The history of slavery tells us it was the entire world’s economic system for thousands of years. It did not begin and end with Anglo America. Every major ethnic group has had its hand in the sordid past of this institution. At one time or another, every ethnic group in the world has enslaved another ethnic group. It’s time the rest of the story was told, and that begins with revealing the long history of slavery in Latin America.
Since leaving Anglo America because feminism poisoned the well for traditional men, living in Latin America has shown me this area of the world needs to share the burden of the guilt of slavery. Not to mention, Africa also needs to share in the burden of slavery, where slavery and went on in most kingdoms and societies on the continent for thousands of years, and is still ongoing to this day in some African countries. There is a lot of blame to go around for this problem. It should never be used to shame and manipulate only one group of people to suit a political agenda as it is in the United States.
In Latin America, one need look no farther than the popular Salsa music genre to find the history of the brutal nature of Latin slave owners written in music. The lyrics, translated from Spanish, are eye-opening:
In the 1600s, when the tyrant ruledIn the streets of Cartagena, this history played outThere came the slave traders, with Africans in chainsThey kissed the land, then perpetual slaveryAn African couple, slaves of a Spanish manHe treated them very badlyAnd hit the Black womanIt was then, that the heroic black man rebelledHe avenged his loveAnd you can still hear him yelling at the gates:Don’t hit my black woman!
The lyrics to this popular song tell a tale of a slave rebellion that happened in Cartagena, Colombia, a rebellion the puppet masters in the American media and education system would prefer never be told, as they tout the Superior Virtue of immigrants from Latin America over those WASPs they hate so much in America.
An abusive Colombian slave owner beating an African female slave doesn’t fit the narrative of large numbers of immigrants from Latin American trying to overcome oppressive “whitey.” Statistics help reveal more of the story behind the music.
Numbers
Notice most of the slave trade arrows do no point to the U.S.
It may surprise you to learn the United States was a relatively minor player in the slave trade. A full 99% of the white population never owned slaves. One could say blaming all whites for the sins of slave ownership is the modern day equivalent of blaming the entire population for the modern day sins of the elite 1% in the country. While most of use do not agree with what the elite are doing to Americans in business and in politics, those who have a disproportionate share of money, political influence, and largely control the means of production and communication make the decisions, not the rest of us.
Statistically, Mexico and Peru combined imported more slaves than the United States. Over the course of more than 350 years, of the 11.2 million slaves imported from Africa in the slave trade, only 4% of them, or 450,000 arrived in the United States. The other 96% mostly went to Latin America (including Portuguese and French colonies in the Americas), according to the highly-rated documentary Black in Latin America by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. A full one-third of slaves landed in Brazil and 60 to 70% landed in either Brazil or the Caribbean. This is easy to see when one visits the Caribbean, as on most islands the population skews heavily towards African ancestry. You would never know this from reading liberal history books.
The stereotype of the savage Southern hick acting alone as a sadistic abuser while slave owners in other countries supposedly were more humane to their slaves is also destroyed simply by reading history, rather listening to narratives designed to scapegoat one group of people. Going against the narrative that only Anglos are mean and vicious, U.S. slave owners were demonstrably more humane than their Latino counterparts, as much fewer slaves died in the U.S. than in Latin America and the Caribbean. From the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History:
Slavery in the United States was especially distinctive in the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction. In the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana, and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birthrate so low that slaves could not sustain their population without imports from Africa. The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2—twice as many as in the West Indies (Caribbean).
Death rates among slaves in the Caribbean were one-third higher than in the South, and suicide appears to have been much more common. Unlike slaves in the South, West Indian slaves were expected to produce their own food in their “free time,” and care for the elderly and the infirm.
Access to freedom was greater in Latin America, but in many cases masters freed sick, elderly, crippled, or simply unneeded slaves in order to relieve themselves of financial responsibilities.
In addition to Latin America freeing more slaves but not freeing them unless they were used up and worthless, importantly, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies mixed with their slaves, making the black population not as visible as it is today in the U.S. These ethnically blended populations have helped in making the history of the practice less visible than in Anglo America, where populations did not mix. Continuing from the Gilder-Lehrman Institute:
Another important difference between Latin America and the United States involved conceptions of race. In Spanish and Portuguese America, an intricate system of racial classification emerged. Compared with the British and French, the Spanish and Portuguese were much more tolerant of racial mixing—an attitude encouraged by a shortage of European women—and recognized a wide range of racial gradations, including black, mestizo, quadroon, and octoroon. The American South, in contrast, adopted a two-category system of race in which any person with a black mother was automatically considered to be black.
The practice of racial mixing was so common in the Dominican Republic that genetic studies have revealed a majority of the population to have DNA from white European fathers and black African mothers. Colombia also reveals a high proportion of admixture between European fathers and African mothers. In other Latin nations African slaves were “absorbed” into the larger population through reproduction.
According to Black in Latin America, the integration of African peoples was so pervasive that every Mexican has an “African grandma hiding in their closet.”
So, there were far higher numbers of slaves in modern day Latin America than anybody would believe unless they studied the numbers, yet the issue isn’t as visible because of a long history of racial mixing in this part of the world.
Political Motivations
The one-sided narrative of slavery is used as a political thumbscrew
So, why are these inconvenient truths about slavery never brought up or given the light of day? Because they would destroy the grievance racket, and the elite’s thumbscrew to keep people feeling guilty and under control would be taken away.
If one listens to leftists, Anglos invented slavery, all of them were complicit in it, the United States was the only evil country that ever used this system, and turnabout is fair play so now it’s time for whites to be disenfranchised and oppressed. And moral giants that we politicians and elites are, we would never allow slavery to go on—even though slavery and indentured servitude are still practiced in the American family court system with female privilege. (And, it can be argued predatory student loans that aren’t dismissable even in bankruptcy are a form of debt bondage.)
For well over 100 years, there have been racial demagogues constantly exploiting the problem for political and financial gain. Booker T. Washington, a leading voice of former slaves and their descendants wrote:
There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.
My experience is that people who call themselves “The Intellectuals” understand theories, but they do not understand things. I have long been convinced that, if these men could have gone into the South and taken up and become interested in some practical work which would have brought them in touch with people and things, the whole world would have looked very different to them. Bad as conditions might have seemed at first, when they saw that actual progress was being made, they would have taken a more hopeful view of the situation.
In other words, exploiting the problem and framing it as Hollyweird and the corrupt media have is profitable and makes for a powerful political weapon to use against the masses, especially when one desires keeping a nation racially divided. All while the elite expects everyone to remain willfully ignorant of the fact slavery has been a worldwide institution for thousands of years – and is still ongoing in parts of Africa, namely Chad, Congo, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Sudan.
The history of slavery in Latin America—which has a far more expansive history than slavery in the U.S.—can no longer be ignored. There’s a lot of blame to go around, and it’s time to stop scapegoating one group of people for crimes that all of humanity participated in, and some countries are still participating in to this day!
Read More: Slavery Practices Throughout History
… don’t forget all the evil (((white))) people.
http://www.rense.com/general69/invo.htm
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/how_culpable_were_dutch_jews_in_the_slave_trade
I was already called a privileged white male bigot for the day because I don’t agree with Islam being a religion of peace.
What is this article for other than contributing to this site becoming stormfront-lite?
How is this article Stormfront in any way?
The article tells the truth: most slaves did not get sent to North America.
Whites also didn’t collect them that was other african tribes and arabs.
Contrary to what BLM and other disingenuous groups say, our society was not built on slavery.
Trolls gonna troll.
Teaching history in its entirety, including the fact that non whites engaged in slavery to a greater extent, is not “storm front lite”
But, alas, you’re either a troll or an SJW with no reading comprehension skills. Perhaps a bit of both.
Soros will demand a refund if this the best you can do, trollkin.
Allow me to answer your White Knight troll question.
This article is to wake up White males who have been lied to, taken advantage of and made to feel ashamed of their culture. It’s to remind us that contrary to what the (((media))) says we are not born evil.
Hows that sound for a start?
Once again, this website is hosted by a man of middle eastern descent whose mission in life is to traipse around Europe and fornicate with white women. Pride in European heritage is all well and fine, but are Roosh’s sites really the best platforms to do that?
Roosh is White as I consider Persians White. And perhaps there are some who don’t consider me White due to my Portuguese ancestry but, those are a minority.
And I also believe Roosh has evolved since his DC bachelor days so yes, it’s inappropriate.
What about Armenians though?
If you consider Roosh white, you are largely in the minority as far as alt-righters go. (Although Persians are closer to Europeans than Arabs, despite both being Caucasian peoples.) Most alt-right sites I have read consider Roosh nothing more than a “kebab.”
Lastly, though he’s slowing down, he still has yet to settle down. That’s his own business, though.
Yup. White. Armenians, Greeks, some Lebanese Christians. And yes, there is a vocal group that doesn’t consider them to be White but, most alt righters of note certainly do.
Not European though. Most alt-righters consider only Europeans to be “white,” even though white is not a race.
“Most alt-righters of note?”
Like who? Jared Taylor sure wouldn’t think so. John Derbyshire probably wouldn’t either, despite both being self-described “race realists.” Counter Currents has at least a couple of articles where they describe Roosh as some “monster of the Orient” or something along those lines. Stormfront? Please.
Jared Taylor and Derb dont represent alt right at all. They are not relevant to anyone under the age of 60 so I wouldn’t use them as examples. Though I would guess that both of them would say that Armenians are White.
As far as Jared Taylor is concerned, anyone who is not a Christian European is not white.
Not relevant to anyone under 60? Tell that to Matt Forney. According to him there were quite a few young people at Taylor’s last Amren convention.
As for not representing the alt-right, they are very much the alt-right. The alt-right is a blanket term comprising several dissident right-leaning movements that are at odds with mainstream conservatism, ranging from game/self-improvement (Roosh) to white nationalism (Taylor) to “paleoconservatism” (Derbyshire). You read Taki’s Mag, don’t you? You of all people ought to know that “the Derb” is part of the alt-right.
Dude, I have good friends who have been to Amren conferences. The average age there is 60. Trust me on that.
And I think Takimag has some of the sharpest posters on the internetz and even there many of them don’t revere Derb. Myself included.
However, my original point stands. The majority of alt righters believe Armenians, Greeks, etc.. are White. You only have to peruse the comment sections of both sites mentioned above to note this. When a lone poster goes on a Nordic rant, they are quickly shot down by the masses. And the other alt right sites that are geared to a younger demographic this is even less of debate.
Albanians one the other hand…
Well, I’m glad we’re at least somewhat agreed on Derbyshire. Personally I find him a piece of shit and a hypocrite, but that’s neither here nor there.
Do you have any articles to prove that these sites consider Armenians, Persians, etc. white? And Albanians are white. Don’t even start with that.
this is from stormfront which is the most extreme example and even here at least half the posters think Armenians etc are White. You would find an even greater % on Taki or Vox or Morgoth.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t105116-2/
Perhaps Albanians are White but, culturally they are foreign.
So for the sake of consistency, would you consider Indians white? Northern Indians look pretty Mediterranean to me.
yes, I would categorise some of them as White. There are numerous Indo-Europeans tribes found in that part of the world. Google Kalash tribe and then for more interesting reading google Bhatti tribe.
Where it gets muddled is religion and culture. Modern Whites come from a Hellenic Christian background and culture.
You would have to consider them all white then. According to geneticist Razib Khan, all Indians come from the same ancestors. (I’ll have to look for the article.) Are you, like many in this sphere, confusing “white” with “Caucasian?” As I’ve said before, white is neither a race, nor an ethnicity. It is a skin tone generally associated with European Caucasians and some middle eastern populations like Iranians.
Yeah I know Khan and have read some of his work. He got fired from NYT for being a bit too ‘real’ on race. And no I do not believe that the Kalash people are of the same tribe as Tamils. Kalash are White. Tamils are not.
And no, not confusing White for Caucasian. To me White is kind of similar to how David Lane defines White. ‘Do you look White? We’re you raised within a White culture ? Do you recognise the achievements of Whites and fight for them? If yes, you’re White.
I’m aware you’re not White but, this site may be of interest to you regarding ‘Whiteness’.
http://www.davidlane1488.com/whoiswhite.html
Sorry Hugo, but it’s things like this that give the “race is a social construct” people ammunition. “Look white?” There are a lot of blond, blue eyed Jews, aren’t there?
“Were you raised within a white culture?” There are a lot of non-whites who can answer yes to this question, are there not?
“Recognize the achievements of whites?” Which whites are we talking about? Western European whites achieved far, far more than their Eastern counterparts. Hell, certain western European populations (English, French, Germans) achieved more than other western European populations (Irish, Sicilians, parts of Spain). The founding fathers of the United States were willing and able to make this distinction, though guys like Jared Taylor and Heartiste don’t seem to be able to. Race is not a social construct but clearly, as history and our present reality shows us, “whiteness” is.
Albanians are the whitest people in the Mediterranean region!
Ha! Was this before or after they got down on their knees and converted to Islam?
I think youre mixing things up. “Black”, “White” is the eyeball and culture test. You can look Whitish but, not be raised with White culture or morals and not be White. Ie. Jewish people.
You have to look like the respective people and be of that culture.
And that is why Obama or Tiger Woods is considered ‘Black’ and not a mulatto or half Asian.
And the recognition of all White accomplishments from Petra to the Notre Dame.
And why are you a non White so curious about White folks?
Because there are people in this sphere who seem to think that human group differences only apply to non-white people, i.e. Jared Taylor, Roissy, David Duke. “White” is by no means a homogeneous group. If the United State, for example, had been colonized by the Russians instead of the English, do you really think it would be a country where the standard of living is extremely high and basic rights are guaranteed to all people regardless of origin?
And is Tiger Woods really a fixture of black culture? How many non-white golfers are there?
Good question. Dont know much about golf. I spend too much time inside a gym to follow it. Maybe 20%
And yes, there is huge diversity within Whites. In fact, there is diversity within Portugal where I originally am from. People in the Azores and Northern Portuguese Celts as an example.
And your interest in this as a non White is pure curiosity?
Curiosity and necessity.
They provide an example for the Islamic world since they kept their identity as a trine but didn’t go full Arab. From what I’ve seen, they seem to like alcohol more than Islam and are pretty secular.
Whats their identity? Pimping 12 year old girls?
Please guy. You cant choose to be Islamic and consider yourself White. Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks all resisted and maintained their culture and identity while the Albanians punked out.
Blacks were also not the only slaves in the Americas. The British enslaved many Irish and sent them over as slaves to the Caribbean. In fact there was a time when it was cheaper to by an Irish slave than an African one because it was thought they would perish more quickly in the tropical environment.
You are FULL of S…!
Wow, what a thoughtful, complete rebuttal. How could anyone argue with you. /Sarc.
How about next time you actually try to show WHY he is full of shit or why you disagree with him, that way your readers can learn something and make up their own mind.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/19/how-myth-irish-slaves-became-favorite-meme-racists-online
It’s also worth noting that the African slaves were predominantly purchased from Muslim slave markets, where they castrate slaves by Sharia law. The slaves sold to Western countries were left untouched and allowed to marry and bear children.
Believe it or not, without Western slavery none of those who complain about their ancestors would be alive – their forefathers would have been entirely unable to produce offspring.
Primarily Arab sellers to Jewish purchasers.
Unless you’re one of the handful of men who prints money out of thin air and loans it out at interest, everybody is a slave…black vs. white, gay vs. straight, liberal vs. conservative – it’s all misdirection. And it works, too. Every single time. And very few people will ever notice it. And even if they do, there’s nothing they can do about it. And how fucking brilliant is that.
If anyone is interested in verifying that banks can create money out of thin air, here’s the empirical evidence: https://www.kreditopferhilfe.net/docs/Richard_Werner__Can_banks_individually_create_money_out_of_nothing__plus_supplemental_material.pdf
Something the left never mentions is the fact many white Europeans were held as slaves in the Middle East. In fact, Mr Livingstone purchased his blonde Hungarian wife from a half-black slave merchant in Aswan.
But no, it’s always the white man’s fault.
If i am not mistaken, 3 to 4 million Europeans were made slaves by muslims in the period between the VIII century to XIX century, from the Ottoman Janissaries to women sex slaves, namely Scandinavian. Nobody talks about of course!
Ask the Greeks or the Serbians about slavery under Islamic rule.
A good book on the slave trade in the “new world” is Redneck Manifesto by Jim Goad. Talks about white (mostly) Irish slaves.
Another good book on this subject is by Farakhan, Secret Relationship between black and Jews.
Both available online.
We Greeks know all about that hence our natural response to have an intense and justified hatred for Moslems from birth.
Thank you for the suggestion!
Is that ‘natural response’ caused by the Cyprus situation, or is it the other way around?
Não faz mal
Too bad your government seems to be working against the Hellenic people.
Indeed. They’re all a bunch of sell-outs who belong against a wall.
Historicity-400 years of subjugation by the Ottomans does that to you. Not forgetting the attacks against the Byzantines-the Cyprus situation is just one of the more recent outrages.
you forget about the byzantine empire? that oppressed europeans and muslims alike? ottomans came after that, they took their land back and said fuck you. so yall gonna twist history to make it seem like they started shit? nice, more scapegoating- do you ppl ever take responsibility? you also forget about alexander the not so great? he was before rome and he dominated the shit out of what was to be the ottoman empire. LEARN HISTORY, PAY ATTENTION TO DATES AND STOP BEING SELECTIVE ABOUT IT. YOU CANT PICK AND CHOOSE THE MOST CONVENIENT PARTS TO SPARE YOUR FRAGILITY. fucking pathetic, always scapegoating
How about you eat a dick.
Exactly, the word slave is supposedly derived from Slav due to all the Slavic slaves the ottomans had from going into southern Russia to EE
I am waiting for Hollywood to make a movie about that…I am being sarcastic of course.
If they did they would make the Turks look white and probably say they were actually Christians and not Muslims. Steven Spielberg made sure to put a bunch of Christian images and perception in amistad even tho the majority of slave merchants, traders/sellers, and owners were Jewish but that’s neither here nor there…
Indeed. A movie like that probably would be censured before it was finished. The Truth is a very rare commodity these days!
The big lie of the Amistad story is what they leave out. After the black protagonist won his case he returned to his African home. Once there he became very wealthy by being a slave trader. He took black African slaves and sold them to whites via the connections he had made while in the western hemisphere.
I never knew that, I did know that something similar to that happened with the failed state of Liberia in that the former slaves who were sent there to be free then used the tactics once used on them to enslave the locals there. I love history but it’s a shame you can constantly relearn something over and over because some, if not most of the truth is usually twisted or simply left out.
Wow I never knew that. Really?! Makes me wonder just how much else I dont know. Obviously a LOT.
SLAVE is a latin word, latin was a language before slavic ppl developed their culture and identity. again PAY ATTENTION TO HISTORY AND DATES. STOP PICKING AND CHOOSING AND CONNECTING THINGS THAT DONT CONNECT- HENCE THE IMPORTANCE OF DATES! how is it with an unlimited resource like the internet readily available ppl are more stupid than ever before??
and “slav” comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is “to hear” and occurs in many derivatives meaning “renown, fame.” The Slavs are thus “the famous people.” Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, “God’s fame,” Russian Msti-slav, “vengeful fame,” and Polish Stani-slaw, “famous for withstanding (enemies).”
why the hell wouldnt muslims use an arabic term? why would they use a word that has old french, latin roots?
The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greek σκλάβος, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early Medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved.
That’s also what the Internet said, and I never said Muslims used that term. My point was that people other than blacks were slaves too at one point in history and nothing else. Thanks for the history lesson tho.
The word slave comes from Slav. White Christians from Europe. Millions put into bondage by Africans/Muslims and Joos
Rolling my eyes, really, and Ottomans’ by the way are Caucasian.be they muslim or otherwise. Just like the Romans enslaved the conquered.
Catherine Van Brugh Livingston was never a slave. why do you ppl lie? her family was big in the fur trade, they were bourgeois if anything. stop lying
And don’t forget dem slaves built da White House! Michelle hands got da hard skin on dem from all da cotton she be pickin’.
The immoral part of the industrialised slave trade was the kidnapping and trafficking of slaves; the former part was mostly done by the Muslims and had us whiteys not done the latter then the slaves that we didn’t trafic would’ve been killed by the Muslims. The Muslims were after female slaves to keep as housemaids and concubines; as far as they were concerned male slaves would cause nothing but trouble so were usually killed (or castrated as Taignobias said) until Europeans came along and bought up the male slaves (who were more in demand in the US than female slaves as we wanted them for strength and manual labour rather than to keep as concubines).
Who did what and when aside, everyone thinks that, even minus the kidnapping, trafficking and involuntary parts, slavery is in and of itself evil. In modern developed countries, maybe that’s true. But for someone living in a time or a place without Daddy Government to provide for them, someone who is living in real poverty and doesn’t know where they’ll sleep tonight or where their next meal will come from, someone who has creditors clamoring for the tattered shirt off their back, working for a master in exchange for food, shelter, basic medical care and the paying off of their debts (in other words, slavery as it was practiced in ancient cultures as opposed to the later historically anomalous industrialised transatlantic slave trade) isn’t such a bad deal.
Nice follow up to OJ. White men fucking black female slaves. Now it’s black men fucking mudsharks. But back then, the white European colonists fucked the black women and the native aboriginal asiatic indian women when no white women were to be found. The Dutch pilgrims were the only successful colonists in terms of preserving the purity of their race in that they sent both white men and women to settle whereas the Spanish and Portugese sent only men. What did they expect? With male-only crews, colonial expansion is more rapid, but culture are race was largely lost. That was the tradeoff.
In Portugal during the late 1400’s in the day of Henry the Navigator, blacks were present in large numbers in the streets of Lisbon. The sudden slave trade boom economy transformed Lisbon into a non white city. The change was ten fold what we see in Cologne Germany and Malmo Sweden. With the slave trade market central to the economy, Lisbon quickly became a majority non white capitol district city similar to DC. Portugese men were steered into the navy by droves and encouraged to venture out leaving their wives behind. Portugese women left alone then took up the practice of keeping male black slaves in their homes as servants while the majority of portugese men were shipped out and unavailable. Black slaves were a dime a dozen in the capitol of the slave trading market city of Lisbon and white men were unavailable. You know what happned next. White portugese women would be seen commonly in the streets with their black male ‘pets’ who would carry bags for them and the women began to don pregnant bellies. The portugese have been largely a mulatto people ever since the 1500’s. The exploration stopped and modern Portugese ‘fado’ music is kind of like the ‘salsa’ in that it spawned from a time of slavery. Fado music is a melancholic past time music that has lyrics which speak of the good old days, way back before they mongrelized and back when Portugal was as white as old Spain or the Netherlands. It’s kind of like how conservative white Americans reminisce and have nostalgia for the 1950’s with June Cleaver wearing pearls and the traditional families were the norm.
It’s also notable that numbers of ashki jews descended on portugal before the slave boom. The jewish ‘small hats’ as they were called by the African traders also dealt slaves to other European countries to a lesser degree, but in Portugal they were instrumental in some positions of government where they created incentives for white Portugese men to abandon their nests.
I am in Lisbon right now and Portuguese blacks seem to have come only in the last century, after the peak of African colonization.
Their history of metropolitan slavery was confined to the capital and the city was raised to the ground in 1755, and then repopulated from unmixed, rural populations.
The idea we have in anglophone countries and large part of Europe that Portuguese are blacks probably comes from the fact that a lot of Cabo Verdeans and Angolans or Mozambicans required portuguese nationality after independency.
But they are indeed very comfortable with miscegenation…
Us Portuguese are a mulatto race? Huh. No one told my blond, blue eyed father that.
That’s what happens when Stormfront gets to the surface! All true whites are blonde,fair skinned, light blue eyes and Viking features. Unfortunately for you lot down in sunny town Porto, the Moors turned you black. All whites descend from the Vikings, son, but you must be bleaching your skin.
Sarc!
Plus shoehorning Jooooos at the end. It’s like race Tourette’s.
That’s just a Cohencidence.
The return of the word WASP is significant.
Pack an extra bit of Kratom in your pipe boys, it’s one of those race articles!!! *fastens seat belt*
That will be unnecessary, as I’m already on intravenous Kratom. My awsomeness makes Zeus and Apollo cry in shame.
…intravenous? Damn, how many inches did you gain?
Inches? Feet, and this only in the first days.
I have Kratom delivered via IV through my glans and I have gained yards within hours-now that’s an aphrodisiac.
I’d be interested in seeing a list of prominent families who owned slaves. I bet you would recognize more than one or two of them. I bet a few of them are still active in US politics
Really timely and useful article Rel thanks
Imagine as a thought experiment that the indigenous peoples of Africa were white and not black and the same thing occurred. Would we call it slavery?
In fact, the history of Europe is one litany of events where mostly white tribes and clans were captured and made to live under the rule of a superior tribe. For example, when the golden horde invaded Europe they conquered and captured Slavic tribes who were treated as slaves.
To be factually correct slavery has nothing to to with race or ethnicity. In the American case the slaves happened to be black, so the term slavery has now become synonymous in modern parlance with meaning slavery as occurred only in America and of course this has racial overtones that can be exploited by people on the far left and right of the political spectrum.
Whole heartedly agree. Slavery is big business in the land of the free.
Not sure if it will play out the same for one thing, white Africans could of developed greater tech and sci as well as political and sociological advances
Sure because white people are just naturally smarter. The Negro is just dumb because he is the more natural athlete. Seriously though, The Northern Hemisphere has fucked with Africa since the dawn of time. The reason ? It is called the gem of Africa. I agree with Roosh that many black people live off the transgressions of ten of thousand slave owners from a couple hundred of years ago. I don’t think any slave owner has ever been called to account for their actions. A number of slave owners partook in writing the constitution. African American slaves do have the better deal than the others for what thats worth. Slavery is fucked up but of course we are all really just slaves, voting is just the blinders on to keep us heading on.
I’ll leave this here. Agree or disagree as you wish.
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm
Yes in answer to the question in your first paragraph. “White” slavery was very common in the Roman Empire.
You are right. It’s time for the truth to come out. By the way the golden Horde were Mongols not whites but your point still stands…the members of the defeated tribe were normally enslaved and worked to death or sold to merchants.
Yes, YOU would still call it SLAVERY, people held against their will for benefit of others. Egyptians, Greeks and Romans enslaved. Chinese did. Mayans did and likely some in the sub-Saharan area of Africa. Still doesn’t make it right.
The problem in the U.S was it was one of the most recent republics to practice slavery…
I tend to inform some of my more Southern Sympathizer colleagues not to use the examples of South American abolishment of slavery to defend the Confederacy. Some say that the CSA would’ve abolished slavery, as Confederacy President Jefferson Davis promised to Pope Pius IX that they would abolish slavery within 8 years of securing independence. I point this out because there’s no way of knowing what might’ve happened if the Confederacy had won the Civil War, and that South American slavery was a vastly different experience than North American slavery.
The reason why attrition rates in South America were so high among both African and South American slaves in places like Brazil, Peru, and Argentina was because of climate, disease, and a lot of the kind of work these slaves were doing. The South American slaves succumbed to a lot of European diseases, whereas the African slaves, while more resistant to such diseases, had a much harder time working in silver mines, working in notoriously deadly South American jungles, and dealing with the various climates. By comparison, North American climates and work conditions were more ideal for African slaves, and, by the way, because of that there’s no way of really knowing what the CSA would’ve done with slavery that a lot say was on it’s way out by the mid-19th Century.
But one thing I know about oligarchy in general is that oligarchs, when given a chance to protect their interests, will do so as long as they can. Many Confederate leaders had grand ambitions after the war, with their eyes on acquiring Cuba and the Caribbean, the American Southwest, even Mexico and Central America. Again, slavery may be a part of such plans because in order for slavery to really pay off in the manner by which it is best utilized back then was to expand the territory, thereby allowing oligarchs to buy up as much farm-rich property, and make slavery profitable if even in the short term. And one thing that often doesn’t get too much mention in these discussions is the notorious stubbornness of American southerners, who would do something if it at all pissed off Yankees.
In 1888, Brazil abolished slavery. That took a lot of doing, in spite of the fact that slavery was just not economical in Brazil for the most part. They had a lot of priests and bishops clamoring for the end of slavery in Brazil, and this was a profound influence on its abolishment. If I’m not mistaken, either just before or just after, Argentina abolished it, and what often is not mentioned is the attempted mass extermination of the former slaves, both African and South American, living in Argentina at the time. It was nearly successful, but it’s not what most people hear about. Only recently, within the last 20-30 years, have their been people who were the descendants of the survivors started to come out of the wilderness of Argentina to assert their rights and place in Argentinian society.
Of course the Confederacy would have abolished slavery. The only question is when. It could have been in 5 years, or it could have been in 50. But there is zero doubt in any rational historian’s mind that the CSA would do as every other society on the planet has done, and decide that slavery (at least the permanent kind) is immoral and wrong.
Never underestimate the power of human stubbornness and avarice. There is still slavery going on in the world today, and people can rationalize anything. Still, it may be likely that the CSA would’ve abolished slavery eventually, but we’re playing a “What If” game. There are a lot of scenarios that could play out, a lot of which have nothing whatsoever to do with slavery.
But all first and second world cultures eliminated slavery by 1890. So the question would be, what would be different about the CSA that would cause it to keep slavery, when everyone else evolved their civilizations to abolish it? Anyway, the south is far less dependent on agriculture than, say, California, or even Iowa. Slavery wasn’t essential to the economy, it was just nice to have free labor. And even if the CSA wanted to keep slaves, there would be cultural pressure from the USA, Canada, Mexico, etc. Yes, Mexico would be more prominent than it is today, with a CSA.
One might say that given that typical American taxpayers work 170 days out of the year for the IRS, a form of quasi-slavery, a harsher form of serfdom than actual serfdom ever was (a medieval serf owed his lord about 35 days out of the year, could not be forced off the land, and had plenty of time off). But, if the CSA achieved independence and reneged on Jefferson Davis’ promise to end slavery in 8 years hence, we can consider quite a lot of scenarios. Again, this is just a What If scenario, but it’s worth considering.
Had the South won the war, there would’ve likely been a peace treaty with the USA. Southern leaders would’ve insisted that the Fugitive Slave Act be stridently enforced, and that any runaway slave that fought for the Union be remanded to the South for punishment. That latter point may be a bit strong, and likely the US might not actually do much of it, but it’s there to warn present slaves that the USA is not going to help them, not officially anyway. They might’ve put in clauses that force US citizens to obey the Fugitive Slave Act, and force the US Government to crack down on “Underground Railroads” and any abolitionist groups that would foment slave revolts. Two of the things that terrified Southern slave owners was the Nat Turner Rebellion, and then the subsequent John Brown Raid on Harper’s Ferry.
Over time following, should the CSA continue with slavery, the oligarchs there would do whatever they can to make it work, enacting policies and programs to work to that endeavour. One way would be to make a deal with the British government to reopen the slave trade out of Africa again for cheap Southern cotton and textiles. Queen Victoria might not approve of this, but that’s just one way. Another is the expansion into the American Southwest, and the conquest of Cuba.
As the South industrialized, the oligarchs could reform slavery to better accommodate the demands of factory owners and railroads. This wouldn’t sit too well with poor Southerners, but factory work is not exactly a fun job compared with the relative flexibility of farm life. If the South successfully implements slavery to industrial production, they could be in a better position to offer cheaper industrialized goods to foreign nations like Britain, Germany, France and Russia than what the US would be able to offer. Henry Ford himself tried to enshackle his own workers in his Fordtowns near his factories, so similar initiatives might also work. Yes, there would likely be uprisings and strikes, but the benefits of such inexpensive labour would offset any damages and losses when such uprisings are violently put down.
This, of course, won’t sit well with the so-called first and second world nations, but cheap goods tends to assuage most disgust. Likely, it might bring another war with the US, who would use such horrors as rallying cries to liberate the slaves from their oppressors.
Again, this is just a What If scenario, and there are a lot of things that could happen. The demand for cheap labour is a powerful force, especially when oligarchs rule nations, and going from a slave state to a free state is costly, and takes years, if not decades to recover from, during which there’s a lot of uncertainty, and oligarchs love certainty, even if it’s really a false sense of security.
This is all speculation. I will simply say that 1) No country in the world had to resort to war to rid itself of slavery, other than the USA and 2) life under the modern American government is more onerous than life as a slave under a good master (ie one that didn’t abuse you / rape you / whip you, which was a small fraction of slaveowners because masters wanted their workers happy and productive).
If you read the CSA Constitution, you’ll find that not only was slavery legal, but that no state could abolish it within its own jurisdiction. I highly doubt that the CSA would have abolished slavery by way of law like the USA did.
Most likely it would have gone away because of economic factors like mechanization or the industrialization.
http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
Correct. Slavery would have ended in the US within 1 or 2 generations simply due to technological developments in agriculture. Once the econmic cost-benefit swung, former slaves would have been tossed on their “free” ass in the south.
It’s time the whole Slavery guilt monger thing gets dropped in the west, and we move along with our lives. Nobody alive today, even remotely close, has any connection to Antebellum times. The article is right in saying everybody’s race has been a slave owner and slave at some point in time, and the way Blacks force everyone to focus on Black slavery alone, like Blacks were the only slaves, and all other race’s enslaved don’t matter, makes Blacks appear to think of themselves as special snowflakes on the issue of slavery. Slavery in the west has been dead for a long ass time, so if slavery is of concern in modern times , perhaps people should focus their effort at the parts of the world where slavery is still relevant, like the places Relampago describes .
To let slavery go, one needs to have the society release the ghost. No slavery taught in schools. Abolish the word “nigger”. Remove prisons from proximity to schools. End all profits due to slavery. Eliminate slavery from politics and all race superiority arguments. Let the people sink or swim of their own accord. As long as people profit from slavery and nothing is done to exorcise this, we will continue to live in the ghost of American slavery. It’s the only system that is gone that allows the worst of the worst to place themselves above fellow citizens, while profiting off of those citizens.
Nigger shouldn’t be abolished, the attitude of society needs to change about that word. Miss teen Usa is getting massive Flak for using the word off hand, and not intending to be racist, but just saying it to be cool, but she’s a white girl, so the black community says “That’s a no no” even though the Black community releases rap album after rap album , using the word , “Nigger”. Minority groups, and majority groups shouldn’t be telling each other what they can and can’t do, what words are off limits etc etc, but the black community likes limiting the white community’s vocabulary and establishing parameters the white community must stay within in order to be seen as acceptable in society (and somehow one group establishing another groups etiquette is not considered racism when it’s blacks doing it to whites). Basically, if blacks can say nigger, then whites should be able to say it without social repercussion.
I see what you are saying. After reading her Twitter posts it is clear she is just a product of hip hop culture in America and that is the word she chose to use to represent comraderie. Plus it would put me in a quandary to say she is racist as I would bang.
It is less the word and always the intent of the word. In mixed company, it may or may not condoned simply based on the relative openness and friendliness of the people. This isn’t a barring of the word but an acknowledgment of the dual edges. It is like mentioning KiK to a Jew. Would you ask for the privilege to use that word?
Heading back to an article prior to which David Garrett posted about the word, the reason it holds much chagrin to its use, is not the word but the connotations of it within America. It can be openly used as friendship or more, but in America a black person is always in the state of “nigger”. Two steps away from being a savage. Two steps away from being considered the problem in America. Two steps away from someone’s fear. This is the reason why it holds so much weight. A white person will merely adopt the word for it’s cool or weaponize it to show their superiority. All black people are “niggers” to some white person in America at all times.
The stats are, approximately 1 out of every 30 words in Rap music is Nigger/Nigga/Niggaz.
I’d bang that too. True some people are offended by slurs, though white people are expected to take it, when Cracker, pinky, whitey, white boy, and little dick are used as derogatory words at whites, and while there may be no slur against whites that holds deep offensive meanings from the past, like how nigger resurrects some feelings of angst in blacks about their past. It can be said that a modern person living in the west has absolutely no connection to slavery whatsoever, and perhaps as Booker T Washington suggests, that some like to keep slavery going forever because they can profit from the Mongering of it. Also, Blacks are equally capable of racism as much as any other race. Truth is, that All white people are “Crackers” to some black person in America at all times
That b alot of Niggaz.
Very true on both the term “Cracker” and racism being an equal opportunity sport. I imagine the tear down of being called a cracker is slightly less offensive than being called a “nigger” but I have no experience as a white person to know this.
Slavery is very profitable for some, and while for black people around the world, it is from an antiquated time that may or may not have informed the present, in America, slavery means why prisons are next to urban schools, why blacks will never succeed, why blacks should vote Democratic, why white men should pledge their allegiance to the Republican Party, why white women are pushed out of the community for sleeping with a black man by some white men but not all, or in laments terms, the best class divider and political tool a country could ever craft.
I kind of want to say it’s not really equal. There’s no catch all term for white people that really sticks as an insult. There are ethnic specific (mick, wop, etc.) that stick, but even then not as much.
That’s because white people aren’t insecure about it. If you guarantee an emotional reaction to a word, you’ve given your enemy the ability to dictate your actions on demand and confirm a stereotype about a black man being unable to control himself.
All wise cultures didn’t start out that way but developed. Prior to LBJ nuking the black family (I honestly believe unintentionally), African Americans were developing norms and institutions that would have laid the foundations for a robust and healthy culture(similar to the Scottish turnaround in the 18th century). No society can really survive multiple iterations of single motherhood with equanimity, however. There’s actually a white ghetto not to far from where I live where this is all playing out. The “white race” doesn’t look inherently superior from where I’m standing, destroy the family and fatherless men will wreck your society.
So, to piss everybody off, the social dysfunctions of the black community really are whiteys fault, but not like the “black community”(self appointed mouth pieces) says.
”release the ghost”. that’s catchy
Booker T. Washington’s “UP FROM SLAVERY” is one of the best books I’ve ever read. It is amazingly inspirational. If the black community had used HIM instead of WEB DeBois and other Commie assholes as a role model, the black community would be a much better place.
This article had potential. Every historian will say The Latin slave owners were still Europeans. You should have focused on slavery’s history in other cultures like the Middle East, native Americans, the Mongols, Africans and Chinese. Some of those cultures sacrificed their slaves to gods as offerings or killed them after the work contract expired. Americans still talk about it while other cultures don’t ( which is a better solution. If you tell someone they have an excuse to accomplish nothing, they will follow suit.)
THIS. The ottomans, for God’s sake.
Good point. Rousseau’s “noble savage” could not be farther from the truth, if one does an objective anthropological study of Pre-Colombian America, every heinous act – slavery being one of them – was carried out by a myriad of tribes.
A good book in this regard is Paolo Mantegazzna’s “Sexual Relations of Mankind.” He does a nice job of detailing these practices, such as bestiality and bride theft (to name but a few).
Except Spain banned slavery in the mainland Latin America before they were expelled from it. So every slave in the mainland Latin America prior to the expulsion of the Spanish was free long before the Spanish were expelled. Also, the Spanish overworked the Caribbean slaves, but that was because that place was the only place where slaves were useful, and the climate there was more hostile than the American South. Also, Dixie had quite a lot of slaves trying to escape from the South, which shows that the Southern slaveowners weren’t saints either. They still beat and tortured their slaves to the point where enough of them ran an underground railroad to get the slaves smuggled to the North or to Canada. Brazil, on the other hand, got rid of slavery with a slow and gradual manner, no need for a war to get rid of it. Perhaps the same could have happened to the US, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Southern slaveowners controlled the state governments of the South due to their wealth and used that control to force the South to secede when Lincoln, a candidate who wanted nothing but to limit the power of slavery, won the oval office. Sorry to break it to you kids, but the average person in Dixie couldn’t be bothered to give a shit about slavery considering that the average Dixie white couldn’t even own a slave. They just bought the lies that the slaveowners regurgitated and paid for it when the Union Army came in and burned their cities down.
When slaves in say Brazil were freed were they treated as 2nd class citizens? I suspect from past readings they may have been, but there was not the level of segregation or random violence that went on there like in the US (the early Chinese & Mexican settlers also copped it), that I am aware of. I have not seen any pictures from Brazil of lynched blacks hanging from trees.
There must have been some sort of “looking down” on the blacks by richer whites, but not much. It wasn’t as pervasive as it was in the US. In fact, while the US was still having KKK problems, the Latinos had a laugh at the USA’s expense because they got over the racial problems the US was struggling with.
Never been to Brazil, but I spent months in Cartagena studying Spanish. It looked like anybody who was African lived in a 3 walled building in one part of town, or on the streets. All the “professional careers” you might say were taken by much lighter looking Latinos. The Colombians I lived with talked very poorly of the African communities, saying they spoke poor and committed crimes. These were still dark skinned people, which was interesting to me. I noticed that in Guatemala and Yucatan, Mexico too. Dark skinned Latinos bragging about their European Spanish heritage in a place where an American would put them all in one category.
I guess that’s the main difference between latin america and usa when it comes to the race issue. Race in latin america in most cases runs across a spectrum from white to black/amerindian going throw different degrees of mulatto/mestizo and different body types and color tones. In US you are either white or the other.
Thanks for the info. This is the way I thought it was in much of latin america. There is a soft class system based on money/status and racial ancestry. There is not segregation or necessarily closed doors for most jobs, or random violence simply because of their dark skin, but they are considered less worthwhile citizens by many in their society. Better than it was for many decades in the US post civil war, but as it is now maybe the dark skinned ancestors of slaves in Latin America have less chance of upward mobility than those in the US.
In a sense, for African Americans, it was worse in the U.S. for a period. Now it’s leaps and bounds better in the U.S. than any other country with a history of African slavery.
My dad’s belief is that MLK didn’t do shit. White people didn’t even start listening until Malcom X and the black panthers started inciting violence. It definitely got their voice heard, but just like today, it also reinforces that violent stereotype. Unfortunately, if you look at today’s crime statistics by ethnicity, it’s become more than just a stereotype.
Stereotypes only become (or stay) stereotypes if they are mostly true.
Your dad I guess forgot Rosa Parks and Malcolm X, for the record, never traipsed down to the DEEP SOUTH to champion the rights of black people. He was NEVER born, raised in the DS. He left Nebraska moving north to Chicago, then Detroit, then NYC.
He was a strong voice but MLK was born and raised in the belly of the beast. He was arrested and took a knife in jail and also traveled north to Chicago whose segregation surprised him (to this day, still one of the most segregated big cities in America).
There was a slang name in southern cities “Sundown towns”, i.e. if you were a black man, you best not be there when sundown comes. So sorry, your dad was not as informed as he needed to be.
Yes, this article does not get it entirely right. Many slaves from the southern American colonies escaped to Florida seeking Spanish protection, the so-called ‘Black Seminoles’ .
“As early as 1689, African slaves fled from the South Carolina Lowcountry to Spanish Florida seeking freedom. These were people who gradually formed what has become known as the Gullah culture of the coastal Southeast.[3] Under an edict from King Charles II of Spain in 1693, the black fugitives received liberty in exchange for defending the Spanish settlers at St. Augustine. The Spanish organized the black volunteers into a militia; their settlement at Fort Mose, founded in 1738, was the first legally sanctioned free black town in North America.[4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Seminoles#Origins
Exactly. And the US attacked them because they were giving shelter to black slaves. Even the Spanish Empire looked more morally defensible in that regard. If the Southern slave owners treated their slaves well, there would be no escapees.
“Also, the Spanish overworked the Caribbean slaves,”
The very last thing that anyone in the world today could ever accuse America of is overworking our black population. It is precisely because they have it so easy… are so coddled… that they have the time and energy to engage in so much criminality, illegitimate births, and self-righteous, whiny bullshit such as the Black Lives Matter “movement.”
Except back then when they were slaves, the blacks were overworked. So much so that many of them tried to run up north, even though the only jobs there for colored folks were minimum-wage jobs that barely paid for a roof over your head. Also, America’s blacks act entitled because your politicians encourage them. If your leaders left them to their own devices, they could have developed better growing on their own.
“Also, America’s blacks act entitled because your politicians encourage them.”
I wish it were only our politicians. It is also our mainstream media, academia. airhead white liberals, The Democratic party, the “chosen ones” (as always) trying to throw a wrench in the works of white Christian civilization, etc., etc.
LMAO, so easy!? So why don’t YOU, BED, trade places if it is so “EASY”!?
Slavery is still widespread. We have our ‘slave nations’ now: Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh etc. They make all the junk in sweatshops we buy here in the West. Sure, they ‘get paid’, but it’s a nominal amount and they are effectively slaves. Anyone with Nike shoes has benefited from slavery. So what you gonna do about it? Not a lot you can do, it’s just the way the world is…
It’s funny because black americans enjoy many products made by sweatshop slaves like Nike shoes
Western countries will fall if they can’t benefit from cheap labour. Imagine your clothes will be produced in a Western country with minimum wages according to Western standards. Most people won’t be able to buy new clothes.
What’s ironic and perhaps somewhat humorous is that so many slaves went south to Latin and Central America, and yet it is only America that is obsessed with race. Only America harps on about the contributions of the slaves, and how we must self-flagellate because ancestors that had skin the same hue as us did something bad. In Latin American cultures, you can freely call someone BLACK when that’s what they are, and it’s not considered politically incorrect or even rude. It’s simply the actual color of their skin, the same way mine is WHITE. But America continues to paralyze itself and play these ridiculous politically correct games and hyphenated American nonsense.
The Spanish solution consisted of getting laid with the indigenous and black women to replace the original cultures. Obviously, anglo-puritans were too high in their ivory towers to do such thing, maintaining an anachronic division that lasted until the XXth century and that (((they))) gladly used to wreck the entire West.
IIRC Spanish women who became pregnaent in the New World would return to Spain, or die trying, as the law at the time stated that if the child was not born in Spain, despite both parents being subjects/citizens, the child would not be recognized as one. Hence few women from Spain would make the venture.
More pressure on the female indigenous population. Isabel the Catholic was a very clever monarch.
Reason why Latin America does not speak of this is that they are so mixed that speaking about this in anger is just getting angry at themselves. The distinction of U.S. between slaves and non-slaves was made apparent with skin color unfortunately. Blacks were slaves whites were not. So Latin America was able to evade the annals of racist slavery by merging with their slaves though that was unintentional.
This is how I see it too. The distinction between the races are not so prominent in Latin America as segregation was not as strong as in the US. I also dont necessarily think for the left the issue of past slavery is directed specifically at Anglos (though it may be/seem that way if you are Caucasian in the US) but more so at whites, which would also encompass Western European nations. The French, Brits, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgians dont have the same level of guilt because the slave trade did not take place on their home soil. Their homes, farms & factories were not filled with imported slaves, and there is not a subsequent large domestic black population that came from slaves to promote the past. The slave trade and associated inhumane treatment took place far from the homeland/public.
The Muslim trade in African slaves was much greater and lasted much longer. The reason it is not an issue today is because they castrated 100% of the male black slaves. Hence there is no lingering population in Muslim countries of descendants of black slaves (at least not male slaves).
Race hustling is a business that pays in the US.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/02/new-website-allows-white-people-to-offer-reparations-directly-to-people-of-color/
That “aw come on other people were speeding and going a lot faster than me so why ticket me officer?” defence?
never mind that in your ‘defense’ you were driving a tractor trailer combo while passing other traffic in the left lane…
The Spanish solution consisted of getting laid with the indigenous and black women to replace the original cultures. Obviously, anglo-puritans were too high in their ivory towers to do such thing, maintaining an anachronic division that lasted until the XXth century and that (((they))) gladly used to take control of the West.
The whole slave thing is something I just get tired of hearing about, it’s mostly just a way for reverend Al and Jesse to make a living by bitching about something. Today on CBS This Morning was another black guy who had written another book about slavery for Oprah Winfrey to gush over along with the hosts of the show. Poor old Oprah just like Michelle Obama had to grow up in an evil country that had slavery, they have had such hard lives, oh the humanity!
I’m tired of being hit about the head and shoulders with this slavery shit, enough already. Perhaps instead of whining about something that ended 150 years ago and trying to continually stir shit they could just figure out that whitey hasn’t been holding them down for quite some time.
The slave problem, that is, how it has been betrayed to us plebs, is completely black and white. But in reality, it was not so. Blacks owned slaves too, obviously a small minority, but still it existed before the war. Yet no one ever mentions this fact. The first legal slave owner in America was a black man. Look it up. This shit, like all of history, is very grey, not the linear Marxist/Hegelian history we have been forced fed these last 50 years.
It has been conveniently muddled to allow for superiority rhetoric. Fredrick Douglas was superior in intelligence to a vast majority of whites at the time and some how he only taught himself through books available to whites after freeing himself? This is not even counting the hundred plus year period known as the Barbary wars where Moors, still erroneously labeled as Muslims of Arabic descent strictly, which had Europeans consistently abducted from homes and sold into slavery. It is just easier to not talk about slavery so a few political party allegiances can be had and some dumb punk can use slavery as a catch all for their woes. Much of the gold that slavery wrought comes from the black Americans not freeing themselves and the policies enacted after slavery including the war on drugs and welfare reform act.
Yeah, the so called ‘official story’ is really getting old to my ears. But with the masses more interested in Pokemon Go than reading books, this will never change.
please direct me to some reference in the Library of Congress about black in America owning slaves.
I’ve never looked there. But a good start on the subject would be these books.
Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 by Larry Koger
Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South Paperback – April 17, 1986
by Michael P. Johnson
This is a good link as well
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Unless it’s been stated already the book Black Yellowdogs by Ben Kinchlow is a good read on the subject of slavery in the states. He brings up some good history on it including the fact that the first slaves in the states had to be freed after seven years with full citizenship but the man who took this to court to keep his slaves was of African descent.
This is true. Some of the worst off were indentured servants from Ireland in the 1600s. #IrishLivesMatter
Here’s the truth about black slavery in America. The first true slave owner in America was a man named Anthony Johnson. Until the time of Johnson, there were only indentured servants. They were still slaves, but only for a specified period of time, then they were freed from indentured bond. Johnson had an indentured servant whose time was up, but instead of freeing him, Johnson went to court and fought to keep him under bond indefinitely. The court agreed, thus creating the premise that one person could own another person.
Anthony Johnson, was a black man.
That’s something that black America tends to hide, and not want to be known, that a black man fought in court to have the right to own another black man. Kind of shoots down the ideology of whitey being responsible for slavery, it’s not the kind of thing that makes them look innocent.
Yeah you have to laugh, you would never hear of that on Black History Month.
From what I read about some slaves from Africa was that some were criminals that committed crimes on their own tribe or on others and were sentenced to slavery so if anything not all slaves deserved pity
We should troll the Black Lives Matters by getting them to have an anti-Anthony Johnson day celebration and marches…
And then get them to hang him in effigy:
Black people symbolically lynching a black to protest black people starting slavery! LOL.
I learned something today, thank you! One more idea arrow to use in my defense at ignorant haters who attack me because of my ‘white privilege’, although we all know it is more fruitful to reason with a cat than a brainwashed sjw
he wasnt the first slave, slavery started in 1619 he was a slave himself who managed to get free. some ppl did free slaves, yes, but they could also freely extend their “indentured servitude” as much as they wanted. what is the purpose in trying to diminish the negative of slavery? whether this dude was black and owned a slave is irrelevant, its doestn change the fact black ppl were viewed as animals and sub human. anthony johnson was taking advantage of the same situation that kept him down in order to survive. when in rome right?
thomas jefferson, an american president, was pedophile who had sex with a 14 year old slave girl. meaning not only was it statutory rape, there was no chance of proper consent because he owned her. even their kids werent free til they ran away- he promised to free (his own children that he didnt even acknowledge) when they reached 21, that didnt happen. gtfoh yall twisting up reality to fit your narrative, as per usual. if slavery wasnt about race in america, then explain jim crow and segregation? explain the why the whole civil rights movement was necessary
I’m sorry, but the arrows in this chart:
http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Numbers-574×464.jpg
They are just FAKE.
The biggest slave trade numbers happened in the Muslim market. Arabs were the highest traders of slaves EVER.
Please post a correct image or signal the problem.
More information
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/
https://www.britainfirst.org/slavery-the-truth-the-transatlantic-slave-trade-the-muslim-slave-trade-and-white-slavery/
The Slaves That Time Forgot
They came as slaves; vast human
cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They
were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and
even the youngest of children.
Whenever they rebelled or even
disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave
owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their
hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive
and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to
other captives.
We don’t really need to go through
all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of
the African slave trade.
But, are we talking about African
slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to
enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this
practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.
The Irish slave trade began when James
II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His
Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas
and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the
Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time,
70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest
source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the
early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish
were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves.
Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single
decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish
dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic.
This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children.
Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish
children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and
sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this
decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados
and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported
and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000
Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English
settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the
Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms
like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish.
However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves
were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade
was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that
African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic
theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better
than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive
during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more
than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave
to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far
cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters
quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal
pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves
slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if
an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain
slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found
emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in
servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better
way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to
increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and
girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion.
These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock
and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase
new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with
African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in
1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish
slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for
sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the
profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of
thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that,
after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to
both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African
and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the
Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish
experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th
Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that
those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies
are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839,
Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s
highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision
did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly
concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be one that their
English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish
story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it
back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost
slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
John Martin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
This is all tragic but true. The Irish story is never told because they belonged to the wrong side of history (skin color), which means they have no useful purpose by our overlords. That being divide and conquer.
Yupp.. Quid.. Our “Overlord” hate the white Christian the most & the Irish are staunch Christian?? As our Overlord hate the Russian as well for hundred of years ?? Russian are staunch Christian (Orthodox)… Now ?? Who hate the Christian most ?? The Muslims ?? Humph ?? The Muslims never said that Jesus is in Hell boiling in a vat of shit & that Mary was a whore & Jesus was a bastard of a Roman Legionary ?? Humph.. Who’s saying that ??
It’s true. There’s a book available on Amazon: “White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America”
Great stuff. Thanks.
Very interesting. Its news to me. I’m going to see if there is more info on this subject beyond that linked book. It’s certainly not in any of the mainstream history books I have read. Rather the Brits like to highlight their slave abolition movement & subsequent legislation. The Irish deserve to hate the British with a passion if this is largely true.
There’s history taught in school for children ?? Then there’s hidden history, where crime committed against its own population is NEVER mentioned ! e.g. French Revolution 1789 which supposedly bring Liberty Fraternite Egalite &7 the Right of Man but never mention the genocide & holocaust of the people in Vendee by the so called Colonne Infernale …A model for the future judeo bolshevik revolution in Russia ??
Keep in mind that many of this population would have still been employed in the slave trade, from catching them, shipping them, trading them, breaking them, overseeing them, enforcing the slave trade through catching escapees, court decisions and legislative action among others. It is not just the mere owners who contributed to this despicable practice.
I have to say, your argument seems to reduce to “see? We’re not so bad. Other people did it too!”
Whites did not catch the vast majority of slaves. They were mostly sold by other Africans or Arabs. Whites probably would have never bothered with catching them if slaves were literally not at the docks waiting for them.
Slavery was also mostly a cultural norm, internationally, recognized in just about every society, up until the late 1800’s. Even though it is viewed as an abhorrent practice now history must be judged by the date and time in which it occurred.
“Whites probably would have never bothered with catching them if slaves were literally not at the docks waiting for them.”
In the early days of the slave trade I’d agree with you. As the worth the trade became apparent to the merchants and the land owners who used them, I’m sure they would have set up outposts to take on the task themselves. As the EU powers started to set up colonies in Africa they did do that. The king of Belgium and the Congo is a notorious example as he plundered the country. As the end beneficiary of the trade the wealthy whites (in relation to this article) created the demand and cannot get off the hook because they didn’t snatch them from their village. As others have pointed out Caucasians, Asians, Blacks have all been slaves or indentured servants to others at various times in history and it goes back a long way through history.
Do you think a slave in the 1600s would have agreed with you?
And history is against you. The decsion of Lord Mansfield in 1772:
Well, if this is how you’re going to see the situation, then I see no reason why slavery shouldn’t be reinstituted. I see too many people lacking motivation, discipline, guidance, and purpose who could be put to good use and benefit from a highly regimented and structured institution.
This is already happening. Look at the US prison population.
It’s good that we’re locking all these people up, but we need to build more prisons because there’s still too much scum walking free. The problem is we need to put these prisoners to work instead of waiting to die in a prison cell. It’s a win win because it will give the prisoners something to do, and everyone else benefits because it’s free labor.
Its good that we are locking people up for victimless crimes? Are you sure?
Define what you mean by victimless. Before you start though, imagine you have a daughter and if you would want her to be involved with even one man sitting in a United States prison. If you’re honest, I think you’d admit that regardless of who you consider being in prison for a “victimless” crime, you wouldn’t want your daughter to ever even come into contact with these men, never mind actually having an intimate relationship with one of them.
Victimless: a crime for which no property or person was tangibly damaged or hurt. For example, you unknowingly drive through Virginia on a suspended license. The judge sentences you to 30 days in jail. Nobody was hurt.
Yes this happened to two people I know.
Are you suggesting we should lock men up because we are uncomfortable with them dating our daughters?
You need not go to the prisons. Look at any divorced man with an imputed income.
And I would say a large portion of the working poor have it almost as bad as slaves, with no hope of ever ending it. There is no place they can go, and no underground railroad to get them there, where their conditions will improve. The Democrat Party will see to that.
As with slave labor, it is the working poor that suffer from it. How can any man (or woman) compete in a job market where there is the alternative of forced (free) labor available to employers. In one way the outsourcing and off shoring is the same. The working poor are the ones paying the price for allowing basically slave labor in other countries to be used in our labor market.
I would add a teenager that is caught smoking a joint gets 5 years in prison because it is his second, or third “offense”. Or my nephew who got a 5 year stretch and a permanent label as a child molester rapist for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18.
You’re avoiding the question. If you had a daughter would you be comfortable with her being around any man sitting in a US prison right now?
No I think that the question has been answered. The only one being evasive here is you.
Things they don’t teach any longer:
1. Lots of European whites were shipped to America as indentured servants and were treated worse than slaves. Which do you treat better – the car you own, or a rental?
2. White Europeans are all descended from slaves – until the early Middle Ages, slavery was common there. Medieval serfs were little more than slaves to be bought and sold with a plot of land. Russia abolished slavery in 1723 – merging them into the serf class, not much of an improvement.
3. The African slave trade kicked into high-gear when the availability of European slaves dried up in the Arab slave markets. Far more African slaves were shipped to North Africa and the Middle East than the Americas. Egypt used to field armies of slaves. Virtually none of them were allowed to reproduce. The Europeans just tapped into the existing markets when they needed field hands in America. Two-thirds of the slaves going to America were males for farm work. Two-thirds going to the Middle East were women to be harem-slaves.
All this, with no mention of the Jewish merchants involvement? Disappointed. It’s one of the greatest myths of all time that White European men were responsible for slavery. Jews were one of the driving forces behind it, and had already been enslaving White Eastern Europeans for hundreds of years. The word SLAVE originates from SLAV, because the Jewish slave traders would kidnap Slavic people and sell them into slavery across the Middle East.
It’s because Jews were the European elite for more than 2000 years, until they were gassed during WWII.
Less than .01% of White American Men ever owned a slave. But ALL White men are held accountable for it.
More than 60% of black men will commit a violent felony in their lifetimes, and yet we are supposed to let ALL blacks off the hook for it.
You got a valid source for that second statistic?
Blacks were sold by other blacks or by Arab slave traders. White slave traders simply dropped off sugar and rum and then filled their ships with their waiting cargo.
Most Blacks who were sold as slaves probably would have just been slaughtered. Selling them was simply another means of disposing of rival tribes.
The slave trade ended because whites ended it. In the US the international slave trade was banned by the Constitution. The British effectively shut down the rest by forcing Arab slave traders to stop under the threat of military intervention.
Indentured servitude, which was mostly whites, was far worse then slavery. Indentured servants were worked like mules because their owners had an “expiration date” on their time. After you served your time to the master, the master had no more duty to care for you. If you were broke and used out after ten or twenty years the master didn’t care because of that.
“Legacy of slavery” is largely just a political excuse of institutional racist policies such as affirmative action. The fact is that very few African Americans can trace their origins to a bona fide slave. And even if they can, after 150 years it is simply just an excuse for a collective societal failure. Other immigrant groups including the Irish and Asians have become more integrated to American culture in less time (probably facing more hurdles) then Blacks.
Slavery was also a cultural norm up until the late 1800’s. If anything, the US ended the practice about 30-40 years before it “went out of style” internationally. We also fought a big giant war that was partially about the practice of slavery in which mostly whites died. Every Black also was granted blanket citizenship by passage of the 14th Amendment after that war and it took the South almost a century to rebuild the destruction the North reigned on it. If that isn’t “reparations” then I have no idea what would satisfy those who still say we owe American Blacks anything other then equal treatment under the written letter of the law.
Also in USA there were black slave owners as well. Search “black slave owners” and William Ellison, the biggest slave owner in south carolina, he was black.
A majority of Blacks in the US, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment were free men. They also lived just about as well as anyone else in a Northern state.
In Southern states poor whites had it just about as bad as poor blacks. Sure as a Black you might have been slightly more likely to get lynched or your head cracked by a police officer for just being out in public, but happened to poor whites just about as much. Google “white lynchings” for plenty of examples.
Negroes are a fucking slave race. Just dig into history and search for facts. They were used as slaves by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. They are considered a slave race in Islam and even the prophet Muhammad had African slaves, traded in African slaves and thought this was the most normal thing in the world.
Even Jews and Christians saw negroes as a slave race, but they’ve changed the Bible and deleted all the parts that were considered “inappropriate”. I once met a Hindu and he also said that Africans are seen as the lowest race among humans. I can’t think of any non-African country where negroes are seen as normal people.
You should read the experiences of the first explorers who went to Sub-Saharan Africa. They thought Africans were closer to animals than to humans. Pre-modern world was mostly a world full of misery where you needed to survive, so I don’t feel any white guilt, because you can’t compare 17th century Europe with the hippie freakshow we have now.
There are so many holes you can poke into the narrative of people who try to get on a moral high horse against white people because of slavery. First and foremost is that black people in the US (including the slaves themselves) are insanely more healthy and wealthy than Africans ever were or are, because they received the fruits of white American civilization just by coming here.
The average slave back then was worth $40,000 in today’s money (http://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/ ) so it was generally in the slaveowners’ best interests to keep slaves alive and healthy. Many desperate white wage slaves in the north or even in the modern day would jump at a chance for a job where all of their food, clothing, and medical care were freely provided for themselves and their family. A book by the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Economics noted that US slaves had longer life expectancies than free urban industrial workers in the US and Europe at the time (http://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186, http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-on-abolitionist-porn-and-antebellum-economics ).
Anthony Johnson, a black man, being the first-ever slave owner in the US, who also owned white indentured slaves and APPEALED after a court ruled he wasn’t allowed to keep slaves the first time, was mentioned in another comment here.
There have been numerous opportunities for Africans in America to repatriate back to their native continent (Liberia, free citizenship in Ghana for blacks only, Abraham Lincoln’s plans, etc) but they simply don’t want to leave. They would rather live under the “oppressive” white man because, surprise, the white man produces stable and prosperous civilizations, including all the gibsmedats and affirmative action that blacks profit from. Africans living successful lives in America today is basically cultural appropriation.
White people are the only people historically who have ever fought to end slavery. It was Africans who sold their own kind into slavery back then, (Ghezo was a notable African slave trader who fought AGAINST British efforts to stop the slave trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghezo )) and slavery is still practiced today in many historically non-white countries (http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Contemporary_slavery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-islamic-state-sexslaves-exclusive-idUSKBN0UC0AO20151230, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-is-now-the-worlds-slave-capital-Global-Slavery-Index-2014/articleshow/45178623.cms ). Hundreds of thousands of white men died in the Civil War just so blacks could be free but you’ll never hear black people thanking white men for their sacrifice. The northern whites didn’t actually give a shit about the slaves though, millions of blacks died from hunger and disease as they were forced to suddenly make a living after the war as free men. They were neglected by the same Union soldiers, politicians, and citizens who had fought in the war for their freedom. When push came to shove they were even less caring than the slaveowners themselves. The Reconstruction Era is generally considered a civil rights failure by historians (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war, http://www.amazon.com/Sick-Freedom-African-American-Suffering-Reconstruction/dp/0190218266, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era ).
Finally, and this is one liberals REALLY want to keep secret, is that more white Christian Europeans were enslaved by Africans and Muslims, than Africans were enslaved by Americans (1.25 million white victims of the Barbary slave trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade#Extent ) versus only about 300,000 black victims of the US slave trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Colonial_America )). Also, slavery, including sexual slavery and slavery of whites, was a fact of life in the Ottoman Empire, and was not ended until the 20th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire ).
Sorry for this giant wall of text but god damn I hate the liberal narratives so fucking much
Look at how the Oscars basically devolved into a giant circle-jerk of Holocaust, slavery and gay persecution appreciation.
Amen !
Slavery was an economic benefit to the elites of the time, and in the end that economic benefit was very short, but it’s social cost was very high, and we’re still paying that cost to this very day. Sounds a lot like our current open borders policy doesn’t it?
See further…
Unconquered
1947 ‧ Drama/Action/Adventure ‧ 2h 27m
7.2/10 · IMDb
To
avoid execution on a trumped-up charge, Abby (Paulette Goddard) agrees
to be enslaved in the British colonies of North America. The captain of
the transport ship, Martin Garth (Howard da Silva), has his eye on her,
but he is outbid by Capt. Chris Holden (Gary Cooper), a Virginian. After
setting A… More
Abby wan’t “BLACK” OMG !!
This article only shows how Africans are/were hated amongst all other races. It only shows to prove that black people and Jewish people have had the shittiest luck in history. No wonder black people across the globe feel oppressed.
My ancestor mated with a woman named mullato rose in the past so I dropped the jokes and quite frankly black history speaks for itself in my mind. Good and bad.
My Jewish ancestors Samuel Nunes/Nunez were employed in the royal courts of Portugal and I am proud of them and their choice of mates as I would not be anything like the badass I am without them.
Tooting my own horn here but my liniage goes back to king david and yes I am a uncanny good shot with projectiles physical and mental.
But then how would Michelle Obama be able to use it then to make all white people look awful if others did it too!
This is the problem with conservatism or opposition to liberalism.
The very notion that any person living today is guilty for what happened in the past is not defensible on any level. It is a laughable argument.
So why do we allow liberals even entertain the notion of white guilt into any political debate?
There is no white crime. That doesn’t even exist. We don’t owe anybody because of what happened in the past. None of us had anything to do with it.
Any time a liberal brings this up, he deserves a kick in the teeth. The only actions you are responsible for are your own.
To the author of this piece, thanks for writing this and your blog is quite excellent, just filled with red pill game!
I’m American with Indigenous/Welsh/Akan (Ghanaian) ancestry. You’re correct that the slave narrative has been blown conpletely out of proportion. According to slave voyages.org, the number of Africans brought to N America would have only been around 350,000, if that. In 1865 at the end of the Civil War there were around 4 million slaves. However, based on my estimates, those 305,000 slaves would have only grown to, at best 1 million. The only way there could have been that many slaves was necause slavery was a multi ethnic system that included Indigenous, Irish, German, Scots, English, Africans and other ethnicities that fell into the institution one way or another. In fact there was serious talk about enslaving poor whites outright due to the bleaching out of dark skinned slaves through intercourse, both forced and consensual.
Howard Zinn’s a people’s history of the united states mentions millions of slaves in the states. In Virginia alone by 1763 there were 170,000 slaves. How should one go about believing what book is actually true. This article gave me the sense of finger-pointing and to blame someone else because they did it better. Doesn’t change the fact that everyones been shitty to each other over time for slavery, genocide, religion wars, and so forth.
“Over the course of more than 350 years, of the 11.2 million slaves imported from Africa in the slave trade, only 4% of them, or 450,000 arrived in the United States.” The United States was founded in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. Prior to that, it was a colony. Slavery existed in the United States of America from 1788-1865, about 77 years. Complaints about slavery prior to that should be lodged with England, Spain, and France.
But if slavery was linked to Spain and other euro countries prior to the U.s., that still gives flames for the the msm to point their fingers at whitey.
Also, take this if you will: but according to David duke, that said 1% of slave owners in America were all to be of a certain ethnic lineage (but masked as white), and tribe.
It is all a big scam. I love being white and I get on my hands and knees every morning and thank the Good Lord I am white and not married. I don’t feel one little bit guilty. I will however chip in 5 bucks to send them all back where they came from since they hate the US so much and it is so unfair.
Every great civilization that has ever been on earth that has fallen was due to one thing- demographic change. The US and Europe are committing suicide by letting in 3rd world invaders that we are paying for through the nose. They bring crime, disease, an inability to take care of themselves and a lack of assimilation. Civilizations that have been considered exceptional have all deteriorated because of demographic change without exception. Egypt was a white civilization at one time when they built the pyramids and they mixed with Africans and down it went. Look at those wild ignorant animals now. That is exactly what we are in for because people choose to ignore history.
Also this-
Americas first and largest slave owner was black- Anthony Johnson.
He treated his fellow negros so badly that the case went to the Supreme Court as they wished to go work as indentured servants To white slave masters….Marxist professors didn’t learn you that, did they?
“If we dont know our history, we dont where we’re coming from” the wailers ….. as a descendant of irish folk, I feel inclined to point out the irish were the first slaves brought across the ocean to the eastern U.S …..
A full 99% of the white population never owned slaves. One could say blaming all whites for the sins of slave ownership is the modern day equivalent of blaming the entire population for the modern day sins of the elite 1% in the country.
THIS F….ing passage RIGHT here, is EMBLEMATIC/SYMBOLIC of Europeans CONSTANTLY trying to absolve themselves of slavery and its son, Jim Crow. The fact the FOUNDERS and subsequent Business/Religious/Political leaders agreed in deed and legality to ENABLE the heinous practice of slavery to become INSTITUTIONALIZED says ALL anyone with half a brain needs to know about the group think of the majority in America for 200 plus years.
To put is in more modern context, you don’t have to kidnap a woman, just look the other way or stop by and assault her as your gift for keeping quiet. Aiding and abetting is also a crime!
lmao omg this is so historically inaccurate. first attempt to deflect responsibility for making slavery about racism and cruelty was to accuse africans of willingly “giving” ppl away ( while forgetting that africa has been occupied and still is for the most part occupied by foreign influences), didnt stick so then they try with the muslims, accusing them of having the largest slave trade. also forgot that muslims were busy fighting their own wars with white ppl trying to take their land too (crusades anyone? which has been technically ongoing to present time even… but i digress) now yall wanna try with south americans while forgetting the crucial fact that IT WAS BRITISH PPL MANNING THOSE SHIPS WITH SLAVES. british and spanish ppl COLONIZED north and south america, south american natives were enslaved too, so to turn around and try and point the finger yet AGAIN to somebody (anybody..) else is ignorant. period. not only on a prejudicial level but also historically (ironically its your own history that you wrote and tried to to make it sound better with no success). just accept reality, stop looking for fucking scape goats its pathetic. is it really that hard to accept responsibility? yall act like its worse to be the oppressor than the oppressed LOL wtf. this world is going to hell clearly.
so did Inda willingly give in to british rule too? did china willingly give hong kong away? lmao and the natives in australia and the world over willingly invited colonialists? and willingly gave their land for beads and disease covered blankets? LOL omg the delusions i dont know whether to laugh or be concerned…. but now that i see this bogus website, i know where racists are getting their illogical fodder
Don’t forget about the Islamic slave trade too.
it was one of the longest and most profitable slave trade in history.
By the way, slavery still exists in some islamic states…