were taken against their will, and they lost their cultures against their will. And again, a unique trait of American slavery was the strong aversion to letting them become literate.


Yes they were taken against their will, yes by fellow africans who had enslaved them in terrible conditions, yes their lives improved drastically when they came to america. In all honesty, i never read one that though pagan, cannibalistic, brutal ,slave obsessed, west Africa was paradise.

“It was mercy brought me from my pagan land” [Senegal]
-Slave Phillis Wheatley

“Some blacks kept there pagan ways, had whites not curbed their mumbo-jumboism [paganism] it would not be safe to go out his door at night”
-Rias Body Georgia slave narratives

“Ifit wasn't for the influence of the white race in the South, the Negro race wold revert to savagery within a year! why, if they knew for dead certain thir is not a policeman or officer of the law in Columbus tonight, the good Lord only knows what they'd,do tonight”
-Uncle Wash Georgia Slave Narratives


Start on page 38, you will see why slaves in america dont like Africa, from a slave in both Africa and america.
http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mesn/001/111.pdf


Please read post 2 on this thread, it is short and will give more info on Africa vs america Also if you dislike loss of culture, than you should hate the slaves were freed. The slave culture and music especially was largely lost.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymns-P...s=battle+hymns

Also to claim they had no knowledge of their origins of customs, again i would suggest slave narratives. Good and bad customs came and stayed with them in america. Another book you may want would be this one
http://www.amazon.com/Roll-Jordan-Wo.../dp/0394716523

from my op

Native born American blacks

In 1860, only 1% of blacks were immigrants from Africa, the rest being native born. A higher % of whites were immigrants at the time



Please read my op in education. Slaves were better educated in america than anywhere in Africa. Please read my op before posting.


I've tried, but... good lord, that post is long.


ah, scratch the above, i cant blame you, i agree. Sorry.


and what was the penalty for whites who raped whites? usually the death penalty.



Segregation as wanted by both whites and blacks is an evil?.


Ad hominem
it was first link that came up in google. No i am saying some people want segregation. The greatest of evil, so i am told.


No we're not, Old World slavery lacked many of the characteristics that made American slavery what it is, as I've covered in previous posts. The helots of Sparta maybe come close, but they were a conquered people who grew crops to feed the elite, they weren't captives from another continent hauled in to grow cash crops for export, and they only ever made up a polis-sized population. Slaves under the Roman Empire had higher odds of manumission, were employed in a wider range of fields (Polybius, the political theorist and tutor, was a slave), could intermarry with free people and had much more robust legal protections than American slaves would have. Similarly slaves in the Muslim world came from diverse origins and many served in government office or the military, not as laborers. In tribal societies slaves were collected as a display of wealth, not to generate it. You could maybe argue the lower castes of Indian or Japanese society would count, but again these covered diverse professions and although they were marginalized, their quality of life could be pretty high, and were also ethnically identical to other castes. American slavery is a special case, in scale, scope and basic nature.


Thus proving yet again what I said. When we are told of slavery in the south, we are really reading of slavery thousands of years ago in another country. I would like you to disprove me and prove your above statements.

[O'Hea]

Good God, my entire family are rural southerners and I've never come across such a determined apologist for slavery in my whole life. I have relatives who fly the rebel flag but even they won't defend slavery.

I was using you own claim of the stockholm syndrome [now ss] and directing as it does to oppressed and victimized persons. Given their treatment by their captives in concentration camps is worse than slavery, than they should in fact even more so speak good of the nazies. Of course we know this is not so and hopefully we can admit the ss is crap, and built on assumptions and worldview philosophy.

Stockholm Syndrome does not mean the worse you are treated, the more you like your captors. It means that when someone has absolute power to harm you, any restraint on their part seems like a huge act of kindness, and any genuine kindness all the more so. When you know other slaves are getting whipped raw and your master could do the same to you, he seems like a saint for not doing it. And, again, the huge difference between a free person enslaved, and someone born into slavery.

I also must add you have mistaken the slave narratives as people who never knew what freedom was, because you have not read what you criticize and reject. Your worldview must reject slaves liking slavery, so you will find any excuse needed, even to go so far as ss. Had you read what you reject, you would see sometimes the salves interviewed did not even remember slavery, given they were young when they were freed. But the slaves had lived in freedom more than slavery, had free relatives, friends and were all eventually freed, thus they can compare both freedom and slavery. i suggest you at the very leas, read up on something to get the basics before rejecting them. You have also made multiple claims above, yet have not supported, so I must of know consider claims such as "The only religious messages they were permitted to receive were "pie in the sky" stories about how their subservience would be rewarded and how they should be grateful for the civilized Christian life they'd been given" wishful thinking. Given the documents themselves had you read, would show this wrong. I would also let you in that the north, the south, slaves, masters, English, Spanish, scientist, abolitionist, historians, Africans, slave traders, missionaries to Africa all would agree, the slaves in america was far superior in treatment, than in Africa. What you call brainwashing, the rest call reality.

No, I realize that they're former slaves writing after emancipation. I gave a very long example of how I thought the thought process of a person like that could have gone. And by "free" I mean, for example, the lives of free, literate blacks in the North or West, or in other Western countries.

You need to say just directly: why was emancipation worse for blacks than slavery? Was it because they as a people were unprepared or undeserving of freedom, or was it because of how whites reacted to their freedom? Don't beat around the bush on this.

The second paragraph I actually agree very close with. Multiple false assumptions of race relations in antebellum america, but i shall let that go. the claim millions left the south I would like to see support for. That is actually related to a upcoming thread i will do.

So we've established that the years following emancipation were marked by mass exodus out of the South on one hand, and widespread violence against those who stayed on the other. This is not a happy, peaceful, benign society. So what, are you going to suggest that everything was going fine under slavery, and the Union ruined it by giving blacks suffrage and basic legal protections? Do you think modern African American social problems have their origins during, or after slavery? I think you're dangerously close to suggesting that blacks were 'better off' under white tutelage.


This seems to be a recurring thing with you, you make a claim, act like its fact with nothing to back it up. Please provide support if you are to make a claim. There was no mass Exodus from the south, blacks knew they were treated better in the south [read op and also future thread for numbers and more in depth]. I think you may be drawing us off topic. Those are good questions but lets finish our first, if you read my op you may find the answers within. The questions is was american slavery one of the worst crimes in humanity history as you suggested.

https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml...t/aopart5.html
"After the Civil War there was a general exodus of blacks from the South. These migrants became known as "Exodusters" and the migration became known as the "Exoduster" movement. Some applied to be part of colonization projects to Liberia and locations outside the United States; others were willing to move north and west. "

"The atlas for the 1890 census includes this map showing the percentage of "colored" to the total population for each county. Although the heaviest concentrations are overwhelmingly in Maryland, Virginia, and the southeastern states, there appear to be emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...ican_American)
"The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million blacks out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1910 and 1970."
"The primary push factors for migration were segregation, increase in racism, the widespread violence of lynching(nearly 3,500 African-Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968^[10]), and lack of social and economic opportunities in the South."

Almost all modern concentrations of African Americans outside the South originated during the era of Segregation. Where did you think they came from, if not from a movement of millions of blacks following abolition?

They're cherry-picked in that they're anecdotal. Four quotes do not represent all the millions of American slaves. And I did not deny that the quotes are real, nor did I accuse the people who said them of lying. I'm saying that those are based on the combination of nostalgia (an incredibly powerful force on the human mind), the harsh treatment they experienced as free people, and the ways that they had been psychologically conditioned under slavery.

If you get around to reading my op you will find dozens of quotes, than in the apendex many, many more. But i agree you can find horrible quotes in them as well, but we never hear of the kind of quotes i posted. The rest i would say has very little legit, and mostly all worldview and does not apply for reasons i gave this post and last. i do agree life after slavery was generally not good at all. One example is food, even terrible treated slaves who hated the master, still often talked good of all the food. because it was hard to provide post slaver compared to slavery.But that does not make the true good times during slavery false, would you agree?.

You mean racist landlords took better care of "property" than "employees?" Say it ain't so. There's two ways you can go with this line of argument: either slavery was somehow a more efficient and productive economic system than wage labor or sharecropping, leading to higher standards of living (that'll be a hard sell), or wealthy white people paid free blacks less in wages than they would have previously provided slaves in rations. Seems like they cared more about their worker's nutrition back when they owned all the offspring, go figure?

That is the whole point, they are slaves, yet treated well and happy... generally. Read my entire op you will find northerns,solders, abolitionist, Europeans all saying the same thing [more to come as well in next thread].

Ok, this is an important distinction that needs to be made: mankind has spent most of our existence living in caves, wearing skins, and eating only what we could kill or pick up off the ground. If ancient humans could live happily then African slaves could too, from a strictly material standpoint. Our ability to endure hardship is tremendous and we can adapt to almost any material circumstances- it's just the changes that are jarring for us.

Now here's the really important part: it's contradictory to say that because slaves were sometimes happy, slavery was defensible, because it means that masters could have worked the land themselves, or hired free workers to do it, with no meaningful change in the amount of happiness in the world. There's no way that slaves were happy while they were dying of disease in Barbados, or being whipped, raped or executed in the US, and all that misery could have been avoided if whites had just worked their own ****ing land. Whether you realize it or not, you're arguing or a two-tiered morality; blacks should be grateful for whatever they've got, while whites should get as much as they can. Blacks should be happy just to have balanced diets while whites should be happy to make fortunes on the back of unfree labor. These are completely opposite standards.

Ok I am sorry I missed you were referring to the slave trade, not slavery in the south. i cant argue with you on that can i?. I would just say that only 6% of slaves that were shipped from Africa west, came to america, most went to Jamaica, Brazil etc.

That's an extremely generous way to look at millions of people being deprived of all knowledge of their own origins and forced to accept their master's faith and customs. There's no getting around the fact that they were taken against their will, and they lost their cultures against their will. And again, a unique trait of American slavery was the strong aversion to letting them become literate.

Yes they were taken against their will, yes by fellow africans who had enslaved them in terrible conditions, yes their lives improved drastically when they came to america. In all honesty, i never read one that though pagan, cannibalistic, brutal ,slave obsessed, west Africa was paradise.

The idea that Africans were a bunch of ignorant cannibals is one of the oldest slurs there is. Between this, your interpretation of the Mizzou events, and not knowing about the Great Migration I'm starting to wonder if all your knowledge of black culture comes from Birth of a Nation and classic Disney cartoons. Are there isolated incidents of cannibalism in Africa into the present day? Yes. Was it a fact of life for a typical West African person? No. Was slavery widespread in West Africa? Yes. Good thing they weren't brought to places where slaves could make up a third to a half of the local population, right? (source: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-...united-states/) Don't even get me started on the gentle treatment they experienced in the wonderful Southlands, where they were only occasionally beaten to death for insubordination! Oh, the gratitude they must have felt!

“It was mercy brought me from my pagan land” [Senegal]

-Slave Phillis Wheatley

“Some blacks kept there pagan ways, had whites not curbed their mumbo-jumboism [paganism] it would not be safe to go out his door at night”
-Rias Body Georgia slave narratives

“Ifit wasn't for the influence of the white race in the South, the Negro race wold revert to savagery within a year! why, if they knew for dead certain thir is not a policeman or officer of the law in Columbus tonight, the good Lord only knows what they'd,do tonight”
-Uncle Wash Georgia Slave Narratives

Dude, are you ****ing serious? You're a true believer in all this "we gave them civilization" garbage? There was no element of kindness or generosity in this. We brought them over for our own profit and we imposed a certain culture on them to make them easier to control. Again, you'll find people full of sincere, uncoerced praise for brutal regimes all over the world, you don't need unanimous misery for a regime to be immoral.

Start on page 38, you will see why slaves in america dont like Africa, from a slave in both Africa and america.
http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mesn/001/111.pdf

So Africa is bad, therefore it's ok to bring people across the ocean in chains, with many of them dying in the process, so that they and their descendants can make money for your and your descendants in perpetuity? You don't see how this is 100% a post-hoc justification for a decision that was made out of pure, unadulterated self-interest? A lie to mask the fundamental wrongness and injustice of your society? Maybe even self-deception by slaves who knew there was no going back either way? You just accept all this at face value?

Please read post 2 on this thread, it is short and will give more info on Africa vs america Also if you dislike loss of culture, than you should hate the slaves were freed. The slave culture and music especially was largely lost.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymns-P...s=battle+hymns

Also to claim they had no knowledge of their origins of customs, again i would suggest slave narratives. Good and bad customs came and stayed with them in america. Another book you may want would be this one
http://www.amazon.com/Roll-Jordan-Wo.../dp/0394716523

I should hate that the slaves were freed because they stopped singing certain songs? I'm able to prioritize human freedom over popular culture.

The books do look interesting but they're not to the point. The point being, at least since the end of the slave trade African Americans have had no way of knowing the names, languages, faiths, or cultures of their African ancestors. The best they can get is using DNA testing to figure out the rough area their ancestors came from and make educated guesses from there. In contrast I can know exactly where my ancestors were a thousand years ago because they weren't forced to abandon their identity in order to survive in America (the perks of being from northern Europe).

Native born American blacks

In 1860, only 1% of blacks were immigrants from Africa, the rest being native born. A higher % of whites were immigrants at the time

Yes, the slave trade was banned by the US in 1820 and from that time onwards almost all slaves were born in the US. But the nature of the slave trade is absolutely relevant to our moral assessment of American slavery. The high mortality rate that was accepted as part of the trade shows how profitable the trade was and how little the lives of individual slaves were valued.

Please read my op in education. Slaves were better educated in america than anywhere in Africa. Please read my op before posting.

By what measure? They had somebody read the Bible to them sometimes and some of them learned a craft. The fact that people living in Africa rarely had the opportunity to become literate is not a valid comparison to slaves being actively forbidden from becoming literate in a society that had higher overall literacy rates.

Segregation as wanted by both whites and blacks is an evil?.

If my choices were segregation or genocide, I'd probably take segregation too. Blacks didn't have a real choice. They had to make decisions based on the fact that white society flat-out refused to accept them as equals and was willing to use violence to keep them "in their place."

[quote]Ad hominem
it was first link that came up in google. No i am saying some people want segregation. The greatest of evil, so i am told.[quote]
The idea that a group of black people wanted to take a couple hours to talk about their problems with other black people is not calling for segregation. I don't even know how much further I can break this down for you, are you obligated to invite everyone you know to every conversation you have?

And yes, that was an ad hominem against Alex Jones. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and a bona fide crazy person. I'll stand by that.

Thus proving yet again what I said. When we are told of slavery in the south, we are really reading of slavery thousands of years ago in another country. I would like you to disprove me and prove your above statements.

What? I just went over how old forms of slavery often had some, but never had all of the characteristics of American slavery. There are differences. They are not the same.

EDIT:
You've come up with examples of "happy slaves," I thought I should give you a counterexample. This is what it means to be happy in a society where you're not seen as an equal human being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93iz98-BDvw
"Some call me Booker, some call me John, some call me Jim. Some call me !"
"I always learned to smile. The meaner the man be, the more you smile, although you're crying on the inside. You wonder, what else can I do?"
"I lay down at night and I dream about what I had to go through. I don't want my children to go through that."

[twc01]

Please remember, that what we are disusing is was american slavery one of the greatest of evils. That is what we were originally discussing. Please stay on that and support, than we can move on. Also thanks for tacking interest in southern slavery, I think your the first, most has been on world history and slavery.

Good God, my entire family are rural southerners and I've never come across such a determined apologist for slavery in my whole life. I have relatives who fly the rebel flag but even they won't defend slavery.


Stockholm Syndrome does not mean the worse you are treated, the more you like your captors. It means that when someone has absolute power to harm you, any restraint on their part seems like a huge act of kindness, and any genuine kindness all the more so. When you know other slaves are getting whipped raw and your master could do the same to you, he seems like a saint for not doing it. And, again, the huge difference between a free person enslaved, and someone born into slavery.


No, I realize that they're former slaves writing after emancipation. I gave a very long example of how I thought the thought process of a person like that could have gone. And by "free" I mean, for example, the lives of free, literate blacks in the North or West, or in other Western countries.

You need to say just directly: why was emancipation worse for blacks than slavery? Was it because they as a people were unprepared or undeserving of freedom, or was it because of how whites reacted to their freedom? Don't beat around the bush on this.


https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml...t/aopart5.html
"After the Civil War there was a general exodus of blacks from the South. These migrants became known as "Exodusters" and the migration became known as the "Exoduster" movement. Some applied to be part of colonization projects to Liberia and locations outside the United States; others were willing to move north and west. "

"The atlas for the 1890 census includes this map showing the percentage of "colored" to the total population for each county. Although the heaviest concentrations are overwhelmingly in Maryland, Virginia, and the southeastern states, there appear to be emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...ican_American)
"The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million blacks out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1910 and 1970."
"The primary push factors for migration were segregation, increase in racism, the widespread violence of lynching(nearly 3,500 African-Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968^[10]), and lack of social and economic opportunities in the South."

Almost all modern concentrations of African Americans outside the South originated during the era of Segregation. Where did you think they came from, if not from a movement of millions of blacks following abolition?


You mean racist landlords took better care of "property" than "employees?" Say it ain't so. There's two ways you can go with this line of argument: either slavery was somehow a more efficient and productive economic system than wage labor or sharecropping, leading to higher standards of living (that'll be a hard sell), or wealthy white people paid free blacks less in wages than they would have previously provided slaves in rations. Seems like they cared more about their worker's nutrition back when they owned all the offspring, go figure?



Ok, this is an important distinction that needs to be made: mankind has spent most of our existence living in caves, wearing skins, and eating only what we could kill or pick up off the ground. If ancient humans could live happily then African slaves could too, from a strictly material standpoint. Our ability to endure hardship is tremendous and we can adapt to almost any material circumstances- it's just the changes that are jarring for us.

Now here's the really important part: it's contradictory to say that because slaves were sometimes happy, slavery was defensible, because it means that masters could have worked the land themselves, or hired free workers to do it, with no meaningful change in the amount of happiness in the world. There's no way that slaves were happy while they were dying of disease in Barbados, or being whipped, raped or executed in the US, and all that misery could have been avoided if whites had just worked their own ****ing land. Whether you realize it or not, you're arguing or a two-tiered morality; blacks should be grateful for whatever they've got, while whites should get as much as they can. Blacks should be happy just to have balanced diets while whites should be happy to make fortunes on the back of unfree labor. These are completely opposite standards.


The idea that Africans were a bunch of ignorant cannibals is one of the oldest slurs there is. Between this, your interpretation of the Mizzou events, and not knowing about the Great Migration I'm starting to wonder if all your knowledge of black culture comes from Birth of a Nation and classic Disney cartoons. Are there isolated incidents of cannibalism in Africa into the present day? Yes. Was it a fact of life for a typical West African person? No. Was slavery widespread in West Africa? Yes. Good thing they weren't brought to places where slaves could make up a third to a half of the local population, right? (source: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-...united-states/) Don't even get me started on the gentle treatment they experienced in the wonderful Southlands, where they were only occasionally beaten to death for insubordination! Oh, the gratitude they must have felt!


Dude, are you ****ing serious? You're a true believer in all this "we gave them civilization" garbage? There was no element of kindness or generosity in this. We brought them over for our own profit and we imposed a certain culture on them to make them easier to control. Again, you'll find people full of sincere, uncoerced praise for brutal regimes all over the world, you don't need unanimous misery for a regime to be immoral.


So Africa is bad, therefore it's ok to bring people across the ocean in chains, with many of them dying in the process, so that they and their descendants can make money for your and your descendants in perpetuity? You don't see how this is 100% a post-hoc justification for a decision that was made out of pure, unadulterated self-interest? A lie to mask the fundamental wrongness and injustice of your society? Maybe even self-deception by slaves who knew there was no going back either way? You just accept all this at face value?


I should hate that the slaves were freed because they stopped singing certain songs? I'm able to prioritize human freedom over popular culture.

The books do look interesting but they're not to the point. The point being, at least since the end of the slave trade African Americans have had no way of knowing the names, languages, faiths, or cultures of their African ancestors. The best they can get is using DNA testing to figure out the rough area their ancestors came from and make educated guesses from there. In contrast I can know exactly where my ancestors were a thousand years ago because they weren't forced to abandon their identity in order to survive in America (the perks of being from northern Europe).


Yes, the slave trade was banned by the US in 1820 and from that time onwards almost all slaves were born in the US. But the nature of the slave trade is absolutely relevant to our moral assessment of American slavery. The high mortality rate that was accepted as part of the trade shows how profitable the trade was and how little the lives of individual slaves were valued.


By what measure? They had somebody read the Bible to them sometimes and some of them learned a craft. The fact that people living in Africa rarely had the opportunity to become literate is not a valid comparison to slaves being actively forbidden from becoming literate in a society that had higher overall literacy rates.


If my choices were segregation or genocide, I'd probably take segregation too. Blacks didn't have a real choice. They had to make decisions based on the fact that white society flat-out refused to accept them as equals and was willing to use violence to keep them "in their place."

Ad hominem
it was first link that came up in google. No i am saying some people want segregation. The greatest of evil, so i am told.
The idea that a group of black people wanted to take a couple hours to talk about their problems with other black people is not calling for segregation. I don't even know how much further I can break this down for you, are you obligated to invite everyone you know to every conversation you have?

And yes, that was an ad hominem against Alex Jones. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and a bona fide crazy person. I'll stand by that.


What? I just went over how old forms of slavery often had some, but never had all of the characteristics of American slavery. There are differences. They are not the same.

You've come up with examples of "happy slaves," I thought I should give you a counterexample. This is what it means to be happy in a society where you're not seen as an equal human being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93iz98-BDvw
"Some call me Booker, some call me John, some call me Jim. Some call me !"
"I always learned to smile. The meaner the man be, the more you smile, although you're crying on the inside. You wonder, what else can I do?"
"I lay down at night and I dream about what I had to go through. I don't want my children to go through that."

Funny how a Vermonter will, yet a southerner like yourself will misrepresent it. Seems odd, maybe we should not stereotype people based on where they live?. yet i am not defending slavery, just telling the parts of slavery no one in our generation gets to hear about. I speak for those slaves who endured slavery, for those who observed it in their day, well at least many of them that go unheard of today.



Born in slavery and than freed for decades. Plus many slaves did not have other masters to compare with. Just their own. Just because a master could be bad, does not make a good master not good, that does not follow. Just because a master could use a whip and chose not to, does not conclude that that the master was not a gunine great guy, in fact it is likely evidence that he was a great guy. I have already given reasons to reject ss in general but especially with the slave narratives. guess we must agree to disagree. My guess when they speak bad of masters and slavery you will assume they have perfect unfiltered memory. But so long as whenever you are faced with historical documents from a slave or viewer of slavery, you turn into some odd psychologist to tell us why what is being said does not actually give evidence to what is said, than historical evidence is not the authority. Your worldview determines what historical evidence is allowed or not. I am of the opinion that the historical evidence should drive the worldview, not the other way around.


You need to say just directly: why was emancipation worse for blacks than slavery? Was it because they as a people were unprepared or undeserving of freedom, or was it because of how whites reacted to their freedom? Don't beat around the bush on this.

Please read op.



https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml...t/aopart5.html
"After the Civil War there was a general exodus of blacks from the South. These migrants became known as "Exodusters" and the migration became known as the "Exoduster" movement. Some applied to be part of colonization projects to Liberia and locations outside the United States; others were willing to move north and west. "

"The atlas for the 1890 census includes this map showing the percentage of "colored" to the total population for each county. Although the heaviest concentrations are overwhelmingly in Maryland, Virginia, and the southeastern states, there appear to be emerging concentrations in the northern urban areas (New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago), southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, and scattered areas in the West (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California), reflecting migration patterns that began during Reconstruction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...ican_American)
"The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million blacks out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1910 and 1970."
"The primary push factors for migration were segregation, increase in racism, the widespread violence of lynching(nearly 3,500 African-Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968^[10]), and lack of social and economic opportunities in the South."

Almost all modern concentrations of African Americans outside the South originated during the era of Segregation. Where did you think they came from, if not from a movement of millions of blacks following abolition?Two things, no stats were given for the time period we are discussing of the civil war and reconstruction. I will however give those stats in my next thread. Second when stats are given its over a 60 year period up to 110 years after the civil war. The same time period mass southerners [whites] moved into big cities. reasons have nothing to do with the civil war and slavery.


There's two ways you can go with this line of argument: either slavery was somehow a more efficient and productive economic system than wage labor or sharecropping, leading to higher standards of living (that'll be a hard sell), or wealthy white people paid free blacks less in wages than they would have previously provided slaves in rations.


Read op. Slave labor was good business. Great book here
https://books.google.com/books?id=ScpPBinpzwoC


Now here's the really important part: it's contradictory to say that because slaves were sometimes happy, slavery was defensible, because it means that masters could have worked the land themselves, or hired free workers to do it, with no meaningful change in the amount of happiness in the world. There's no way that slaves were happy while they were dying of disease in Barbados, or being whipped, raped or executed in the US, and all that misery could have been avoided if whites had just worked their own ****ing land. Whether you realize it or not, you're arguing or a two-tiered morality; blacks should be grateful for whatever they've got, while whites should get as much as they can. Blacks should be happy just to have balanced diets while whites should be happy to make fortunes on the back of unfree labor. These are completely opposite standards.


My point was not that slavery produced ultimate happiness. But that slavery in america was not one of the worst of evils as you suggested it was. Also i never meant to say slaves were better off than their owners were. I have said that slaves were generally happy, treated far better than had they never entered american slavery and remained enslaved in Africa. I do set a different standard for the slave from Africa to the free born american white because they came from different starting positions.


he idea that Africans were a bunch of ignorant cannibals is one of the oldest slurs there is. Between this, your interpretation of the Mizzou events, and not knowing about the Great Migration I'm starting to wonder if all your knowledge of black culture comes from Birth of a Nation and classic Disney cartoons. Are there isolated incidents of cannibalism in Africa into the present day? Yes. Was it a fact of life for a typical West African person? No. Was slavery widespread in West Africa? Yes. Good thing they weren't brought to places where slaves could make up a third to a half of the local population, right? (source: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-...united-states/) Don't even get me started on the gentle treatment they experienced in the wonderful Southlands, where they were only occasionally beaten to death for insubordination! Oh, the gratitude they must have felt!


Africans were cannibalistic pagans and had very,very low education levels at the time. You can reject it all you want. It still holds comparatively the same today. Blacks in america were and still are educated better than in africa. I dont count a "great migration" of whites and blacks [more to do with industrialization] 110 years after the fact, for just those reasons. Were are disusing slavery in america.

Slaves in Africa made up close to 70-90% of the population. The slaves in america as you admit were not shipped here, they were well taken care of and the family unit encouraged, this led to large populations and life span of southern blacks and large numbers. this is a indicator of good treatment. The family is imo a good thing. Yet i can find numerous examples of wives killing husbands and husbands wives and children etc etc truly horribly things happen within the family unit. This does not make the family unit bad, just some acts within. Just because sometimes bad things happened in slavery, we done than conclude falsify it was all that way.

Otherwise I could point to one great example of slavery and if you were to be consistent, you must conclude all slavery was great. This and the fact you seem no need to support your claims are great inconstancy in your arguments, generally that shows your argument fails.


Dude, are you ****ing serious? You're a true believer in all this "we gave them civilization" garbage? There was no element of kindness or generosity in this. We brought them over for our own profit and we imposed a certain culture on them to make them easier to control. Again, you'll find people full of sincere, uncoerced praise for brutal regimes all over the world, you don't need unanimous misery for a regime to be immoral.


I believe fact. I think instead of calling me crazy, you should wonder why my slaves, Africans, Europeans, northern, southerns, scientist, abolitionist and historians agree with me, while you have no support for your view.The same fact your worldview wont allow, slaves in america were much better off than being a slave in Africa [read op for more.]


So Africa is bad, therefore it's ok to bring people across the ocean in chains, with many of them dying in the process, so that they and their descendants can make money for your and your descendants in perpetuity? You don't see how this is 100% a post-hoc justification for a decision that was made out of pure, unadulterated self-interest? A lie to mask the fundamental wrongness and injustice of your society? Maybe even self-deception by slaves who knew there was no going back either way? You just accept all this at face value?


All i did was have a slave of Africa and america exspalin what Africa was like. The question is was american slavery one of the worst of evils. You will never stay within american slavery, we can move on after.



You missed the point. I was simply saying a loss of slavery was a loss of culture in america, therefore you cannot also say that is a reason [loss of culture] slavery is so evil. Plus as I sated, African culture was brought here in many ways and a new culture as well "progressive", "new"..I am told this is better than old fashion cut lure]




I am speaking of slavery within the american south, not the few brought by northern slave traders. The american slave trade was banned 1808. just the opposite of your conclusion is true. however does not have to do with slavery within the us so we can get to that later.




Just comparing literacy rates in america and Africa. As i said, better educated in america.




As would I. Not sure why its such a great evil still? look at africa in the day, lots of blacks, not sure if blacks being with blacks is evil, still not sure how that makes sense. Unless you see blacks as evil?. Why today do blacks have all black churches, schools, spaces etc? must be no choice evil white men doing it. it also does not disprove that blacks wanted segregation at the time.




Again Ad hominem, is a logical fallacy [ generally seen as bad and illogical, because it is ] and does not disprove that blacks want segregation today.



Great historical example of a unhappy slave. I promise not to turn into a pseudo psychologist, come up with a wild theory and claim it cannot be taken at face value. Instead i will be a historian who accepts facts, weather good and bad, than adjust my worldview to fit said facts. Thus my conclusion is great evils happened in slavery in america, so did great goods. Slavery was both evil and good. Circumstances decided and slavery varied greatly. i ask that you accept historical fact as well.

[O'Hea]

Please remember, that what we are disusing is was american slavery one of the greatest of evils. That is what we were originally discussing. Please stay on that and support, than we can move on. Also thanks for tacking interest in southern slavery, I think your the first, most has been on world history and slavery.

Funny how a Vermonter will, yet a southerner like yourself will misrepresent it. Seems odd, maybe we should not stereotype people based on where they live?. yet i am not defending slavery, just telling the parts of slavery no one in our generation gets to hear about. I speak for those slaves who endured slavery, for those who observed it in their day, well at least many of them that go unheard of today.

Born in slavery and than freed for decades. Plus many slaves did not have other masters to compare with. Just their own. Just because a master could be bad, does not make a good master not good, that does not follow. Just because a master could use a whip and chose not to, does not conclude that that the master was not a gunine great guy, in fact it is likely evidence that he was a great guy. I have already given reasons to reject ss in general but especially with the slave narratives. guess we must agree to disagree. My guess when they speak bad of masters and slavery you will assume they have perfect unfiltered memory. But so long as whenever you are faced with historical documents from a slave or viewer of slavery, you turn into some odd psychologist to tell us why what is being said does not actually give evidence to what is said, than historical evidence is not the authority. Your worldview determines what historical evidence is allowed or not. I am of the opinion that the historical evidence should drive the worldview, not the other way around.

Please read op.

Two things, no stats were given for the time period we are discussing of the civil war and reconstruction. I will however give those stats in my next thread. Second when stats are given its over a 60 year period up to 110 years after the civil war. The same time period mass southerners [whites] moved into big cities. reasons have nothing to do with the civil war and slavery.

Read op. Slave labor was good business. Great book here
https://books.google.com/books?id=ScpPBinpzwoC

My point was not that slavery produced ultimate happiness. But that slavery in america was not one of the worst of evils as you suggested it was. Also i never meant to say slaves were better off than their owners were. I have said that slaves were generally happy, treated far better than had they never entered american slavery and remained enslaved in Africa. I do set a different standard for the slave from Africa to the free born american white because they came from different starting positions.

Africans were cannibalistic pagans and had very,very low education levels at the time. You can reject it all you want. It still holds comparatively the same today. Blacks in america were and still are educated better than in africa. I dont count a "great migration" of whites and blacks [more to do with industrialization] 110 years after the fact, for just those reasons. Were are disusing slavery in america.

Slaves in Africa made up close to 70-90% of the population. The slaves in america as you admit were not shipped here, they were well taken care of and the family unit encouraged, this led to large populations and life span of southern blacks and large numbers. this is a indicator of good treatment. The family is imo a good thing. Yet i can find numerous examples of wives killing husbands and husbands wives and children etc etc truly horribly things happen within the family unit. This does not make the family unit bad, just some acts within. Just because sometimes bad things happened in slavery, we done than conclude falsify it was all that way.

Otherwise I could point to one great example of slavery and if you were to be consistent, you must conclude all slavery was great. This and the fact you seem no need to support your claims are great inconstancy in your arguments, generally that shows your argument fails.

I believe fact. I think instead of calling me crazy, you should wonder why my slaves, Africans, Europeans, northern, southerns, scientist, abolitionist and historians agree with me, while you have no support for your view.The same fact your worldview wont allow, slaves in america were much better off than being a slave in Africa [read op for more.]

All i did was have a slave of Africa and america exspalin what Africa was like. The question is was american slavery one of the worst of evils. You will never stay within american slavery, we can move on after.

You missed the point. I was simply saying a loss of slavery was a loss of culture in america, therefore you cannot also say that is a reason [loss of culture] slavery is so evil. Plus as I sated, African culture was brought here in many ways and a new culture as well "progressive", "new"..I am told this is better than old fashion cut lure]

I am speaking of slavery within the american south, not the few brought by northern slave traders. The american slave trade was banned 1808. just the opposite of your conclusion is true. however does not have to do with slavery within the us so we can get to that later.

Just comparing literacy rates in america and Africa. As i said, better educated in america.

As would I. Not sure why its such a great evil still? look at africa in the day, lots of blacks, not sure if blacks being with blacks is evil, still not sure how that makes sense. Unless you see blacks as evil?. Why today do blacks have all black churches, schools, spaces etc? must be no choice evil white men doing it. it also does not disprove that blacks wanted segregation at the time.

Again Ad hominem, is a logical fallacy [ generally seen as bad and illogical, because it is ] and does not disprove that blacks want segregation today.

Great historical example of a unhappy slave. I promise not to turn into a pseudo psychologist, come up with a wild theory and claim it cannot be taken at face value. Instead i will be a historian who accepts facts, weather good and bad, than adjust my worldview to fit said facts. Thus my conclusion is great evils happened in slavery in america, so did great goods. Slavery was both evil and good. Circumstances decided and slavery varied greatly. i ask that you accept historical fact as well.

Ok, so this has fractured into a bunch of different parallel debates, and for the sake of clarity we can refocus it. I can do point-by-point counterarguments if you'd prefer but I think it's best to get right to the crux of all this.

The main line of argument goes- was American slavery an exceptional historical evil, or not? I'm starting from the belief that slavery is awful on general principle, and arguing that specific attributes of American slavery make it stand out from the pack compared to other examples. From a moral standpoint I rank it just below deliberate genocides like those carried out in the 20th century. And this assessment is made based on a holistic view of the act of enslaving people, the way slaves were treated, and the ongoing consequences of slavery into the present day. You've argued against this assessment basically by saying they're weren't treated that badly, and that they're better off here than they were in Africa. I'd be interested in hearing you list what you consider to be the greatest evils of history, and why.

You can call it stereotyping, but I don't believe a Vermonter has any appreciation of how Southern culture, for both whites and blacks, is still poisoned by the heritage of slavery. I think you got curious about the topic one day, started reading books, and found out what you'd previously been taught was oversimplified or unfair, and in looking into it you've been driven by the desire to disprove the 'common knowledge.' I don't think you know what it is to see hate or feel that the society around you is shaped by hate. And I think it's easy for you to give slavery a pass because it's a purely academic issue for you, your own life is in no way shaped by the institution or its consequences.

My great-grandfather was a cop in Mississippi in the 1930's, during what is known as "the nadir of American race relations." He eventually quit his job in protest over how the police treated blacks. I don't know what all he did as part of that job before he finally snapped and quit. I knew better than to ask. My parents have their own stories about how they didn't realize how much racism had influenced them until they finally left the South as adults. In high school, I went to prom with a black girl; after we took pictures my mom told me "they look great, but we can't let your grandmother see them." Every now and then I'll hear flashes of hateful, ignorant nonsense from decent people who should know better, including family. You don't know it, but you say a lot of the same things they do.

So, what did Southern whites get from slavery? Well, we got a feudal social structure, where a wealthy elite got to fancy themselves as knights and ladies while the rest of us lived in subsistence or cracked whips for them. We got an authoritarian political culture that embraces fanaticism and violence. We learned to be incredibly gracious and courteous to those who "knew their place" and absolutely brutal to those who were "uppity." We learned to nurse a deep resentment against the rest of the country. This was all aimed at slaves initially but it's become our culture, it's how we respond to everything now. Resentment, loathing, suspicion, the urge to lash out at anything deviant. This is the heritage that slavery left for me.

And this is just the impact on poor whites, the relative bystanders of slavery. How deep do you think the impact was on enslaved people? What do you think two centuries of servitude and a century more of segregation does to a people?

You talk about the long-run benefits of being here rather than in Africa as if we'd planned it that way all along, like we enslaved these people out of the goodness of our own hearts. Bull****. Whatever good came to blacks out of slavery was a happy accident. We brought them here for our own purposes. We didn't care how many died as long as we got our return. Even under segregation, which had the wholly-unintended consequence of enriching some black businessmen and creating a small black middle class, everything could be taken from them at a moment's notice. Fantastic example: Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Greenwood district formerly known as "the Black Wall Street." In 1921, in one night, over a thousand buildings were burnt to the ground, 10,000 blacks were left homeless, and dozens were murdered. Churches, schools and hospitals, all torched. No one was charged with a crime and life went on. This is the reality of segregation. If you were black, you were not meant to succeed, you were not meant to have dignity, you were not meant to feel secure. You were meant to live every moment of your life in fear. You were meant to hate yourself, to admire whites but never dare try to act like one. You were not "separate but equal."

You don't realize what a hideous lie you're spreading by denying this hate. For every source you can dig up, I can give you an atrocity. You show me quotes from happy slaves and I'll show you scarred black backs. You show me quotes about how blacks voluntarily accepted segregation and I'll show you charred, castrated black corpses hung up to keep segregation in place. You tell me, which of those is more real? Which do people remember, which ones affect them today?

I'll give you a hint: one of the biggest social movements in America right now is called "Black Lives Matter." Segregation ended 50 years ago and many people still don't feel like their lives are valued. They still feel like they can be shot in the back without consequences for the killer. They still worry that their children might walk the wrong way home one night, or give someone the wrong attitude, and pay for it with their lives. So are these people delusional, or have things not really changed?

This is what I'm getting at- you're far, far away from all this, looking up quotes on the internet. And I'm telling you the reality of post-slavery society. The benevolence is a lie. The hate is real.

[twc01]

I will respond to each paragraph with a paragraph and space in between to avoid any confusion. I also think we are finally talking to each other here and seeking to understand, thanks. I would ask that you do take the time to read my op. You have spent far more time in responses [thank you] but i think if you read, you will gain a better perspective of where I stand, than you could more directly respond to my stance.

Ok, so this has fractured into a bunch of different parallel debates, and for the sake of clarity we can refocus it. I can do point-by-point counterarguments if you'd prefer but I think it's best to get right to the crux of all this.

The main line of argument goes- was American slavery an exceptional historical evil, or not? I'm starting from the belief that slavery is awful on general principle, and arguing that specific attributes of American slavery make it stand out from the pack compared to other examples. From a moral standpoint I rank it just below deliberate genocides like those carried out in the 20th century. And this assessment is made based on a holistic view of the act of enslaving people, the way slaves were treated, and the ongoing consequences of slavery into the present day. You've argued against this assessment basically by saying they're weren't treated that badly, and that they're better off here than they were in Africa. I'd be interested in hearing you list what you consider to be the greatest evils of history, and why.

You can call it stereotyping, but I don't believe a Vermonter has any appreciation of how Southern culture, for both whites and blacks, is still poisoned by the heritage of slavery. I think you got curious about the topic one day, started reading books, and found out what you'd previously been taught was oversimplified or unfair, and in looking into it you've been driven by the desire to disprove the 'common knowledge.' I don't think you know what it is to see hate or feel that the society around you is shaped by hate. And I think it's easy for you to give slavery a pass because it's a purely academic issue for you, your own life is in no way shaped by the institution or its consequences.

My great-grandfather was a cop in Mississippi in the 1930's, during what is known as "the nadir of American race relations." He eventually quit his job in protest over how the police treated blacks. I don't know what all he did as part of that job before he finally snapped and quit. I knew better than to ask. My parents have their own stories about how they didn't realize how much racism had influenced them until they finally left the South as adults. In high school, I went to prom with a black girl; after we took pictures my mom told me "they look great, but we can't let your grandmother see them." Every now and then I'll hear flashes of hateful, ignorant nonsense from decent people who should know better, including family. You don't know it, but you say a lot of the same things they do.

So, what did Southern whites get from slavery? Well, we got a feudal social structure, where a wealthy elite got to fancy themselves as knights and ladies while the rest of us lived in subsistence or cracked whips for them. We got an authoritarian political culture that embraces fanaticism and violence. We learned to be incredibly gracious and courteous to those who "knew their place" and absolutely brutal to those who were "uppity." We learned to nurse a deep resentment against the rest of the country. This was all aimed at slaves initially but it's become our culture, it's how we respond to everything now. Resentment, loathing, suspicion, the urge to lash out at anything deviant. This is the heritage that slavery left for me.

And this is just the impact on poor whites, the relative bystanders of slavery. How deep do you think the impact was on enslaved people? What do you think two centuries of servitude and a century more of segregation does to a people?

You talk about the long-run benefits of being here rather than in Africa as if we'd planned it that way all along, like we enslaved these people out of the goodness of our own hearts. Bull****. Whatever good came to blacks out of slavery was a happy accident. We brought them here for our own purposes. We didn't care how many died as long as we got our return. Even under segregation, which had the wholly-unintended consequence of enriching some black businessmen and creating a small black middle class, everything could be taken from them at a moment's notice. Fantastic example: Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Greenwood district formerly known as "the Black Wall Street." In 1921, in one night, over a thousand buildings were burnt to the ground, 10,000 blacks were left homeless, and dozens were murdered. Churches, schools and hospitals, all torched. No one was charged with a crime and life went on. This is the reality of segregation. If you were black, you were not meant to succeed, you were not meant to have dignity, you were not meant to feel secure. You were meant to live every moment of your life in fear. You were meant to hate yourself, to admire whites but never dare try to act like one. You were not "separate but equal."

You don't realize what a hideous lie you're spreading by denying this hate. For every source you can dig up, I can give you an atrocity. You show me quotes from happy slaves and I'll show you scarred black backs. You show me quotes about how blacks voluntarily accepted segregation and I'll show you charred, castrated black corpses hung up to keep segregation in place. You tell me, which of those is more real? Which do people remember, which ones affect them today?

I'll give you a hint: one of the biggest social movements in America right now is called "Black Lives Matter." Segregation ended 50 years ago and many people still don't feel like their lives are valued. They still feel like they can be shot in the back without consequences for the killer. They still worry that their children might walk the wrong way home one night, or give someone the wrong attitude, and pay for it with their lives. So are these people delusional, or have things not really changed?

This is what I'm getting at- you're far, far away from all this, looking up quotes on the internet. And I'm telling you the reality of post-slavery society. The benevolence is a lie. The hate is real.

I am glad to see we can agree with getting back to the original question, thanks.


I think this may be where we have missed each other. I was looking more to southern american slavery, not slavery as a whole, as in the slave trade, the principle of slavery etc. For example the idea of capturing and enslaving a person against his will to then ship on a very dangerous journey to america to be enslaved as Africans did, is a great evil we can agree with. What I am saying is slavery within america as practiced, generally is far from the great evils of history.You asked what my greatest evils in history are, i dont want this to lead down another rabbit hole and I have no put much thought into it. But if I had to, I would say Nazi Germany, communist Prussia, communist china and pol pot, child sacrifice, modern child sacrifice [abortion of millions] totalitarian governments, slavery as common in the world today and history and maybe persecution of Christians. I am sure i am missing a big one or two.


I think that could be great insight you gave and has likely much truth. I agree slavery impacts the whole country [more up here than you would think] still today. I think white guilt, race bating and racism are rampant in our day. In fact this will be the subject of a thread i will do in future on the lasting impacts of slavery today and how it is used and abused in today's society often by politicians. I agree slavery has had negative effects, however i think american slavery elevated the African at the time he first came here, and has lasting beneficial effects to blacks in america today, over their African counterparts. That I think we disagree upon and can discus, but i hope we can first conclude was slavery within america a great evil.


That is sad story. But just to be clear i am not saying racism is not a reality than or now. Blacks have vast amounts of racism against whites today leading to violent crimes [Future thread] , Largely because of what they are taught [ misrepresented] about slavery. Whites and blacks always have had racism against each other. Whites enslaved whites, blacks enslaved whites blacks enslaves blacks, native enslaves natives, whites and blacks etc etc. Slavery was driven by economics not racism. But again what we are discussing is slavery within america as it was at the time. If you read in my op "After the slaves were released, many slaves preferred slavery / Race relations worsen after slaves were freed" Near the bottom of post 1. You will see that racism increased after slavery ended much to do with how reconstruction was handled. From mutiple historians i have read 1880-1940 was the worst for race relations in america. This came after slavery.But I dont deny their was racism blacks against whites and whites against blacks during slavery and before.



I must disagree. Or at least ask for support and evidence, this may be your own limited perception influenced but many various things. I have been to Alabama mutiple times and must see i never came to that conclusion. However I hope we can agree this has gone way off topic.


I think the impact of slavery and life in america has greatly improved blacks in america over life and slavery in africa, where slavery lasted much longer than the 1860's. Segregation as stated, i dont see as an evil in any way for any race for the reasons i gave before.



I am sorry that i may have given that impression. I agree fully the good that came of slavery to blacks was a happy accident. You stated "We didn't care how many died as long as we got our return. ". I simply believe this untrue to all involved. I think you have here a unsupported predjduce that certainty does not match the slaveholders of the south. Plus I think your criticism is aimed yet again at slave traders, not slavery within the america. You said "This is the reality of segregation. If you were black, you were not meant to succeed, you were not meant to have dignity, you were not meant to feel secure. You were meant to live every moment of your life in fear. You were meant to hate yourself, to admire whites but never dare try to act like one. You were not "separate but equal" This is a criticism of segregation but not really. Its a criticism against white on black violence. Segregation is simply a separation of the races. The fact that crimes were committed [blacks against whites and whites against blacks] has to do with violence, not segregation. Today 93% of interracial crimes the white is the victim, that has nothing to do with segregation or not. Violence will exist anywhere. You also always seem to point to one example and falsely paint the entirety as your one example. Thus i could show slavery was the best thing to ever happen to anyone anywhere, if we apply the same standard.



I would say the lie is when you and others select one example, than paint all of slavery or anything you dislike [southern whites] as if they were all like that. That seems racist indeed. What if i were to point out a black criminal, than declare they are all criminals. that would be called racists, that is what you do to slave holders and white southerners. Its just ok and politically correct today to be racist against them[future thread]. Plus you only speak evil of whites, what of black violence? what of black slave owners? not a peep from you. I dont deny you have hate or that blacks today dont have hate against whites and the other way around. All races have hate. But if we accept your standard, i could point to one of many slaves who compared masters and slavery to great times and haven. But more to the point of this thread, the great lie is how slavery today is told, i agree with the slave Alica on the greatest lie ever told.

“Does yo' know de cause of de war? Well hyar's de cause, dis Uncle Tom's Cabin wuz de cause of it all an' its' de biggest lie what ever been gived ter de public.”
-Alice Baugh North Carolina Slave Narratives



"Black Lives matter" lol. A group of racist blacks who care nothing of black lives. This will be more to a future topic i am doing, much of your post is. But as you even stated its not reality its how they "feel" ​So why do they "feel" this way? it is false information they are taught about slavery and other race related subjects. This as all for a future thread i am doing on white guilt [you have clearly swallowed up] and how slavery effects us today, race bating and many other things.



"The hate is real" You have shown that, southern whites are the group is ok to hate. The rest we need tolerance and diversity for. I think your real issue is not slavery but racism. I agree its a issue. We need to get back to the declaration of Independence and stop all this modern race relations stuff and all become american, no black, no white just americans all equal under the law and seen as such. the problem is politicians divide us into groups and create victim classes, we need to stop them from doing so. Also the teaching of evolution has greatly increase racism in the west [ talked about by other posters on this thread]. We should instead teach all were created equal by god. So long as people view us as evolved animals and diverged in our human family tree, racism will be around.



Conclusion

To our question of was american slavery a great evil. I must say you have not supported with actual data just false assumptions, double standards etc. You have not made any positive argument that represents slavery in america. So if you disagree with the following please exspalin why and support. Slavery within america was not a great evil because. Your objections are to the slave trade, racism, segregation, and violence, not towards southern slavery.


1] The condition of the enslaved black in america was a vast improvement over them while enslaved in africa. Americans did not enslave them they were already enslaved by african traders and sold to american traders.
2] blacks today enjoy better living than anywhere in Africa
3] The slaves diet, medical treatment, living quarters, life span, education , hours of labor, free time, spiritual needs, laws to protect them, [chance at freedom 0% in africa] all improved in america and were in most cases better than the poor and industrial workers in the north and Europe.
4] Loving family relations were formed with Americans. The family unit was created.
5] American slavery removed blacks from pagan ,cannibalistic, slavery and war torn Africa.
6] Slaves were treated better than free blacks in the north.

Please disagree with support. Please also support that it was great evil, that is slavery within the us. Your objections are to the slave trade, or segregation. We can move on after this first original question is concluded.

[twc01]

Interesting quote from Lincoln


Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up.... We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters. When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution

[ArmoredCore]

Conclusion

To our question of was american slavery a great evil. I must say you have not supported with actual data just false assumptions, double standards etc. You have not made any positive argument that represents slavery in america. So if you disagree with the following please exspalin why and support. Slavery within america was not a great evil because. Your objections are to the slave trade, racism, segregation, and violence, not towards southern slavery.


1] The condition of the enslaved black in america was a vast improvement over them while enslaved in africa. Americans did not enslave them they were already enslaved by african traders and sold to american traders.

Wrong. There was no such thing as chattel slavery in Africa. Many slaves were actually picked up directly by Europeans on slave raids.
The Africans weren't selling slaves as in slaves being used for economic profit based on race. First because they were all the same "race", second because Africans had no concept of economic slavery.
It was the prisoners of war from conflict between neighboring kingdoms who were sold as slaves to Europeans and Europeans often created conflict to generate more captives for enslavement.

2] blacks today enjoy better living than anywhere in Africa

Whites and everybody else in America have a better standard of living BECAUSE of slavery, native American genocide and 400 years of oppression.
America is a corporate slave colony. The purpose of the charter was to create a self sufficient corporate plantation estate that could manage its own affairs through constitutional amendments and generate profits for its own sustenance by incorporating new lands and plantations using slaves as free labor. Therefore, it was because of these evil acts that the wealth was generated not separate from it and therefore why should blacks or Native Americans be "happy" about having to be oppressed and robbed in order to produce the wealth that they don't control?
And also, this is also true for white society as a well because when whites left Europe they themselves said it was a hell hole and their lives were worse there than in America....

3] The slaves diet, medical treatment, living quarters, life span, education , hours of labor, free time, spiritual needs, laws to protect them, [chance at freedom 0% in africa] all improved in america and were in most cases better than the poor and industrial workers in the north and Europe.

Wrong again. Africa had a great many prosperous empires long before European conquest. Prior to the arrival of the gatlin gun most Europeans couldn't penetrate Africa because their armies were too strong.

[Sphere]

[twc01]

Wrong. There was no such thing as chattel slavery in Africa. Many slaves were actually picked up directly by Europeans on slave raids.
The Africans weren't selling slaves as in slaves being used for economic profit based on race. First because they were all the same "race", second because Africans had no concept of economic slavery.
It was the prisoners of war from conflict between neighboring kingdoms who were sold as slaves to Europeans and Europeans often created conflict to generate more captives for enslavement.

I am going to have to ask you to please support your claims. Also you will have to explain to me why Africans treated their slaves as chattel, and why so many European, Arab and Asian observers thought they did.

Please support all these European raids where they stole Africans. Outside of 1-2 times by Portugal in the late 1400's if remember correct..

How do you exspalin the trading and selling of slaves than out of africa? how do you exspalin them enslaving whites?.

Please show these conflicts created by whites to increase the already abundant slave trade in Africa. How is it without evil whites that blacks already sold millions of slaves to the east?

Whites and everybody else in America have a better standard of living BECAUSE of slavery, native American genocide and 400 years of oppression.
America is a corporate slave colony. The purpose of the charter was to create a self sufficient corporate plantation estate that could manage its own affairs through constitutional amendments and generate profits for its own sustenance by incorporating new lands and plantations using slaves as free labor. Therefore, it was because of these evil acts that the wealth was generated not separate from it and therefore why should blacks or Native Americans be "happy" about having to be oppressed and robbed in order to produce the wealth that they don't control?
And also, this is also true for white society as a well because when whites left Europe they themselves said it was a hell hole and their lives were worse there than in America....

No idea where you get your history, not even sure what your saying. Native american "genocide" just so happens to be a future thread topic around white guilt i will be doing, so i wont touch it here. You do seem to admit america was unique in its ability to create wealth, i agree and slavery had a part in that for sure. Blacks even if not as wealthy as whites, still better than in africa so we can agree. hard to make out the rest seems like a typical anti american false history rant, not for this thread.

Wrong again. Africa had a great many prosperous empires long before European conquest. Prior to the arrival of the gatlin gun most Europeans couldn't penetrate Africa because their armies were too strong.

[/SIZE]

First i think your simply wrong to say they had great military might in africa in this time period, but dont care to argue the point. Because you have missed the point. I am talking about the life of the individual slave africa vs america. For exsample, china may be a greater superpower than the usa today, yet for the individual, not as good. The empire and might of china is great, but not for the average individual. So lets pretend africa had great powers, yet the slave were treated horribly compared to the american slave.

I am not sure if that was directed at me or not, but i was unable to open it. I am as curious as a cat.

[Ludicus]

ArmoredCore

Many slaves were actually picked up directly by Europeans on slave raids.

twc01

Please support all these European raids where they stole Africans. Outside of 1-2 times by Portugal in the late 1400's if remember correct

It seems contradictory, but both of you are right

Thornton clearly explains,
Chapter-The Portuguese in Africa. (Book- Portuguese Oceanic Expansion 1400-1800)
Excerpts,

Page 144/145

"In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the slave trade began to emerge as one of the most important commercial mainstays of the Portuguese trade with Africa.

Initially it had been through raids that Portuguese acquired slaves-but African naval superiority in the waters close to shore had ended this phase... thereafter slaves were overwhelming acquired only by trade with African sellers.

A great irony in this was that the people imported into Portugal from Africa numbered only a few hundred during the time of the raids, mostly drawn from poor fishermen and peasants who lived along the Senegambian coast, but only peaceful trade was established, the number of slave imports shot up to the thousands, roughly 5,000 per year at the start of the 16th century and steadily growing.

(Personal note: to settle the islands of Cabo Verde, and São Tomé, and even export them to Portugal, to Spain, to the Spanish possessions in Canaries and in the New World)

"...At the time, the Portuguese acquired these slaves by purchase from African middlemen or state authorities, and these enslaved people had often been captured at some other point in Africa.

Occasionally, however, when African states employed Portuguese soldiers as mercenaries, the slaves may have been directly captured by Europeans, at least when they served as a component in African armies. This probably happened in Benin...it certainly happened in Kongo "


With that said,

Page 153,

"The Imbangala period ( roughly 1615 to 1665) had a tremendous impact on the Portuguese presence in Angola. They were able to go on the offensive, and moreover, thousands of people were captured and enslaved in the wars. From 1615 to 1640, slaves captured by this alliance formed as much as 85 or even 90 percent brought to Brazil and the Spanish Caribbean"

Page 157,

"During the 18th century, the slave trade gradually became the most important item of commerce for all Europeans out of Africa.

In Angola, which had been the leading exporter of slaves in the early 17th century through Portuguese warfare, the supply of slaves continued even when the wars came to an end: Angola was exporting 5,000 to 6,000 slaves per year as its wars drew to a close in the mid-17th century, but the numbers grew dramatically in the 18th century, reaching nearly 12,000 yearly by 1740 and almost 19,000 annually by the end of the 18th century"

[twc01]

ArmoredCore


twc01


It seems contradictory, but both of you are right

Thornton clearly explains,
Chapter-The Portuguese in Africa. (Book- Portuguese Oceanic Expansion 1400-1800)
Excerpts,

Page 144/145

"In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the slave trade began to emerge as one of the most important commercial mainstays of the Portuguese trade with Africa.

Initially it had been through raids that Portuguese acquired slaves-but African naval superiority in the waters close to shore had ended this phase... thereafter slaves were overwhelming acquired only by trade with African sellers.

A great irony in this was that the people imported into Portugal from Africa numbered only a few hundred during the time of the raids, mostly drawn from poor fishermen and peasants who lived along the Senegambian coast, but only peaceful trade was established, the number of slave imports shot up to the thousands, roughly 5,000 per year at the start of the 16th century and steadily growing.

(Personal note: to settle the islands of Cabo Verde, and São Tomé, and even export them to Portugal, to Spain, to the Spanish possessions in Canaries and in the New World)

"...At the time, the Portuguese acquired these slaves by purchase from African middlemen or state authorities, and these enslaved people had often been captured at some other point in Africa.

Occasionally, however, when African states employed Portuguese soldiers as mercenaries, the slaves may have been directly captured by Europeans, at least when they served as a component in African armies. This probably happened in Benin...it certainly happened in Kongo "


With that said,

Page 153,

"The Imbangala period ( roughly 1615 to 1665) had a tremendous impact on the Portuguese presence in Angola. They were able to go on the offensive, and moreover, thousands of people were captured and enslaved in the wars. From 1615 to 1640, slaves captured by this alliance formed as much as 85 or even 90 percent brought to Brazil and the Spanish Caribbean"

Page 157,

"During the 18th century, the slave trade gradually became the most important item of commerce for all Europeans out of Africa.

In Angola, which had been the leading exporter of slaves in the early 17th century through Portuguese warfare, the supply of slaves continued even when the wars came to an end: Angola was exporting 5,000 to 6,000 slaves per year as its wars drew to a close in the mid-17th century, but the numbers grew dramatically in the 18th century, reaching nearly 12,000 yearly by 1740 and almost 19,000 annually by the end of the 18th century"

Thanks good post, thanks for info.

Sorry for double post. But I was thinking, we are talking about the few times whites captured Africans to sell [by Portugal] to than cause modern white guilt. I agree this is a evil, but what of the millions of whites that were captured and enslaved by blacks?

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Frigates-E.../dp/039333032X

And what race has done more to abolish slavery than whites.

[ArmoredCore]

I am going to have to ask you to please support your claims. Also you will have to explain to me why Africans treated their slaves as chattel, and why so many European, Arab and Asian observers thought they did.

Please support all these European raids where they stole Africans. Outside of 1-2 times by Portugal in the late 1400's if remember correct..

How do you exspalin the trading and selling of slaves than out of africa? how do you exspalin them enslaving whites?.

Please show these conflicts created by whites to increase the already abundant slave trade in Africa. How is it without evil whites that blacks already sold millions of slaves to the east?




No idea where you get your history, not even sure what your saying. Native american "genocide" just so happens to be a future thread topic around white guilt i will be doing, so i wont touch it here. You do seem to admit america was unique in its ability to create wealth, i agree and slavery had a part in that for sure. Blacks even if not as wealthy as whites, still better than in africa so we can agree. hard to make out the rest seems like a typical anti american false history rant, not for this thread.

Generally the Genocide of the Native Americans is referring to the act of Europeans taking the lands of Northern America from the natives and pushing them onto reservations. But surely you aren't seriously trying to sit here and claim that this didn't happen and this wasn't explicitly and deliberately done as part of the purpose of the original colonial charter?

First i think your simply wrong to say they had great military might in africa in this time period, but dont care to argue the point. Because you have missed the point. I am talking about the life of the individual slave africa vs america. For exsample, china may be a greater superpower than the usa today, yet for the individual, not as good. The empire and might of china is great, but not for the average individual. So lets pretend africa had great powers, yet the slave were treated horribly compared to the american slave.

How can you compare? There was no such thing as chattel economic slavery backed by laws and an entire system of "black codes" for any slaves in Africa. There were no African plantations worked by slave labor. There was no 'black' slavery because they were all black. There was no 'racial codes' because they were all the same race. So you can't compere the two.

If you REALLY want a fair comparison you would have to show me how European chattel or economic slaves were treated by Africans in the African colonies established by conquest in Europe. Oh there are none because no other culture in the world was in the business of going around the world and creating colonies to generate profit off of theft, conquest and slavery outside Europe.

I am not sure if that was directed at me or not, but i was unable to open it. I am as curious as a cat.

Sorry for double post. But I was thinking, we are talking about the few times whites captured Africans to sell [by Portugal] to than cause modern white guilt. I agree this is a evil, but what of the millions of whites that were captured and enslaved by blacks?

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Frigates-E.../dp/039333032X

And what race has done more to abolish slavery than whites.

If you can't talk about the facts of history without getting emotional then I am done with this discussion.

Is discussing the history of the Mongol Empire to promote "Mongol guilt"? Is discussing the history of any empire to promote guilt? Of course not.
No the problem is that you are trying to treat European history and the bad things done by Europeans as "good" for everybody and above reproach.
I am not going to sit here and entertain such nonsense. If YOU don't like being enslaved for somebody else to make money off your labor then don't sit here and try go justify why slavery is somehow good for everybody if YOU YOURSELF aren't willing to be a slave for somebody else to benefit. After all is most thieves steal things because of the benefit of having other peoples stuff. That doesn't make it right.

You are missing the point and promoting a false historical narrative. The PROPER historical narrative is that Africa had many powerful and thriving kingdoms engaging in trade and commerce with culture and civilization long before Europeans started arriving. Africa was a center of the gold trade for thousands of years across many parts of Africa. Africans had schools and universities in many areas long before Europe. Once Islam arrived in Africa there began to be a large number of conflicts between Islamic and Non Islamic African countries. This started a few hundred years prior to the arrival of Europeans. It was as a result of these wars between rival kingdoms often because of religious rivalries or and boundaries that Africans kingdoms were fighting each other. Within the context of these wars, there were many thousands of captives taken as part of the war. These are the captives that were sold to European slave traders. Africans never had any concept of chattel slavery or slavery for the purposes of profit. It never existed prior to the arrival of European slave traders and it didn't exist after the Europeans came. A big part of the system of slavery in America was the race of the enslaved and this is one of the most sinister and distinct properties of this system, because under this system Africans generally were not SUPPOSED to be free and those Africans that were were relatively few. Africa never had the concept of "race slavery" either as all Africans are of the same "race". I suggest you read some books on African history and stop sitting here trying to spread non historical garbage trying to support the idea that slavery was "good" for Africans. The Cambridge History of Africa is one good example.

Just some highlights that maybe you aren't aware of, or just don't wish to admit. Timbuktu was a center of learning in Africa long before Europeans arrived to start taking slaves. North Africa had Universities long before Europe. Mansa Musa was the wealthiest person in the world primarily as a result of the gold in the Mali empire, again before European arrival. In fact African gold was the reason for the Portuguese going to Africa in the first place. That is why gold was called "the Guinea" as a result of gold acquired in Guinea.

White slavery in Europe was already being practiced in Europe long before any Africans ever arrived and the slavery that was spread was slavery practiced as part of Islamic expansion. The biggest slave traders in Europe were the Ottoman Turks and they eventually took over North Africa and the "Middle East" after the fall of Islamic Spain. Some of the North Africans who had been expelled from Spain were involved in slave raids in Europe but again, at no time was there any "race based" slavery in Africa or chattel slavery in Islam for the purposes of profit. The Islamic world had many "races" under Islam and almost every one of them had slaves of some sort, from Asia, to India, Africa and Europe. But Islamic empires did not gain wealth from slavery. Their wealth came from trade in textiles in food and gold. Slavery in Islam was not like European slavery as it wasn't based around an economic doctrine.

Again, nobody had slavery like Western Europe and the slavery in Western Europe was primary an ECONOMIC form of slavery where the charters issued by the Royalty of Europe explicitly were given for the purposes of stealing land and LABOR from native NON Christian people in order to generate profit. No other empire in history was built in such a manner which is basically a "corporate slave agricultural or slave industrial complex". That is the basis of modern western empires and those empires are unlike any other that came before, including the ideas of "race" as a scientific doctrine which never existed previously. The difference being that slavery along with stealing land and resources was the primary purpose of colonial expansion and the PRIMARY MEANS for generating wealth as the explicit purpose of the spread of the empire. Other empires in history did not spread based on the idea of expanding slavery as a means of economic profit or wealth generation.