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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW I agree with you that exempting the colonies is missing the point.
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
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.
Just to clarify so we don't have people driving all over the fucking place: the one on Aurora, near the U district, right?
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.
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.
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 think that the Seahawks need to become woke, hire Kaepernick, and all this shit will go away.
Floyd will not matter Black activists will stop asking for reparations The protestors will go home (obviously some went to their maker instead) Stalin will change and porn will be allowed on all threads
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
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.
Well, then, you're no Anti-Racist in the eyes of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi.
And that means you're a racist. You only get two choices, doncha know?
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.
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.
It's even simpler than that: Democrats can't solve any major problems because they lack confidence in themselves and others. They are left to run campaigns built upon blaming others for their failures, while fully embracing Goebbels Big Lie Theory by blaming the opposition to avoid scrutiny of their own corruption and incompetence.
That so many citizens cannot see this in plain sight indicates how brainwashed and trained they are, including the Corona Beta-Bros who hang around this site rooting through the waste for attention crumbs.
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.
Comments
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.
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 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
He then went on to say European colonies didnt count, and then completley gave up after facts and graphs n shit entered the discussion.
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.
BTW I agree with you that exempting the colonies is missing the point.
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
With all this hot South American talk, to be clear, the Throbber is a huge fan of the Brazilians.
Floyd will not matter
Black activists will stop asking for reparations
The protestors will go home (obviously some went to their maker instead)
Stalin will change and porn will be allowed on all threads
Peace and love will reign supreme.
Well, then, you're no Anti-Racist in the eyes of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi.
And that means you're a racist. You only get two choices, doncha know?
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.
That so many citizens cannot see this in plain sight indicates how brainwashed and trained they are, including the Corona Beta-Bros who hang around this site rooting through the waste for attention crumbs.
So, the North gets to call them whatever they want; and the sons of the South have to eat it.
"Traitors" I says.