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.
Gates is the shit, btw. Just started reading Stony The Road.
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.
Except that about 300,000 (mostly non slave owners) pour white guysm were willing fight to death to protect the property of their society's elites.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. Same as it ever was.
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.
Except that about 300,000 (mostly non slave owners) pour white guysm were willing fight to death to protect the property of their society's elites.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. Same as it ever was.
Because the propaganda utilized to spur them to war was regionalism. Same shit as tribalism. Same shit as all of human history.
Typical Confederate soldier was probably not fighting for rich people's slave owning rights. It was to prevent stuff like the march on Atlanta and probably for Southern pride in general.
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.
Except that about 300,000 (mostly non slave owners) pour white guysm were willing fight to death to protect the property of their society's elites.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. Same as it ever was.
Because the propaganda utilized to spur them to war was regionalism. Same shit as tribalism. Same shit as all of human history.
Typical Confederate soldier was probably not fighting for rich people's slave owning rights. It was to prevent stuff like the march on Atlanta and probably for Southern pride in general.
If only they had Twitter to tell them otherwise
That and a lot of those cousin fuckers dreamed of owning a slave or two some day themselves and didn't want to see it abolished.
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
1832 Slavery abolished in Greece.
1835 Serbia frees any slave who sets foot in Serbia
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.
I never claimed America was first, despite as was noted that the Northern states were early in that timeline. The rest of the world continued to buy/rely on Southern state cotton
A lot of those countries you referenced were/are tiny and did not have many slaves. Still good on them for doing what they did.
The heavy hitters were the Caribbeans, Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina.
Serbia is a tiny speck of a European country. I listed tons of examples of the big Euro wannabe empires being shitty human rights advocates well into the 20th century
Heart of Darkness is fiction...eyeroll..come on DNC no shit. But it is historical fiction based on the nightmare of atrocities Belgium and King Leopold committed in the Congo in the fucking 20th century
First thing that happens when you Google Belgian Congo:
"From 1885 to 1908, loot flowed endlessly from the dark interior of the jungle, up the river Congo and into colonial Belgium. Estimates of deaths in that period range from 10 million to 15 million Africans, and the debate whether it constituted a genocide continues."
Sounds like a fucking 20th century genocide of Africans done by Europeans to me. There are many more incidents like that. Very progressive.
I am not defending Belgiun Congo which is a fucking dreckfest of historic proportions. I just thought it was odd that you asked if we had read Heart of Darkness as if it was an example of real history. There are much better accounts of the actual atrocities there than that, though I do know it was a powerful work for equality and for good. It was just weird you brought up a work of fiction, like asking someone if they had read Uncle Tom's Cabin in a debate about American slavery.
Not a big deal just odd.
I'm not the one who claimed most of the Americas had more slaves than the US so the fact most of those places are smaller than us isn't applicable. If you want to argue slaves per capita that's a different thing but I don't even know where one would begin to find that kind of data. It's beyond what I'm willing to sacrifice of my day that's for sure.
I didn't want to have to do this because I thought it was common knowledge. So here you go:
I referenced Heart of Darkness because it's pretty much the only source of media on the topic some people have heard of. Next time a European brings up slavery or America bad, reference good ole King Leopold and tell them an analogy about a glass fucking house and a stone
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!
Spain gets a pass for starting all of this shit over here including indigent or is it indignant peoples getting decimated by disease before the Brits set sail
Slavery and a caste system to deal with the mixed babies
White Hispanics - dangerous
@creepycoug beat the rap on starting the New World slave trade AND won't tithe Stalin? God damn that guy.
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!
I think one thing that when discussed around slavery in US history is that; 1. Not all slaves were black, 2. Not all blacks were slaves, 3. Blacks also had slaves within the US.
Some good work in this thread. Every now and again, the Tug, this den of iniquity overrun by Ducks, can actually be a classroom.
But I live in a world in which those to whom I report have the attention span of a flea, and I never get sufficient tim to esplain myself unless I start with "this is nuclear level risk, so let me go over those certificates you sign and remind you what they cover."
In that respect, I think the Executive Summary is this.
Slavery was yet another expression of human cruelty; people have been doing brutal shit to other people forever. @Swaye 's people were no exception even b4 whitey showed up.
The US played the slavery game too.
Our civil war, based in large part on a lack of consensus on slavery, makes how we? ended it somewhat unique. Still, we? mind our own backyard and owe a heartfelt apology for our? role.
Comparing ourselves to Brazil and Cuba is like getting caught with the dog and telling everyone that the guy down the street has been doing it too.
Kap is an opportunist.
Europe did a lot of bad shit for a long tim before the US was even an idea. Duh! That's where we picked up all of our bad habits.
Some good work in this thread. Every now and again, the Tug, this den of iniquity overrun by Ducks, can actually be a classroom.
But I live in a world in which those to whom I report have the attention span of a flea, and I never get sufficient tim to esplain myself unless I start with "this is nuclear level risk, so let me go over those certificates you sign and remind you what they cover."
In that respect, I think the Executive Summary is this.
Slavery was yet another expression of human cruelty; people have been doing brutal shit to other people forever. @Swaye 's people were no exception even b4 whitey showed up.
The US played the slavery game too.
Our civil war, based in large part on a lack of consensus on slavery, makes how we? ended it somewhat unique. Still, we? mind our own backyard and owe a heartfelt apology for our? role.
Comparing ourselves to Brazil and Cuba is like getting caught with the dog and telling everyone that the guy down the street has been doing it too.
Kap is an opportunist.
Europe did a lot of bad shit for a long tim before the US was even an idea. Duh! That's where we picked up all of our bad habits.
Glad we owe a heartfelt apology. That solved everything!!!
Some good work in this thread. Every now and again, the Tug, this den of iniquity overrun by Ducks, can actually be a classroom.
But I live in a world in which those to whom I report have the attention span of a flea, and I never get sufficient tim to esplain myself unless I start with "this is nuclear level risk, so let me go over those certificates you sign and remind you what they cover."
In that respect, I think the Executive Summary is this.
Slavery was yet another expression of human cruelty; people have been doing brutal shit to other people forever. @Swaye 's people were no exception even b4 whitey showed up.
The US played the slavery game too.
Our civil war, based in large part on a lack of consensus on slavery, makes how we? ended it somewhat unique. Still, we? mind our own backyard and owe a heartfelt apology for our? role.
Comparing ourselves to Brazil and Cuba is like getting caught with the dog and telling everyone that the guy down the street has been doing it too.
Kap is an opportunist.
Europe did a lot of bad shit for a long tim before the US was even an idea. Duh! That's where we picked up all of our bad habits.
Glad we owe a heartfelt apology. That solved everything!!!
Just when I was starting to respect your intellect. Don't be so literal dumb dumb.
The Lakota were / are not from South Dakota. They took the land. It is actually an interesting subject to look at how the native tribes in North America moved in response to the European invasion. I like to say invasion because it makes me sound woke
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.
Except that about 300,000 (mostly non slave owners) pour white guysm were willing fight to death to protect the property of their society's elites.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. Same as it ever was.
Because the propaganda utilized to spur them to war was regionalism. Same shit as tribalism. Same shit as all of human history.
Typical Confederate soldier was probably not fighting for rich people's slave owning rights. It was to prevent stuff like the march on Atlanta and probably for Southern pride in general.
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.
Some good work in this thread. Every now and again, the Tug, this den of iniquity overrun by Ducks, can actually be a classroom.
But I live in a world in which those to whom I report have the attention span of a flea, and I never get sufficient tim to esplain myself unless I start with "this is nuclear level risk, so let me go over those certificates you sign and remind you what they cover."
In that respect, I think the Executive Summary is this.
Slavery was yet another expression of human cruelty; people have been doing brutal shit to other people forever. @Swaye 's people were no exception even b4 whitey showed up.
The US played the slavery game too.
Our civil war, based in large part on a lack of consensus on slavery, makes how we? ended it somewhat unique. Still, we? mind our own backyard and owe a heartfelt apology for our? role.
Comparing ourselves to Brazil and Cuba is like getting caught with the dog and telling everyone that the guy down the street has been doing it too.
Kap is an opportunist.
Europe did a lot of bad shit for a long tim before the US was even an idea. Duh! That's where we picked up all of our bad habits.
Glad we owe a heartfelt apology. That solved everything!!!
Just when I was starting to respect your intellect. Don't be so literal dumb dumb.
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.
Except that about 300,000 (mostly non slave owners) pour white guysm were willing fight to death to protect the property of their society's elites.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. Same as it ever was.
A pretty good chunk of those 300,000 dead traitors were slaveholders too.
But yes there were probably 200,000 dead Rebs who didn't own slaves.
They wanted to, as you noted. Or at the least they damn sure didn't want to compete with freedmen to avoid being the bottom rung of society.
The Lakota were / are not from South Dakota. They took the land. It is actually an interesting subject to look at how the native tribes in North America moved in response to the European invasion. I like to say invasion because it makes me sound woke
Native Americans were genociding each other long before whitey arrived.
It's almost like humanity is only very recently not an unquenchable bloodthirsty war machine
The Lakota were / are not from South Dakota. They took the land. It is actually an interesting subject to look at how the native tribes in North America moved in response to the European invasion. I like to say invasion because it makes me sound woke
Native Americans were genociding each other long before whitey arrived.
It's almost like humanity is only very recently not an unquenchable bloodthirsty war machine
We're a couple months away from showing that we haven't lost the blood thirst at all. Society hangs on a slim thread. Geoploitically. mutual assured destruction has kept the half assed peace for 70 years
CHAZ was a sneak preview if we? don't get our shit together and get back to work
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
Did someone actually try and make that point?
What is so complicated here? Stipulate that the US was the enlightenment that led to the global abolishment of slavery, and that the Spaniards and Dutch were way meaner slave owners than US slave owners.
It's a smudge mark on history, here and elsewhere. I accept the world was a brutal place and still can look back and think it was fucked up. That it was more fucked up elsewhere seems pertinent to a discussion about who was the most fucked up. Doesn't seem as pertinent to a discussion about slavery in the US.
And, no; before you go there, I don't subscribe to the notion that slavery in the US is why we have the issues we have today.
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
Did someone actually try and make that point?
What is so complicated here? Stipulate that the US was the enlightenment that led to the global abolishment of slavery, and that the Spaniards and Dutch were way meaner slave owners than US slave owners.
It's a smudge mark on history, here and elsewhere. I accept the world was a brutal place and still can look back and think it was fucked up. That it was more fucked up elsewhere seems pertinent to a discussion about who was the most fucked up. Doesn't seem as pertinent to a discussion about slavery in the US.
And, no; before you go there, I don't subscribe to the notion that slavery in the US is why we have the issues we have today.
Jim Crow was/is the reason
We've come a long way in 60 years but that's pretty white of me to say that
Comments
Dude's smart as fuck and very balanced.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son. Same as it ever was.
Typical Confederate soldier was probably not fighting for rich people's slave owning rights. It was to prevent stuff like the march on Atlanta and probably for Southern pride in general.
If only they had Twitter to tell them otherwise
But I live in a world in which those to whom I report have the attention span of a flea, and I never get sufficient tim to esplain myself unless I start with "this is nuclear level risk, so let me go over those certificates you sign and remind you what they cover."
In that respect, I think the Executive Summary is this.
Slavery was yet another expression of human cruelty; people have been doing brutal shit to other people forever. @Swaye 's people were no exception even b4 whitey showed up.
The US played the slavery game too.
Our civil war, based in large part on a lack of consensus on slavery, makes how we? ended it somewhat unique. Still, we? mind our own backyard and owe a heartfelt apology for our? role.
Comparing ourselves to Brazil and Cuba is like getting caught with the dog and telling everyone that the guy down the street has been doing it too.
Kap is an opportunist.
Europe did a lot of bad shit for a long tim before the US was even an idea. Duh! That's where we picked up all of our bad habits.
Glad we owe a heartfelt apology. That solved everything!!!
But yes there were probably 200,000 dead Rebs who didn't own slaves.
They wanted to, as you noted. Or at the least they damn sure didn't want to compete with freedmen to avoid being the bottom rung of society.
It's almost like humanity is only very recently not an unquenchable bloodthirsty war machine
CHAZ was a sneak preview if we? don't get our shit together and get back to work
What is so complicated here? Stipulate that the US was the enlightenment that led to the global abolishment of slavery, and that the Spaniards and Dutch were way meaner slave owners than US slave owners.
It's a smudge mark on history, here and elsewhere. I accept the world was a brutal place and still can look back and think it was fucked up. That it was more fucked up elsewhere seems pertinent to a discussion about who was the most fucked up. Doesn't seem as pertinent to a discussion about slavery in the US.
And, no; before you go there, I don't subscribe to the notion that slavery in the US is why we have the issues we have today.
We've come a long way in 60 years but that's pretty white of me to say that