Whitlock is probably in the top 10 for black guys that get called an Uncle Tom by white guys. He’s a blowhard but I’ve never understood the vitriol some people have for that guy.
I thought it was an outstanding article
It really wasn't. And it was chalk full of bad, and flat-out wrong, history.
The United States of America, because of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, was actually a global leader in abolishing slavery.
Slavery was a global phenemenon. Economies were reliant on it. You couldn’t just snap your fingers and make that kind of global tradition go away. The world still hasn’t rid itself of slavery. But we have and did. And we did it before most of the rest of the civilized world because our imperfect Founding Fathers had foresight.
This is a load of shit. Almost the entirety of Europe and the Americas abolished slavery long before us. Great Sark > Ty moment for us beating out most of Asia and Africa, which certainly wasn't considered the "civilized world" in the 19th century.
ATBSCKS. But so does Jason Whitlock.
This is not true. Most of the Americas had WAY more slaves...Brazil had 20-30 times more than the US, the Caribbean had more, other South American countries had more
Europe no longer had expansive colonies, but even the ones that "abolished" slavery like progressive Utopia Belgium established practices arguably worse than slavery. Ever read Heart of Darkness? First punishment for not meeting harvesting quota - chop off your hand. 2nd offense? We are going to feed your child to a cannibal tribe
You liberals are literally ignorant of history. That is the fucking problem. You are naive and dumb. West African kingdoms conquered weaker kingdoms and sold the fucking human beings as slaves. Should Africans give black Americans reparations?
How come the Middle East doesnt have a huge black population? After all, 50 to 100 times more Africans were enslaved in the Middle East than ever went to the Americas. Hmmm...maybe it's because Arabs literally cut their fucking dicks off to prevent them from ever reproducing, and the labor was so cruel most died within 5 years. There is still this type of slavery going on in North Africa today.
Lets not even touch on the fact the word slave literally comes from Slav, as in the Slavic ethnic group. Every culture in the history of the world has been subject to fucked up imprisonment. Look up the word "janissary"
Leftists....educate yourselves or fuck off and go be a dumbass in your own bubble
First off, you know Heart of Darkness was fiction, right?
I never really studied slavery outside of US, the UK, the Barbary Coast, Portugal and a little bit of the Carribbean (primarily Haiti) so this is a good project.
Looking specifically at the Americas because you're claiming most of the Americas had way more slaves than the US.
1811 Chile declares Freedom of Wombs, bans slave trade and frees slaves who have been in Chile longer than six months (fully abolished in 1823)
1824 Slavery effectively abolished in Mexico (full emancipation by 1829). Also abolished in Central America.
1830 Slavery abolished in Uruguay
1842 Paraguay passes law to gradually abolish slavery
1851 Slavery abolished in Uruguay
1853 Slavery abolished in Argentina
1854 Slavery abolished in Peru and Venezuela
Places in the Americas that abolished slavery after the US:
Puerto Rico (1873), Cuba (1886)
Brazil was allegedly the last country in the western world to abolish slavery (1888) and definitely had a lot more slaves than we? did as you noted.
I'm not finding any evidence to support your claim that "most of the Americas had way more slaves" than the US did though. Cuba, Hispaniola and Jamaica definitely did. Brazil as well. Barbados may have. Do you have a link on the claim that most of the Americas had more? Ecuador and Argentina appear to have had much less though it's hard to narrow down figures there. Mexico definitely had less, Canada, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela way less. (It seems much easier to find the numbers of slaves imported than the actual numbers of slaves owned so I'm using imported as a proxy for number of slaves, if anyone has a link to a good source for total number owned I'd love to see it. I know the US was good at breeding slaves. I assume other places were as well, other than the Muslim areas as PGOS notes.)
As far as I can tell Gatorz claims seem to be pretty accurate. We? certainly weren't any kind of global leader in the abolition movement. We were later (though not last) than most of Europe and the Americas. And yes we were ahead of 1800's Asia and Africa which no one is holding up as any kind of example of
I like Whitlock more than Kaepernick but he overstated a lot of his case. His arguments about Frederick Douglass and Kaep's bastardizations of Douglass's quotes were far more accurate and effective than his assertions about the US's place in the movement to abolish slaves.
We weren't the latest but we were late on this.
Democrats vehemently and violently opposed so it took some tim. They had to be killed to give up slavery.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
Yeah Brazil was the worst of the worst in both quantity and length. Rio De Janeiro alone had more slaves come through it's port than most other nations of the world (including the US).
It's grim.
What were they doing down there? We have cotton in the US and Sugar Cane in the indies, what was slavery used for in Brazil (and how could you need 5 MILLION people to do it)? Is there a great wall of South America that stretches around the continent or some shit?
Check out the numbers on the mortality rates and lifespan for African slaves that were shipped to South America and the Caribbean. One of the reasons why they needed so many of them.
Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.
How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...
Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died
It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
Pretty sure you're reading the chart wrong on Chile. It's either .5 a million to Peru or .5 a million total to Peru and Chile, I'm not sure which. But every source I can find says a. Chile never imported nearly as many slaves as the surrounding areas because it was so poor and b. Chile was the second nation in the Americas to abolish slavery outright (after Haiti).
I'm pretty sure the Chilean slavery population was much lower than the US's but it's hard to find hard numbers.
Great getting stuck in the minutia of the details as always. My point stands. Chile, Peru, who gives a shit? Where are they now? They died before the abolition from overwork, exhaustion, torture
This thread went from America was the fucking worst and South America did things the right way along with Europe, to splitting hairs over which shitty SA country was actually the worst for the survival of their slaves, of which they had millions more of than the US ever did.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
Yeah Brazil was the worst of the worst in both quantity and length. Rio De Janeiro alone had more slaves come through it's port than most other nations of the world (including the US).
It's grim.
What were they doing down there? We have cotton in the US and Sugar Cane in the indies, what was slavery used for in Brazil (and how could you need 5 MILLION people to do it)? Is there a great wall of South America that stretches around the continent or some shit?
Check out the numbers on the mortality rates and lifespan for African slaves that were shipped to South America and the Caribbean. One of the reasons why they needed so many of them.
Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.
How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...
Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died
It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
No slavery in America means no Jazz, no blues, no rock n roll. No Louie Armstrong, no Ella Fitzgerald no Jordon no Lebron. While slavery was a horrific institution, and the 100 years of Jim Crow and abuse black people endured after the end of the Civil War was unforgivable, black people living in America today should be on their knees thanking the Lord that their ancestors were brought to America.
Totally agree. And almost all of us should be grateful our ancestors ended up in America--many were escaping grinding poverty, persecution, prosecution or starvation.
Whitlock is probably in the top 10 for black guys that get called an Uncle Tom by white guys. He’s a blowhard but I’ve never understood the vitriol some people have for that guy.
I thought it was an outstanding article
It really wasn't. And it was chalk full of bad, and flat-out wrong, history.
The United States of America, because of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, was actually a global leader in abolishing slavery.
Slavery was a global phenemenon. Economies were reliant on it. You couldn’t just snap your fingers and make that kind of global tradition go away. The world still hasn’t rid itself of slavery. But we have and did. And we did it before most of the rest of the civilized world because our imperfect Founding Fathers had foresight.
This is a load of shit. Almost the entirety of Europe and the Americas abolished slavery long before us. Great Sark > Ty moment for us beating out most of Asia and Africa, which certainly wasn't considered the "civilized world" in the 19th century.
ATBSCKS. But so does Jason Whitlock.
This is not true. Most of the Americas had WAY more slaves...Brazil had 20-30 times more than the US, the Caribbean had more, other South American countries had more
Europe no longer had expansive colonies, but even the ones that "abolished" slavery like progressive Utopia Belgium established practices arguably worse than slavery. Ever read Heart of Darkness? First punishment for not meeting harvesting quota - chop off your hand. 2nd offense? We are going to feed your child to a cannibal tribe
You liberals are literally ignorant of history. That is the fucking problem. You are naive and dumb. West African kingdoms conquered weaker kingdoms and sold the fucking human beings as slaves. Should Africans give black Americans reparations?
How come the Middle East doesnt have a huge black population? After all, 50 to 100 times more Africans were enslaved in the Middle East than ever went to the Americas. Hmmm...maybe it's because Arabs literally cut their fucking dicks off to prevent them from ever reproducing, and the labor was so cruel most died within 5 years. There is still this type of slavery going on in North Africa today.
Lets not even touch on the fact the word slave literally comes from Slav, as in the Slavic ethnic group. Every culture in the history of the world has been subject to fucked up imprisonment. Look up the word "janissary"
Leftists....educate yourselves or fuck off and go be a dumbass in your own bubble
This is a lot of words to say a lot of nothing, which is becoming par for the course for the new angry and politically incensed PGOS.
Bottom line, holding up the U.S. as some trailblazer of abolishing slavery, which was the thrust of Whitlock's article, is fucking stupid. Of course Europe still had colonies with slavery, that's not the fucking discussion. If you spend lest time diving into angry rants about how the left is ruining your life you might recognize that the point here is pretty fucking simple.
That wasn't the "thrust" of the article the way I read it. The thrust is that Kaepernick is a fraud and that his tweeting of Fredrick Douglas speech in order to condemn America’s Independence Day, is an example of that ignorance.
Btw, which country has done more to abolish slavery around the world other than maybe England, than the US?
Agreed. Kaep has always been an opportunistic fuck. He probably didn't know who Frederick Douglass was until 5 years ago.
And whatever steps we?'ve taken to abolish global slavery in the last century doesn't change the fact that we? weren't FIRST.
The article doesn't claim we were first but please continue with your strawman ass rape.
But it does claim we were a global leader in abolition, which isn't true either.
The Northern states had abolition policy in 1807! Look at the fucking charts I found for you. Fifty years later thousands died to prevent the South from splitting. Why did the South want to split? Slavery
For further reading Emory university has an entire database on the topic I pulled the graphs from
Yes the North, where slavery wouldn't have been economically viable anyway, abolished slavery. Vermont had a black population of 3 free blacks when it bravely abolished slavery.
Same could be said for Northern Europe.
Yes, for those Northern European countries that practiced slavery. Would Britain have abolished slavery when it did if cotton could be grown on those islands? I doubt it.
While everyone is blowing Northern Europe for being more "enlightened" and abolishing slavery before the US the reality is that they banned it because it wasn't economically viable for them to continue it.
Yes and no. It was also a humanitarian impulse. But it is easier to be humanitarian when it doesn't seem to be costing you anything.
The humanitarian impulse existed here in the US. Jefferson's moral quandary over the issue wasn't unique even with slaveholders. But you're right, it's easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing. People have always like to show how "woke" they are even back then.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
Yeah Brazil was the worst of the worst in both quantity and length. Rio De Janeiro alone had more slaves come through it's port than most other nations of the world (including the US).
It's grim.
What were they doing down there? We have cotton in the US and Sugar Cane in the indies, what was slavery used for in Brazil (and how could you need 5 MILLION people to do it)? Is there a great wall of South America that stretches around the continent or some shit?
Check out the numbers on the mortality rates and lifespan for African slaves that were shipped to South America and the Caribbean. One of the reasons why they needed so many of them.
Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.
How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...
Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died
It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
Pretty sure you're reading the chart wrong on Chile. It's either .5 a million to Peru or .5 a million total to Peru and Chile, I'm not sure which. But every source I can find says a. Chile never imported nearly as many slaves as the surrounding areas because it was so poor and b. Chile was the second nation in the Americas to abolish slavery outright (after Haiti).
I'm pretty sure the Chilean slavery population was much lower than the US's but it's hard to find hard numbers.
Great getting stuck in the minutia of the details as always. My point stands. Chile, Peru, who gives a shit? Where are they now? They died before the abolition from overwork, exhaustion, torture
This thread went from America was the fucking worst and South America did things the right way along with Europe, to splitting hairs over which shitty SA country was actually the worst for the survival of their slaves, of which they had millions more of than the US ever did.
Hth, fuck off
Doogs hate facts
This is fucking ridiculous. You are better than this.
The fact is I was correct in the point I was making. You were ignoring the bigger point to focus on whether it was Peru or Chile and it had no bearing on my argument
Whitlock is probably in the top 10 for black guys that get called an Uncle Tom by white guys. He’s a blowhard but I’ve never understood the vitriol some people have for that guy.
I thought it was an outstanding article
It really wasn't. And it was chalk full of bad, and flat-out wrong, history.
The United States of America, because of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, was actually a global leader in abolishing slavery.
Slavery was a global phenemenon. Economies were reliant on it. You couldn’t just snap your fingers and make that kind of global tradition go away. The world still hasn’t rid itself of slavery. But we have and did. And we did it before most of the rest of the civilized world because our imperfect Founding Fathers had foresight.
This is a load of shit. Almost the entirety of Europe and the Americas abolished slavery long before us. Great Sark > Ty moment for us beating out most of Asia and Africa, which certainly wasn't considered the "civilized world" in the 19th century.
ATBSCKS. But so does Jason Whitlock.
This is not true. Most of the Americas had WAY more slaves...Brazil had 20-30 times more than the US, the Caribbean had more, other South American countries had more
Europe no longer had expansive colonies, but even the ones that "abolished" slavery like progressive Utopia Belgium established practices arguably worse than slavery. Ever read Heart of Darkness? First punishment for not meeting harvesting quota - chop off your hand. 2nd offense? We are going to feed your child to a cannibal tribe
You liberals are literally ignorant of history. That is the fucking problem. You are naive and dumb. West African kingdoms conquered weaker kingdoms and sold the fucking human beings as slaves. Should Africans give black Americans reparations?
How come the Middle East doesnt have a huge black population? After all, 50 to 100 times more Africans were enslaved in the Middle East than ever went to the Americas. Hmmm...maybe it's because Arabs literally cut their fucking dicks off to prevent them from ever reproducing, and the labor was so cruel most died within 5 years. There is still this type of slavery going on in North Africa today.
Lets not even touch on the fact the word slave literally comes from Slav, as in the Slavic ethnic group. Every culture in the history of the world has been subject to fucked up imprisonment. Look up the word "janissary"
Leftists....educate yourselves or fuck off and go be a dumbass in your own bubble
This is a lot of words to say a lot of nothing, which is becoming par for the course for the new angry and politically incensed PGOS.
Bottom line, holding up the U.S. as some trailblazer of abolishing slavery, which was the thrust of Whitlock's article, is fucking stupid. Of course Europe still had colonies with slavery, that's not the fucking discussion. If you spend lest time diving into angry rants about how the left is ruining your life you might recognize that the point here is pretty fucking simple.
That wasn't the "thrust" of the article the way I read it. The thrust is that Kaepernick is a fraud and that his tweeting of Fredrick Douglas speech in order to condemn America’s Independence Day, is an example of that ignorance.
Btw, which country has done more to abolish slavery around the world other than maybe England, than the US?
Agreed. Kaep has always been an opportunistic fuck. He probably didn't know who Frederick Douglass was until 5 years ago.
And whatever steps we?'ve taken to abolish global slavery in the last century doesn't change the fact that we? weren't FIRST.
The article doesn't claim we were first but please continue with your strawman ass rape.
But it does claim we were a global leader in abolition, which isn't true either.
The Northern states had abolition policy in 1807! Look at the fucking charts I found for you. Fifty years later thousands died to prevent the South from splitting. Why did the South want to split? Slavery
For further reading Emory university has an entire database on the topic I pulled the graphs from
Yes the North, where slavery wouldn't have been economically viable anyway, abolished slavery. Vermont had a black population of 3 free blacks when it bravely abolished slavery.
Same could be said for Northern Europe.
Yes, for those Northern European countries that practiced slavery. Would Britain have abolished slavery when it did if cotton could be grown on those islands? I doubt it.
While everyone is blowing Northern Europe for being more "enlightened" and abolishing slavery before the US the reality is that they banned it because it wasn't economically viable for them to continue it.
Yes and no. It was also a humanitarian impulse. But it is easier to be humanitarian when it doesn't seem to be costing you anything.
The humanitarian impulse existed here in the US. Jefferson's moral quandary over the issue wasn't unique even with slaveholders. But you're right, it's easy to be magnanimous when it costs you nothing. People have always like to show how "woke" they are even back then.
And Jefferson stands in huge contrast to Washington, despite the fact they both recognized the moral issue. Washington tried to do something--posthumously, and not enough for cancel culture, I'm sure. But something! Jefferson's debts were enormous, which may explain why he actually did little to address the issue, even posthumously.
The US didnt abolish slavery first but it was the first country founded on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, natural/inalienable rights, and individual liberty.
The articles of confederation (the first Constitution of the US) was signed by 48 people from 13 states, all signers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery except for those from South Carolina and Georgia. The compromise, in 1787, was that all new states admitted to the union in what was considered then to be the Northwest territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota) would be slave free states. Haiti, significantly smaller, was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1804.
The US was ahead of its time in the ratification of law setting aside significant land that would exist as slave free. If not for having to fight the American Revolution the US would have very likely had the stomach and resources to abolish slavery outright within its boarders upon its formation.
The foundation of the country was largely set by anti slavery economists and philosophers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Rush, Arthur Lee, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
Whitlock is probably in the top 10 for black guys that get called an Uncle Tom by white guys. He’s a blowhard but I’ve never understood the vitriol some people have for that guy.
I thought it was an outstanding article
It really wasn't. And it was chalk full of bad, and flat-out wrong, history.
The United States of America, because of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, was actually a global leader in abolishing slavery.
Slavery was a global phenemenon. Economies were reliant on it. You couldn’t just snap your fingers and make that kind of global tradition go away. The world still hasn’t rid itself of slavery. But we have and did. And we did it before most of the rest of the civilized world because our imperfect Founding Fathers had foresight.
This is a load of shit. Almost the entirety of Europe and the Americas abolished slavery long before us. Great Sark > Ty moment for us beating out most of Asia and Africa, which certainly wasn't considered the "civilized world" in the 19th century.
ATBSCKS. But so does Jason Whitlock.
This is not true. Most of the Americas had WAY more slaves...Brazil had 20-30 times more than the US, the Caribbean had more, other South American countries had more
Europe no longer had expansive colonies, but even the ones that "abolished" slavery like progressive Utopia Belgium established practices arguably worse than slavery. Ever read Heart of Darkness? First punishment for not meeting harvesting quota - chop off your hand. 2nd offense? We are going to feed your child to a cannibal tribe
You liberals are literally ignorant of history. That is the fucking problem. You are naive and dumb. West African kingdoms conquered weaker kingdoms and sold the fucking human beings as slaves. Should Africans give black Americans reparations?
How come the Middle East doesnt have a huge black population? After all, 50 to 100 times more Africans were enslaved in the Middle East than ever went to the Americas. Hmmm...maybe it's because Arabs literally cut their fucking dicks off to prevent them from ever reproducing, and the labor was so cruel most died within 5 years. There is still this type of slavery going on in North Africa today.
Lets not even touch on the fact the word slave literally comes from Slav, as in the Slavic ethnic group. Every culture in the history of the world has been subject to fucked up imprisonment. Look up the word "janissary"
Leftists....educate yourselves or fuck off and go be a dumbass in your own bubble
This is a lot of words to say a lot of nothing, which is becoming par for the course for the new angry and politically incensed PGOS.
Bottom line, holding up the U.S. as some trailblazer of abolishing slavery, which was the thrust of Whitlock's article, is fucking stupid. Of course Europe still had colonies with slavery, that's not the fucking discussion. If you spend lest time diving into angry rants about how the left is ruining your life you might recognize that the point here is pretty fucking simple.
I've always been angry and I've always hated ignorant takes. This is nothing new.
So, the US abolishing slavery and white men dying to free slaves in the Civil War wasnt a trailblazing act. But the French Foriegn Legion, Belgium Congo, German Namibia, Dutch apartheid, the British starving millions in India....all 50+ years after the US abolished slavery...yeah Gatorz, those are the real human rights trailblazers
Go fuck yourself. Youre an idiot.
My life is great and I enjoy calling out this bullshit when I see it.
No, the U.S. abolishing slavery in the 1860s was not a trailblazing act. Like I said, most of Europe and the Americas had already done it prior, in some cases by hundreds of years. That a lot of those same countries still held slaves in their colonies doesn't conflict with that fact.
You should try struggling to grasp that a little less.
Um, yes, young man. Yes it does. Completely and unequivocally.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
Yeah Brazil was the worst of the worst in both quantity and length. Rio De Janeiro alone had more slaves come through it's port than most other nations of the world (including the US).
It's grim.
What were they doing down there? We have cotton in the US and Sugar Cane in the indies, what was slavery used for in Brazil (and how could you need 5 MILLION people to do it)? Is there a great wall of South America that stretches around the continent or some shit?
Check out the numbers on the mortality rates and lifespan for African slaves that were shipped to South America and the Caribbean. One of the reasons why they needed so many of them.
Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.
How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...
Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died
It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
Pretty sure you're reading the chart wrong on Chile. It's either .5 a million to Peru or .5 a million total to Peru and Chile, I'm not sure which. But every source I can find says a. Chile never imported nearly as many slaves as the surrounding areas because it was so poor and b. Chile was the second nation in the Americas to abolish slavery outright (after Haiti).
I'm pretty sure the Chilean slavery population was much lower than the US's but it's hard to find hard numbers.
Great getting stuck in the minutia of the details as always. My point stands. Chile, Peru, who gives a shit? Where are they now? They died before the abolition from overwork, exhaustion, torture
This thread went from America was the fucking worst and South America did things the right way along with Europe, to splitting hairs over which shitty SA country was actually the worst for the survival of their slaves, of which they had millions more of than the US ever did.
Hth, fuck off
Doogs hate facts
This is fucking ridiculous. You are better than this.
The fact is I was correct in the point I was making. You were ignoring the bigger point to focus on whether it was Peru or Chile and it had no bearing on my argument
Jesus
But it does have a bearing on your argument because if that .5 million was spread between Peru and Chile than neither imported more than the US.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
That's not a accident that you don't know that. That information is intentionally downplayed.
I'd venture a guess that 95% of BLM activists and Allies are completely unaware of this, too.
And probably 85% of the entire US population, because it hurts the Narrative.
The US didnt abolish slavery first but it was the first country founded on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, natural/inalienable rights, and individual liberty.
The articles of confederation (the first Constitution of the US) was signed by 48 people from 13 states, all signers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery except for those from South Carolina and Georgia. The compromise, in 1787, was that all new states admitted to the union in what was considered then to be the Northwest territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota) would be slave free states. Haiti, significantly smaller, was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1804.
The US was ahead of its time in the ratification of law setting aside significant land that would exist as slave free. If not for having to fight the American Revolution the US would have very likely had the stomach and resources to abolish slavery outright within its boarders upon its formation.
The foundation of the country was largely set by anti slavery economists and philosophers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Rush, Arthur Lee, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
This is a very quality post.
The reality of US involvement in slavery is complicated. We were basically held hostage by a fairly small minority of slave owners for a long damn time until we finally got pissed enough about it to elect a President from an abolitionist party and the slavers got so triggered that they seceded.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
That's not a accident that you don't know that. That information is intentionally downplayed.
I'd venture a guess that 95% of BLM activists and Allies are completely unaware of this, too.
I'd wager it wouldn't change much if they were, though I agree more knowledge and understanding of history is always better.
The US didnt abolish slavery first but it was the first country founded on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, natural/inalienable rights, and individual liberty.
The articles of confederation (the first Constitution of the US) was signed by 48 people from 13 states, all signers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery except for those from South Carolina and Georgia. The compromise, in 1787, was that all new states admitted to the union in what was considered then to be the Northwest territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota) would be slave free states. Haiti, significantly smaller, was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1804.
The US was ahead of its time in the ratification of law setting aside significant land that would exist as slave free. If not for having to fight the American Revolution the US would have very likely had the stomach and resources to abolish slavery outright within its boarders upon its formation.
The foundation of the country was largely set by anti slavery economists and philosophers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Rush, Arthur Lee, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
This is a very quality post.
The reality of US involvement in slavery is complicated. We were basically held hostage by a fairly small minority of slave owners for a long damn time until we finally got pissed enough about it to elect a President from an abolitionist party and the slavers got so triggered that they seceded.
Sort of like cancel culture now, in reverse. Small minority of loud mouth idiots on twitter holding the country hostage for perceived injustices that most of the time are a figment of their imaginations. They should all spend more time thinking about the misplaced male aggression inherent in skyscrapers imho.
So, in essence, Antifa/CHOP/SJW fags on Twitter are slavers.
My logic is sound. I will entertain no questions. If you disagree, fight me. 7-11 at dawn.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
Yeah Brazil was the worst of the worst in both quantity and length. Rio De Janeiro alone had more slaves come through it's port than most other nations of the world (including the US).
It's grim.
What were they doing down there? We have cotton in the US and Sugar Cane in the indies, what was slavery used for in Brazil (and how could you need 5 MILLION people to do it)? Is there a great wall of South America that stretches around the continent or some shit?
Check out the numbers on the mortality rates and lifespan for African slaves that were shipped to South America and the Caribbean. One of the reasons why they needed so many of them.
Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.
How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...
Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died
It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
Pretty sure you're reading the chart wrong on Chile. It's either .5 a million to Peru or .5 a million total to Peru and Chile, I'm not sure which. But every source I can find says a. Chile never imported nearly as many slaves as the surrounding areas because it was so poor and b. Chile was the second nation in the Americas to abolish slavery outright (after Haiti).
I'm pretty sure the Chilean slavery population was much lower than the US's but it's hard to find hard numbers.
Great getting stuck in the minutia of the details as always. My point stands. Chile, Peru, who gives a shit? Where are they now? They died before the abolition from overwork, exhaustion, torture
This thread went from America was the fucking worst and South America did things the right way along with Europe, to splitting hairs over which shitty SA country was actually the worst for the survival of their slaves, of which they had millions more of than the US ever did.
Hth, fuck off
Doogs hate facts
This is fucking ridiculous. You are better than this.
The fact is I was correct in the point I was making. You were ignoring the bigger point to focus on whether it was Peru or Chile and it had no bearing on my argument
Jesus
But it does have a bearing on your argument because if that .5 million was spread between Peru and Chile than neither imported more than the US.
Again focused on the smaller details and not the big picture.
As if Chile having 400,000 and Peru 100,000 makes a fucking difference when neither country has barely any black people. If they were like the US they would have millions.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
Yeah Brazil was the worst of the worst in both quantity and length. Rio De Janeiro alone had more slaves come through it's port than most other nations of the world (including the US).
It's grim.
What were they doing down there? We have cotton in the US and Sugar Cane in the indies, what was slavery used for in Brazil (and how could you need 5 MILLION people to do it)? Is there a great wall of South America that stretches around the continent or some shit?
Check out the numbers on the mortality rates and lifespan for African slaves that were shipped to South America and the Caribbean. One of the reasons why they needed so many of them.
Exactly. On a global scale the lucky slaves ended up in America. It's why we have 30 million plus African Americans in this country who have a huge influence on culture, pop culture, our economy, etc.
How come Chile doesnt have many black people in it? They had the same amount of slaves as the US according to those charts...
Because the Spanish were indescribably cruel to everyone and most slaves in Spanish countries died
It is blowing my mind that more people dont know this
Don't even get me started on Cortez's killing sprees throughout today's Mexico. Amazing Brutality.
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
Great graphic and HOLY SHIT, I had no idea more slaves went to South America and the West Indies than the rest of the world by a factor of like 10. Brazil needs to pay reparations stat!
That's not a accident that you don't know that. That information is intentionally downplayed.
I'd venture a guess that 95% of BLM activists and Allies are completely unaware of this, too.
I'd wager it wouldn't change much if they were, though I agree more knowledge and understanding of history is always better.
Would they at least start burning Brazilian Flags, too? Fair is Fair.
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
It's interesting but basically a historical footnote.
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
It's interesting but basically a historical footnote.
Do the descendants of the slave-owning blacks get reparations for their great-great-great grandpop holding slaves? Or are they pitching in with me, whose ancestors didn’t hit the shore of the States until 1910? Take up some slack.
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
It's interesting but basically a historical footnote.
Ah. So it's not the institution of slavery that's the problem. It's the number you own.
How many slaves can a person own without getting in trouble, then?
Comments
There's a reason we have a wall and borders
So far......
The fact is I was correct in the point I was making. You were ignoring the bigger point to focus on whether it was Peru or Chile and it had no bearing on my argument
Jesus
The articles of confederation (the first Constitution of the US) was signed by 48 people from 13 states, all signers exhibited considerable aversion to slavery except for those from South Carolina and Georgia. The compromise, in 1787, was that all new states admitted to the union in what was considered then to be the Northwest territory (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the part of Minnesota) would be slave free states. Haiti, significantly smaller, was the first country in the Western Hemisphere to ban slavery in 1804.
The US was ahead of its time in the ratification of law setting aside significant land that would exist as slave free. If not for having to fight the American Revolution the US would have very likely had the stomach and resources to abolish slavery outright within its boarders upon its formation.
The foundation of the country was largely set by anti slavery economists and philosophers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Rush, Arthur Lee, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
And probably 85% of the entire US population, because it hurts the Narrative.
The reality of US involvement in slavery is complicated. We were basically held hostage by a fairly small minority of slave owners for a long damn time until we finally got pissed enough about it to elect a President from an abolitionist party and the slavers got so triggered that they seceded.
So, in essence, Antifa/CHOP/SJW fags on Twitter are slavers.
My logic is sound. I will entertain no questions. If you disagree, fight me. 7-11 at dawn.
As if Chile having 400,000 and Peru 100,000 makes a fucking difference when neither country has barely any black people. If they were like the US they would have millions.
Im right. Case closed. Fuck off.
black ownership of slaves - it is an informative article
https://www.africanamerica.org/topic/did-black-people-own-slaves
So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.
How many slaves can a person own without getting in trouble, then?