Jason Whitlock: Colin Kaepernick is a fraud

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

creepycoug said:

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.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

YellowSnow said:

dnc said:

Houhusky said:

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

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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

Did someone actually try and make that point?

YellowSnow said:

dnc said:

Houhusky said:

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.

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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

Yep Jim Crow is a much bigger reason for today's mess than slavery.

Of course slavery created the attitudes that created Jim Crow. Butt still we'd be much further along if we? had handled 1877-1965 different different.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

creepycoug said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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.

Yes. Gatorz set me off by implying that in his buried post on page 1

I was trying to provide context that no culture/race/ethnicity whatever is guiltless in history. So the current fixation by the left on this issue is distracting at best and sinister at worst.

It's sinister and planned. You think dems actually give a sh*t about black people? They care about black votes. The left will tolerate hundreds of black shootings in Chicago. But the city will burn if some black felon is killed in Minneapolis.

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

creepycoug said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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.

Yes. Gatorz set me off by implying that in his buried post on page 1

I was trying to provide context that no culture/race/ethnicity whatever is guiltless in history. So the current fixation by the left on this issue is distracting at best and sinister at worst.

He never said America was the worst.

He said the US was behind the curve generally on abolishing slavery.

You want to argue that he's wrong that's fine, you have made some good points in that favor ITT.

Misrepresenting the other side only weakens your own case.

So fucking irritating.gif

No, he said almost the entirety of Europe and SA was ahead of the US on the matter. Implying the US was one of the last and therefore one of the worst. Which is wrong.

He then went on to say European colonies didnt count, and then completley gave up after facts and graphs n shit entered the discussion.

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

creepycoug said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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.

Yes. Gatorz set me off by implying that in his buried post on page 1

I was trying to provide context that no culture/race/ethnicity whatever is guiltless in history. So the current fixation by the left on this issue is distracting at best and sinister at worst.

He never said America was the worst.

He said the US was behind the curve generally on abolishing slavery.

You want to argue that he's wrong that's fine, you have made some good points in that favor ITT.

Misrepresenting the other side only weakens your own case.

So fucking irritating.gif

No, he said almost the entirety of Europe and SA was ahead of the US on the matter. Implying, thereofore, the US was one of the last and therefore one of the worst. Which is wrong.

He then went on to say European colonies didnt count, and then completley gave up after facts and graphs n shit entered the discussion.

He said "almost the entirety' of Europe and the Americas abolished slavery before us. So far we've discovered Puerto Rico, Cuba and Brazil were behind us.

Unless there's a lot more behind us than has been demonstrated in this thread, his claim looks pretty accurate.

I hope you're right, I would prefer your narrative to be correct. I'm rooting for you here.

I'm gonna need to see some facts though not just empty claims.

I am too lazy to look up the date each European country made a meaningless "no slavery" piece of legislation. What does that matter if stuff like the Congo, apartheid, Namibia was going on....literally all of Africa was being raped by Europeans until like 1960. They just outsourced the slavery to their colonies, essentially. In many ways it was far worse than what was going on in America.

Brazil was by far the biggest player and it took 30 years after the civil war.

Not sure about Cuba, Dominican etc. Someone else can look that up if they care

creepycoug said:

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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

I was gonna say ... I'm far less embarrassed about US slavery and more embarrassed that some of us? needed federal legislation and intervention to force basic human decency. To me, that Jim Crow existed in the 60s is the real smudge mark. We? should have moved forward much earlier than we? did. Not sure who to pin that one on; but there you have it.

I blame the Dems as always

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

RaceBannon said:

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

You are not allowed to shatter the Myth, Racist.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

creepycoug said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

dnc said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

SFGbob said:

Swaye said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

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.

Yes. Gatorz set me off by implying that in his buried post on page 1

I was trying to provide context that no culture/race/ethnicity whatever is guiltless in history. So the current fixation by the left on this issue is distracting at best and sinister at worst.

He never said America was the worst.

He said the US was behind the curve generally on abolishing slavery.

You want to argue that he's wrong that's fine, you have made some good points in that favor ITT.

Misrepresenting the other side only weakens your own case.

So fucking irritating.gif

No, he said almost the entirety of Europe and SA was ahead of the US on the matter. Implying, thereofore, the US was one of the last and therefore one of the worst. Which is wrong.

He then went on to say European colonies didnt count, and then completley gave up after facts and graphs n shit entered the discussion.

He said "almost the entirety' of Europe and the Americas abolished slavery before us. So far we've discovered Puerto Rico, Cuba and Brazil were behind us.

Unless there's a lot more behind us than has been demonstrated in this thread, his claim looks pretty accurate.

I hope you're right, I would prefer your narrative to be correct. I'm rooting for you here.

I'm gonna need to see some facts though not just empty claims.

I am too lazy to look up the date each European country made a meaningless "no slavery" piece of legislation. What does that matter if stuff like the Congo, apartheid, Namibia was going on....literally all of Africa was being raped by Europeans until like 1960. They just outsourced the slavery to their colonies, essentially. In many ways it was far worse than what was going on in America.

Brazil was by far the biggest player and it took 30 years after the civil war.

Not sure about Cuba, Dominican etc. Someone else can look that up if they care

I actually think the colony thing is a decent point.

Despite the British Empire's statement of abolition of slavery in 1833 slavery was still practiced in their colonies and landholdings around the world, India for example didn't outlaw slavery until 1861.

Still... England used its colonies to transition from "slavery" to a more "palatable" system of equally horrific indentured servitude. The British indentured labor system in India was in place from 1838 until 1917 but not before transporting well over 1.5 million Indians around the world to work on sugar and timber plantations in their colonial territories. There is a reason why former British colonies often have large populations of Indians, like Durban in South Africa or basically the entire population of Mauritius.

TurdBomber said:

dnc said:

YellowSnow said:

dnc said:

Houhusky said:

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.

Secessionists aren't Traitors.

As Senator What's His Face said to in the Outlaw Josey Wales: to the victors belong the spoils.

So, the North gets to call them whatever they want; and the sons of the South have to eat it.

"Traitors" I says.