Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is a serious question. I would like serious answers.

Yes.

/thread.

Well, generally when someone is completely under the power of someone else, it's gonna take the more powerful person to release the weaker person. How the hell else could we (yea, I'm black) have escaped? Consider who were the law people and the people with the guns.

Because they were shackled up and the white dude that was calling them boy had the only key?

Yes, black people weren't organized enough to do it themselves.

So basically this thread is just here to call black people stupid and call white people superior to black people? Wow. retarded.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a ridiculous argument.

Indeed.


His first two sentences, however, are full of truth.

Well organized slave uprisings ended in absurd massacres.



On another note:

My ancestors came from the North, fought on the North side during the war, and helped free slaves.


I demand reparations.

Originally posted by dadudemon

On another note:

My ancestors came from the North, fought on the North side during the war, and helped free slaves.


I demand reparations.


http://www.odu.edu/vhosts/orgs/bsu/odu_files/dollar.jpg

Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by jaden101
http://www.odu.edu/vhosts/orgs/bsu/odu_files/dollar.jpg

Take it or leave it.




No thanks. I'll wait until a better offer comes my way. Besides, you can't offer me reparations on behalf of the U.S. when you are a UK cit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a ridiculous argument.

Maybe so but it has some truth in it.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Maybe so but it has some truth in it.

The beginning, certainly, but I can't imagine how you could think black people were so stupid that the raping beating and forced labor didn't seem all that bad (unless you were kidding).

This guy couldn't do it alone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta_Kinte

He joined the space navy so I figure he did pretty well for himself in the end.

I think black people liked being slaves. As shitty as being a slave was it had to have been better than running from Lions all day.

dubben-you dubben-you dubben-you dot fat dash pie do-- dot com

Originally posted by lord xyz
dubben-you dubben-you dubben-you dot fat dash pie do-- dot com What is that, Gullah or something?

Originally posted by jaden101
http://www.odu.edu/vhosts/orgs/bsu/odu_files/dollar.jpg

Take it or leave it.

**** a dollar. Give me a white woman instead.

****in' Kunta haermm

Originally posted by jaden101
http://www.odu.edu/vhosts/orgs/bsu/odu_files/dollar.jpg

Take it or leave it.

You could have at least offered him the mule, or possibly 10 or so of the acres. Just saying.

Originally posted by lord xyz
dubben-you dubben-you dubben-you dot fat dash pie do-- dot com

...."dubben-you"?


The hell?

Originally posted by Bardock42
...."dubben-you"?


The hell?

I think he's trying to make the pronunciation sounds of a stereotypical ignorant negro.

eg: What has eight legs and says "Ho-Dee-Doe" while it runs?


Answer: Four black guys running for an elevator.

Originally posted by Monkey bum
This is a serious question. I would like serious answers. I think Monkey bum that they probably felt inferior on initial contact with a superior civilization, with superior technology. Science at the time had not even decided if they were of the same species as the white people. This would obviously impact on any choices the black people at this point chose to make. Perhaps they saw themselves as not quite human also.

yes, but...

most people take this line of thinking as "White people freed the blacks". Which couldn't be further from the truth. White people did everything in their power to suppress the blacks.

Individual blacks, like Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Tubman, were far more important to the abolitionist movement than any individual white person was. The black church was a crucial actor in the emancipation of slaves. Black networks of people running intelligence and communications behind the backs of the masters, blacks as the individuals who risked their lives for freedom.

But, nono, lets all whites pat ourselves on the back for freeing the people that we also enslaved. Good thing blacks don't write their own history.

It's a white man's job.

The white men 'freed' the blacks, and now they are 'freeing' the Arabs and Third World Countries.

Originally posted by inimalist
But, nono, lets all whites pat ourselves on the back for freeing the people that we also enslaved. Good thing blacks don't write their own history.

But in the end, blacks were in absolutely no position (ie mark it zero!) to free themselves, so it was the evil white-man who did the actual freeing.

Originally posted by Robtard
But in the end, blacks were in absolutely no position (ie mark it zero!) to free themselves, so it was the evil white-man who did the actual freeing.

"evil" white man was forced, through the actions of individual blacks, to reconsider the moral and ethical implications of slavery.

The slave narrative, especially that of Olaudah Equiano is a testament to this. Not to mention the other social and demographic reasons. There were slave riots and there was a HUGE black population which demanded some policy attention.

Obviously the people in power had to relinquish that power, or face total rebellion (which wasn't necessarily on the horizon). They didn't just wake up one day and realize they were wrong however. The white power establishment had to be shown that they were wrong. This was done primarily by black individuals with some institutional support from whites.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
What is that, Gullah or something? Nah, a pretty sick site.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he's trying to make the pronunciation sounds of a stereotypical ignorant negro.

eg: What has eight legs and says "Ho-Dee-Doe" while it runs?


Answer: Four black guys running for an elevator. No, that of an ignorant white dude.

What's the best way to stop four black men from raping a white woman?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
What's the best way to stop four black men from raping a white woman?

Offer them a monkey instead.

Is this really necessary?!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Is this really necessary?! No. Apologies.

Sorry.

In any event they needed help to be freed because they didn't have the power to do it. Slavery couldn't end until the slave owners stopped keeping slaves, the only alternative was a violent uprising that would have been crushed by white people with guns.

Exactly.
Besides, between 1530 and 1780 almost million and a quater white Europeans were enslaved by various Middle Eastern countries. Slavery, unfortunately still exists in Islamic world (most notably Saudi Arabia)

Robert C. Davis wrote about this.

Slavery is not an American nor European phenomenon, nor did it start with African enslavement.
I doubt any of them could have freed themselves on their own.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but...

most people take this line of thinking as "White people freed the blacks". Which couldn't be further from the truth. White people did everything in their power to suppress the blacks.

Individual blacks, like Olaudah Equiano and Harriet Tubman, were far more important to the abolitionist movement than any individual white person was.

This is incorrect. It is argued and well accepted that Harriet Beecher-Stowe's book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, was a major point for people from the North. It greatly increased the passions of the Northerners.


Fer realz. I just took a test over this in my Civil War history class.



Originally posted by inimalist
The black church was a crucial actor in the emancipation of slaves.

No, it was the do-gooder white Christan's and Republicans such as Lincoln that were crucial to the emancipation of the slaves.

Originally posted by inimalist
Black networks of people running intelligence and communications behind the backs of the masters, blacks as the individuals who risked their lives for freedom.

Uh...don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of white Northerners who fought for the slaves' freedom. You know, the ones who actually freed the slaves.

Originally posted by inimalist
But, nono, lets all whites pat ourselves on the back for freeing the people that we also enslaved. Good thing blacks don't write their own history.


This is a logical fallacy. That type of thinking leads to discussion on reparations.


The white northerners who outlawed slavery and preached against it's morality are somehow the enslavers? These same white people gave their lives for their freedom and believed with every fiber in their being that slavery was morally wrong and a horrible institution.

You know, most people the North didn't even have slaves. They had white indentured servants. There were hundreds of thousands of free slaves in the North.

Ever here of John Brown? Yeah....he slaughtered some proslavers because he felt so strongly against slavery. He literally slaughtered them with the help of his four sons.

He was white, too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh...don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of white Northerners who fought for the slaves' freedom. You know, the ones who actually freed the slaves.

That's not quite true. Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South in order to add justification for the Civil War, slavery actually remained legal in the North for a while afterward.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not quite true. Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South in order to add justification for the Civil War, slavery actually remained legal in the North for a while afterward.

Freeing the slaves was nowhere as noble as we make it out to be these days. Yes, Lincoln did free the slaves, but his reasons were not simply that slavery was wrong. Instead it was an effort to quell anymore uprising from the south, were it not for Lincoln believing that the south would be severely weakened by him freeing all their slaves, which took away their entire free labor force, he probably wouldn't have freed them.

Ofcourse, we would have come around to the point where we realised that slavery is completely wrong and the slaves would have been freed, but it would have been much later, and we would probably be either in or just entering the civil rights movement right now.

So, take it how you want. Lincoln did a great thing and righted a great wrong, but it wasn't for righting that wrong that he did what he did. He instead did it to quell revolution.

And also contrary to what seems to be a popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery, it was States Rights vs. Federal Rights. The south wanted to ceced from the north, and the north didn't want that, so they fought. Slavery, like Chaos said, was tagged on later to add justification to the war, and to, like I previously stated, quell any future uprisings from the south.

Originally posted by dadudemon


No thanks. I'll wait until a better offer comes my way. Besides, you can't offer me reparations on behalf of the U.S. when you are a UK cit.

Probably not the best idea to give out reparations in the form of pieces of paper with a picture of a slave owner on them anyway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not quite true. Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South in order to add justification for the Civil War, slavery actually remained legal in the North for a while afterward.

That is false on both accounts.

Lincoln abolished slavery to free the slaves. They were already at war. The southerners declared that it was another tactic by the Union to cut off their economic ability to sustain war. It was also to turn the slaves against their slave holders.

The reason for war was the secession of several southern states from the union..

Edit - AND slavery of the Southern states.


Also, slavery was illegal in many Northern States Well before the Civil War.

Here is a list of the states that slavery was illegal in, before the Civil War, in alphabetical order:



California
Connecticut
Kansas.
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin




Note: I did not check this list. That was off the top of my head. I had to have it memorized for my test yesterday...of which, I missed one question. I dare you to prove that my list isn't complete.

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
Ofcourse, we would have come around to the point where we realised that slavery is completely wrong and the slaves would have been freed, but it would have been much later, and we would probably be either in or just entering the civil rights movement right now.

But we certainly DID have states that came around as early as 1780. (Massachusetts)

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
So, take it how you want. Lincoln did a great thing and righted a great wrong, but it wasn't for righting that wrong that he did what he did. He instead did it to quell revolution.

Lincoln was anti-slavery well before he was president. He lost an election to the senate in 1858 to Stephne A. Douglas. Part of his platform for senate election in Illinois was that slavery was morally wrong.

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
And also contrary to what seems to be a popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery, it was States Rights vs. Federal Rights.

This is incorrect.

It was mostly about slavery. Fer realz.

If it was about state rights versus federal rights, then explain the South's support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
The south wanted to ceced from the north, and the north didn't want that,

But why didn't they want that? It's because they wanted to keep their slaves. They were losing a battle of slavery. The balance was broken with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which nulled the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
So they fought. Slavery, like Chaos said, was tagged on later to add justification to the war, and to, like I previously stated, quell any future uprisings from the south.

The war did not need further justification and that wasn't the intentions.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Slavery is not an American nor European phenomenon, nor did it start with African enslavement. Indeed. It is a largely human phenomenon.

Originally posted by Mindship
Indeed. It is a largely human phenomenon.

Bingo.


If I'm not mistaken, there were even white people that were slaves before 1865. (In the US.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bingo.


If I'm not mistaken, there were even white people that were slaves before 1865. (In the US.)

Indentured servants?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Exactly.
Besides, between 1530 and 1780 almost million and a quater white Europeans were enslaved by various Middle Eastern countries. Slavery, unfortunately still exists in Islamic world (most notably Saudi Arabia)

Robert C. Davis wrote about this.

Slavery is not an American nor European phenomenon, nor did it start with African enslavement.
I doubt any of them could have freed themselves on their own.

given that the topic is about the freeing of black slaves from white masters, I hardly see how the international/interracial/non-time specific abstract idea of slavery is relevant. Nor about who else has had how many slaves and when.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh...don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of white Northerners who fought for the slaves' freedom. You know, the ones who actually freed the slaves.

A) America was one of the last (if not the last, some Caribbean nation might have lasted longer...) white country to outlaw slavery (maybe barring some E-European ones, but concerning the North Atlantic trade route, it was at least half a century behind the rest of Europe).

B) The northerners didn't just wake up and think black people were equal. The abolitionist movement, which, QUELLE SUPRISE!, existed before the Americans outlawed slavery, had already been successful all around the world in convincing Christians that there was no moral footing to slavery.

Proof: Olaudah Equiano's slaver narrative, which was PIVOTAL in convincing white Christians that slavery was wrong. In his book, using the language and religion of his oppressors, he is able to basically show that it is unchristian to hold slaves. He died not 2 decades after the American Revolution. That is where the white Americans, decades later, got their justification for abolition. America was behind the times when it came to ending slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaudah_Equiano#Pioneer_of_the_abolitionist_cause

and wow. A civil war history class? For realz dude! and at an American institution?????

My courses on black culture and history, with focus on the impact that black people had on both their emancipation and oppression, both past and current, must overqualify me for this conversation... No more need to measure penises?

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I'm not mistaken, there were even white people that were slaves before 1865. (In the US.)

No other forms of slavery have involved such international institutions as the North Atlantic Trade route.

True, slavery is a human phenomenon. I may take issue with the term, but the "Chattel" like treatment of blacks, the vicious inhumanity, and the industry behind it are, as far as I know, unique to this context. Maybe only matched by ancient civs? I dont know...

No other slaves have been such a commodity in such an industry.

To be completely clear, slavery was important because of money not morality. Let's please keep in mind that slaves were property that amounted today to a new mid grade car, labor would have to be paid, the South consistently skipped tariff payments to the federal government (i.e. the North), Europe had already moved to industrialization, and so many other reason related to money lead to the war.

That would be true if blacks were treated like machinery when they were kept as slaves.

Beating them into submission, raping their women, sadistic murder, all of these things paint slavery as a non-economic system. The proof was that slaves who were better treated were not only more profitable, but were more loyal and less likely to attempt escape.

Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.

Originally posted by inimalist


Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.

I'm getting more of at the why it happened rather than the reasons given for it.

Hardly any large scale violent conflict is actually based on the moral grounds given, instead often the people in control doing something that gives them capital gain.

I believe there were white people who truly believed slavery was unfair, but that on it's own would not be enough to "free" slaves without other incentives. There is hardly any evidence for the rest of the 19th century that suggest that most U.S. citizens believed blacks should be treated equally (and well into the 20th century).

I do not disagree with your points though.

Originally posted by inimalist
Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.

Entirely in religious terms? Not true, scientists at the time honestly believed black people were genetically inferior and others felt that giving black people stuff to do might improve them.

Originally posted by inimalist
No other forms of slavery have involved such international institutions as the North Atlantic Trade route.

It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of ''black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after'' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.

It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.

The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.

Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they're not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?

Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?

Of course it is relevant!

Yet you're so engrossed in ''we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt''. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.

I don't come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this idea that slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
It did not. It had to do with economics.

Originally posted by inimalist
That would be true if blacks were treated like machinery when they were kept as slaves.

Beating them into submission, raping their women, sadistic murder, all of these things paint slavery as a non-economic system. The proof was that slaves who were better treated were not only more profitable, but were more loyal and less likely to attempt escape.

Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.

Shut the hell up and go back to training for the special olympics. Your posts are making me go blind!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of \'\'black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after\'\' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.

It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.

The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.

Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they\'re not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?

Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?

Of course it is relevant!

Yet you\'re so engrossed in \'\'we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt\'\'. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.

I don\'t come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this type of slavery where black people are oppressed and white are the oppressors as if the slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.

AS Ali G would have said, Is it because i is black?

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm getting more of at the why it happened rather than the reasons given for it.

Hardly any large scale violent conflict is actually based on the moral grounds given, instead often the people in control doing something that gives them capital gain.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. I think it is fair to say that external factors influence people, but, not to sound glib, how many more middle class Muslims with university degrees need to blow themselves up before personal beliefs are seen as a strong motivator for action?

I don't think the two are the same, suicide bombing and slavery, and obviously if there were no economic benefit, at the very least, no major industry and trade route would have been created. But, even with modern technology, slavery would still be more profitable than not. The time when Britain had abolished slavery, yet America still had it, when you claim Britain was modernizing and industrializing, was when the American economy began to become the force it was today. Even with industrialized equipment, the profit motive would have said "keep slavery".

Originally posted by chithappens
I believe there were white people who truly believed slavery was unfair, but that on it's own would not be enough to "free" slaves without other incentives. There is hardly any evidence for the rest of the 19th century that suggest that most U.S. citizens believed blacks should be treated equally (and well into the 20th century).

The American context may have had more to do with economics, I'm not sure, and maybe the abolition of slavery more so than the justification and continuation of it.

My only point would be that, were white slave masters more interested in money than in the power over another person, they would have treated the slaves better, because it was well known, even to slaves, that better treated slaves were more productive and profitable.

Even the types of mistreatment. Like, you can't rape a cow's sister and have it be particularly relevant to the cow, you can't whip a tractor into submission, or putting uncomfortable gags and bindings on a pitchfork doesn't really have a desired effect. These were humiliations, and required that the slaves were treated as humans, though treated VERY poorly. This is actually the reason I take issue with the term "Chattel" slavery. They weren't chattel, it was the human aspect of the oppression that is most salient, imho.

Originally posted by chithappens
I do not disagree with your points though.

nor I with yours, something like this can't have a single cause.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of ''black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after'' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.

It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.

The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.

Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they're not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?

Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?

Of course it is relevant!

Yet you're so engrossed in ''we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt''. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.

I don't come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this idea that slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
It did not. It had to do with economics.

I'd be careful before you start putting words in my mouth.

I said that the industry behind the north atlantic slave route was unique in the history of slavery, and to the best of my knowledge it is. Please prove me wrong.

I did say something comparing the institution of the slave trade and the treatment of people vs other forms of slavery. I would argue that the examples above aren't the same form of institutional slave trade, but point taken. To note though, what you quoted of mine deals solely with the international slave trade institutions, which would be very hard to find an analog for, as the political context of the British Empire was huge in enabling the trade to form in the first place.

Nothing I've said should indicate I support reparations. This would be because I don't.

I've just made a couple of posts to Chit outlining why I feel the symbolism and morality in the justifications for the north atlantic slave route play at least as large of a role as the economics, feel free to respond to those specific points.

My point about relevance would be because of the thread title, which is "Why did blacks need white to free them from slavery". I assume the OP isn't talking about coke.

When talking about the specific reasons for the abolition of black slavery from whites, whether or not Muslims enslave people is 100% irrelevant. That doesn't mean it isn't important or isn't worse, just that the topics have nothing to do with each other except that they are generally about the topic "slavery". The thread isn't about general slavery, but rather the specific example of whites enslaving blacks. Unless you would make the argument that all slavery is the same and happens for the same reasons.

Well, in the part of the world I come from, we like to talk about things from a less reactionary viewpoint. I wasn't even saying the memes you are replying to.

Originally posted by inimalist
A) America was one of the last (if not the last, some Caribbean nation might have lasted longer...) white country to outlaw slavery (maybe barring some E-European ones, but concerning the North Atlantic trade route, it was at least half a century behind the rest of Europe).

Brazil was the last of us western countries to end slavery.

Originally posted by inimalist
B) The northerners didn't just wake up and think black people were equal. The abolitionist movement, which, QUELLE SUPRISE!, existed before the Americans outlawed slavery, had already been successful all around the world in convincing Christians that there was no moral footing to slavery.


You're correct. It started in the North as early as 1780. I mentioned this already.

In fact, some colonists came to the Americas already being against slavery.

Originally posted by inimalist
Proof: Olaudah Equiano's slaver narrative, which was PIVOTAL in convincing white Christians that slavery was wrong. In his book, using the language and religion of his oppressors, he is able to basically show that it is unchristian to hold slaves. He died not 2 decades after the American Revolution. That is where the white Americans, decades later, got their justification for abolition. America was behind the times when it came to ending slavery.

1. Your reference is out of chronological context. Equiano's narrative was sociologically important to ending SLAVE TRADE, not slavery. Sure, it was a small contributing factor for the abolitionists, but it was not nearly as big of a factor as other works more recent to pre-Civil War time period.

If you want to pull that it helped change the minds of the Northerners so that they would free their slaves and make it illegal, fine. That's great. But it is not in the same league as Uncle Tom's Cabin, as far as influence goes for the Civil War.

2. The distinction of heavily influencing both politics and the sociological acceptability of slavery goes to Uncle Tom's Cabin. Guess which book sold more copies than any other book except the bible, in the 19th century?

3. It should be obvious why other works such as 12 Years a Slave didn't carry as much weight as HB Stowe's work of fiction: She was white. MANY more people read UT'sC than 12 Years a Slave, during that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaudah_Equiano#Pioneer_of_the_abolitionist_cause

I see your wiki article and raise you another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin#Reactions_to_the_novel




Since my information is coming from Professors. David Goldfield (University of North Carolina), Carl Abbott (Portland State University), Virginia DeJohn Anderson ( University of Colorado, Boulder), Jo Ann E. and Peter H. Argersinger (Southern Illinois University), William L. Barney (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), and Rober M. Weir (University of South Carolina), I'll stick with that for now. No where have I read that Equiano's narrative heavily influenced the minds of the people, shortly before the Civi lWar, as much as UT'sC did. It's unanimous in everything I read that HB Stowe's book was one of the catalysts for the Civil War.


Originally posted by inimalist
and wow. A civil war history class? For realz dude! and at an American institution?????



Don't be sore because someone contradicted you.

Originally posted by inimalist
My courses on black culture and history, with focus on the impact that black people had on both their emancipation and oppression, both past and current, must overqualify me for this conversation... No more need to measure penises?

No. If you're wrong, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what classes you took. I've contradicted you with fact. There's no shame in being wrong. I've been wrong on many occasions.












So what are we actually debating, now?


Anything?


HB Stowe's book was more influential than Equiano's narrative. This is fact.

That's out of the way...what else are we "arguing" about? Anything? I don't think we are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Entirely in religious terms? Not true, scientists at the time honestly believed black people were genetically inferior and others felt that giving black people stuff to do might improve them.

True, but when you read Galton and the like, there is a clear Christian/Cultural influence on the work.

It was a case of having the answer and working backwards. I would compare it to the evolutionary and geological science being done by the Discover institute, only in those days it was mainstream science.

Point taken though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indentured servants? Huh? What was wrong with their teeth?

Originally posted by inimalist
No other forms of slavery have involved such international institutions as the North Atlantic Trade route.

True, slavery is a human phenomenon. I may take issue with the term, but the "Chattel" like treatment of blacks, the vicious inhumanity, and the industry behind it are, as far as I know, unique to this context. Maybe only matched by ancient civs? I dont know...

No other slaves have been such a commodity in such an industry.


1. I never contradicted or implied a contradication to anything you've said above. I simply mentioend that even whites did not escape slavery in America.

2. Indentured servants were in many aspects, treated just the same as slaves. I would say that they were treated better, on the whole. Indentured servants were sold and bought, beaten, etc. Endentured servants comprised a large portion of the population in colonial America. You could say that North was built on temp. slaves. Again, I don't think their lives were nearly as hard, on average, to black slaves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HB Stowe's book was more influential than Equiano's narrative. This is fact.

That's out of the way...what else are we "arguing" about? Anything? I don't think we are.

It would be that last point, the whos and whats and so on.

Though, no, I don't really think so

Also, Black slavery to me has much less to do with America and the civil war then it does to you. Seeing as the Civil war came decades even, as you say, after the North began ending slavery.

Like I said, America was behind when it came to slavery. Contextualizing black slavery and the emancipation of blacks in terms of the civil war and Lincoln, imho, a little amero-centric.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. I never contradicted or implied a contradication to anything you've said above. I simply mentioend that even whites did not escape slavery in America.

2. Indentured servants were in many aspects, treated just the same as slaves. I would say that they were treated better, on the whole. Indentured servants were sold and bought, beaten, etc. Endentured servants comprised a large portion of the population in colonial America. You could say that North was built on temp. slaves. Again, I don't think their lives were nearly as hard, on average, to black slaves.

or, how did they come across the ocean?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Lincoln abolished slavery to free the slaves. They were already at war. The southerners declared that it was another tactic by the Union to cut off their economic ability to sustain war. It was also to turn the slaves against their slave holders.

It was a war tactic first and foremost. The result was, of course, that all slaves were, for the most part, made free, but that was not the true intention or objective of the proclamation. If it was the intention, then slavery would have been ended in all Confederate states, no matter if they rejoined the Union before January 1st. The proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy, plain and simple.

Originally posted by inimalist
True, but when you read Galton and the like, there is a clear Christian/Cultural influence on the work.

It was a case of having the answer and working backwards. I would compare it to the evolutionary and geological science being done by the Discover institute, only in those days it was mainstream science.

Point taken though.

Religion is far from blameless, there are several accounts of owners leaving for the weekend and coming back born again and worse than ever. Fredrick Douglas mentions that devout slave owners were some of the worst. That also seems to be an example of working backward for the answer you want, the answer being "slavery is okay" and the justification being "the bible says so".

It's just that the idea that religion was the sum total of justification isn't really true.

Originally posted by inimalist
That would be true if blacks were treated like machinery when they were kept as slaves.

Beating them into submission, raping their women, sadistic murder, all of these things paint slavery as a non-economic system. The proof was that slaves who were better treated were not only more profitable, but were more loyal and less likely to attempt escape.

Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.

HOLY SHIT!

My essay, which I just turned in yesterday, covered those very same points!

Here's what I covered:

1. Slaves were not comparable to machinery that had to be maintained, as some people liked to think.

2. Slaves that were treated better worked better and were more profitable for their owners. (Better health, etc.) I cited Solomon Northup's own words to back this claim up.

3. Slavery was fought for by the south not just to simply have them, but because of what slavery symbolically meant to the south.

4. Black people were considered less than human, even by Northerners.

5. The necessity of HB Stowe's book in inciting anger from the south, gaining more followers to anti-slavery, and strengthening the cause of the Northerners against slavery, in general.


It's rather uncanny how many of my points you just covered.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of ''black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after'' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.

It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.

The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.

Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they're not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?

Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?

Of course it is relevant!

Yet you're so engrossed in ''we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt''. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.

I don't come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this idea that slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
It did not. It had to do with economics.

All slavery is not relevant to another just as all wars are not and so on.

I'm not sure who says that or if you got the impression that
inimalist was implying that slaves in the U.S. were worse off than others. That is a case by case thing and slavery has no moral basis in the first place.

Certainly Africans had slaves but it is very difficult to have an actual discussion about African culture in any era because it is simply not taught to the masses regardless of if we mean to speak of any African history, the African languages or whatever (same can be said of any peoples who have not had mass intergration by European people). In general, people make bold, sweeping statements that might hold some truth but lack any background information critical to actual learning between different parties.

The point trying to be made, I believe, is that slavery is wrong in any form, at any place, no matter what time. It should be probably be left at that so that we are not going at each other's throats about the particulars.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Religion is far from blameless, there are several accounts of owners leaving for the weekend and coming back born again and worse than ever. Fredrick Douglas mentions that devout slave owners were some of the worst. That also seems to be an example of working backward for the answer you want, the answer being "slavery is okay" and the justification being "the bible says so".

It's just that the idea that religion was the sum total of justification isn't really true.

****, no totally.

I'm not trying to "blame religion", more, if anything, blame "culture". The beliefs of the people were symbolically justified by slavery and were morally/scientifically justified through their institutions of knowledge, whichever those might have been.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
It was a war tactic first and foremost.

Maybe...maybe not. This is debatable. There's more evidence to suggest that this was Lincoln's goal the whole time. He had been working hard even before his presidency, to abolish slavery because it was "morally wrong."



Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The result was, of course, that all slaves were, for the most part, made free, but that was not the true intention or objective of the proclamation.

It had many intentions, one of them being military.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
If it was the intention, then slavery would have been ended in all Confederate states,

It most certainly did end slavery in all of the confederate states. Do you think that the Union believed it was be very effective? Sure, they knew it may cause some uprisings, but they assumed that slavery would remain in most places until the Union won the war.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy, plain and simple.

I agree on this. Almost every intention arrives at this point.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Huh? What was wrong with their teeth?

LOL


best post in da thread.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HOLY SHIT!

My essay, which I just turned in yesterday, covered those very same points!

Here's what I covered:

1. Slaves were not comparable to machinery that had to be maintained, as some people liked to think.

2. Slaves that were treated better worked better and were more profitable for their owners. (Better health, etc.) I cited Solomon Northup's own words to back this claim up.

3. Slavery was fought for by the south not just to simply have them, but because of what slavery symbolically meant to the south.

4. Black people were considered less than human, even by Northerners.

5. The necessity of HB Stowe's book in inciting anger from the south, gaining more followers to anti-slavery, and strengthening the cause of the Northerners against slavery, in general.


It's rather uncanny how many of my points you just covered.

Weird, I wrote something similar with more importance placed on Equiano's work, especially because it was a black writing in Christian terms (terms that a theocratic government can't ignore, as it is the language of law). (Equiano was also a main part of the course, which may explain the slant toward that. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned to you, as the work was a bestseller in its time, and he was, even in his life, recognized by the Crown of England as one of the central figures in the abolitionist movement).

It really surprised me how this seems overlooked in the study of black slavery. Most people go "chattel" or "property" and leave it at that. I'd never treat my property that way, lol.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe...maybe not. This is debatable. There's more evidence to suggest that this was Lincoln's goal the whole time. He had been working hard even before his presidency, to abolish slavery because it was "morally wrong."

Debatable? I don't really think so, but people are allowed to their opinions, of course. In my mind and in a lot of other historians' eyes, it was a war tactic that was meant to weaken the Confederacy. Did Lincoln have ulterior motives for releasing it? Sure, but he acted for the Union first and foremost; he transformed the war into one against slavery to weaken the Confederacy, rather than just unification. On a side note, a little known fact is that Lincoln had a previous plan to compensate slave owners/slave states by paying them 400 dollars for every slave; and, in turn, the states would abolish slavery within 20 years.

I'm talking specifically for the proclamation, not the 13th Amendment. The proclamation was a war tactic; if Lincoln could have ended the war by having all states keep their slaves, he would have. If he could have ended the war by freeing the slaves, he would have done that.



It did end slavery in the South to an extent, but...if any Confederate state stopped fighting and rejoined the Union, they would have been able to keep their slaves and would have been exempt from it. For how long? No one could possibly know for sure, but I would take a gander that they would become a free state by the end of the 1870's. After all, if one of the states would have rejoined the Union, who knows what would have happened to Lincoln since history would be changed.

Originally posted by inimalist
Weird, I wrote something similar with more importance placed on Equiano's work, especially because it was a black writing in Christian terms (terms that a theocratic government can't ignore, as it is the language of law). (Equiano was also a main part of the course, which may explain the slant toward that. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned to you, as the work was a bestseller in its time, and he was, even in his life, recognized by the Crown of England as one of the central figures in the abolitionist movement).

It really surprised me how this seems overlooked in the study of black slavery. Most people go "chattel" or "property" and leave it at that. I'd never treat my property that way, lol.

Equiano's narrative, as well as an essay about it, were required for my course. It's the first narrative we read during the summer semester.

We also read Uncle Tom's Cabin and 12 Years a Slave.

These were the three works required for out course...each required an essay, similar to the one you and I wrote.




In conclusion, it does seem we are on the same page, as usual, it's just that we differ on one very small point. However, I don't think this is a difference, really.


I'm referring to Civil War and slavery post civil war. You're referring to slavery, in general.


I am focusing on America.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Debatable? I don't really think so, but people are allowed to their opinions, of course.

It is debatable, which is why you're replying to me.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
In my mind and in a lot of other historians' eyes, it was a war tactic that was meant to weaken the Confederacy.

No one is denying that. What is being debated is it being the foremost reason for doing it. That's debatable.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Did Lincoln have ulterior motives for releasing it? Sure, but he acted for the Union first and foremost;

Depends on your definition of "Union." Do you mean the northern states or do you mean the nation, as a whole?

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
he transformed the war into one against slavery to weaken the Confederacy, rather than just unification.

Correct. We both agree on this point and it was something I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
On a side note, a little known fact is that Lincoln had a previous plan to compensate slave owners/slave states by paying them 400 dollars for every slave; and, in turn, the states would abolish slavery within 20 years.

It wasn't just a plan, it happened in D.C., I think. People were compensated.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I'm talking specifically for the proclamation, not the 13th Amendment. The proclamation was a war tactic; if Lincoln could have ended the war by having all states keep their slaves, he would have. If he could have ended the war by freeing the slaves, he would have done that.

On this, I disagree. Lincoln most certainly would not have allowed the South to keep their slaves. That was the whole point of the war.

We have evidence of his anti-slavery ideas from his campaign to win a senate seat.

IOriginally posted by Darth Macabre
t did end slavery in the South to an extent, but...if any Confederate state stopped fighting and rejoined the Union, they would have been able to keep their slaves and would have been exempt from it. For how long? No one could possibly know for sure, but I would take a gander that they would become a free state by the end of the 1870's. After all, if one of the states would have rejoined the Union, who knows what would have happened to Lincoln since history would be changed.

We can certainly speculate, but the 13th amendment was the eventual goal.

I have to go more than a decade back to recall something I read about slavery continuing in the south, even after the 13th amendment. It was illegal, but some people kept up the practice...it took a while for it to stop. It wasn't instant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is debatable, which is why you're replying to me. I am replying to you in an attempt to correct you, I am not debating you.



The Union, meaning country as a whole. I admitted that Lincoln did have ulterior motives, but the main intention of the proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy.



In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: So on that point, you are incorrect. You must remember, his campaigning for the Senate was before the Civil War erupted, which definitely changed his opinion or point of view.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I am replying to you in an attempt to correct you, I am not debating you.

But you're the one who was corrected.



Originally posted by Darth Macabre
In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: So on that point, you are incorrect. You must remember, his campaigning for the Senate was before the Civil War erupted, which definitely changed his opinion or point of view.

Ever hear of political rhetoric? Even Honest Abe was a politician.

He freed the slaves. That's that.




Edit - What we do have is Lincoln freeing the slaves which only created more friction. In order to understand when a politician is telling the truth or not, you have to look at their actions, and not their political rhetoric. If a contemporary congressman declared anti-slavery and voted favorably for slavery, his political rhetoric holds not ground. What we do know, depsite what you claimed, is Lincoln was against slavery. His actions prove that.

To claim that he would have kept slavery if it would have saved the union is factually incorrect, as evidenced by the emancipation proclamation. That only drove the divide further. It was not primarily a military move, as you claimed. Why did he do it, then? Sure, there were many motivations for the proclamation...that's not being debated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ever hear of political rhetoric? Even Honest Abe was a politician.

He freed the slaves. That's that.

Ironic. You chalk the letter up to political rhetoric, but you yet use campaigns as proof. He freed the slaves, yet left it open for slave states to keep their slaves if they rejoined the Union, that is fact, hence me saying that the main intention of the proclamation was to weaken the Union.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Ironic. You chalk the letter up to political rhetoric, but you yet use campaigns as proof.

Actions speak louder than political rhetoric, my friend. See my edit.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
He freed the slaves, yet left it open for slave states to keep their slaves if they rejoined the Union, that is fact, hence me saying that the main intention of the proclamation was to weaken the Union.

You still didn't define Union. I can assume, by this post, that you're referring to the U.S. as a whole, and not North.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You still didn't define Union. Yes, I did. Its in the post before my last. And his actions do speak louder than words, yes, and his actions show that he left it open for slavery to be present in the Union within the proclamation.

Edit: just read your edit. Have you ever read the proclamation? He didn't outlaw slavery; he freed slaves within the Confederacy that was not under the Union control by January 1st. I really don't understand how you can argue against that he left slavery open in the Union.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Yes, I did. Its in the post before my last. And his actions do speak louder than words, yes, and his actions show that he left it open for slavery to be present in the Union within the proclamation.


You'll have to forgive me. Your post was a mess, at the time, and I didn't really pay attention to that part of it...I kinda...skipped over it.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Edit: just read your edit. Have you ever read the proclamation? He didn't outlaw slavery; he freed slaves within the Confederacy that was not under the Union control by January 1st. I really don't understand how you can argue that he left slavery open in the Union.

Where did I say the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery?



And where am I arguing that he left slavery open in the Union? (I would argue that he did do that...depending on what you're talking about.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
You'll have to forgive me. Your post was a mess, at the time, and I didn't really pay attention to that part of it...I kinda...skipped over it.



Where did I say the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery?



And where am I arguing that he left slavery open in the Union? (I would argue that he did do that...depending on what you're talking about.) We're not really arguing or debating, we're kind of just...talking about, well, nothing, really. Good day, sir.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
We're not really arguing or debating, we're kind of just...talking about, well, nothing, really. Good day, sir.


Well...


We disagreed on the Emancipation Proclamation being a war tactic, first and foremost, we disagreed that Lincoln would have kept slaves if it would have kept the union together (it's simply not true. That was one of Lincoln's main political aspirations...freeing the slaves.), and we disagreed that the Emancipation Proclamation was made, mainly to weaken the Confederacy.



I'll give you Lincoln's rhetoric, and I get the first and last one. Deal? (Strangely, the last one ties into the 2nd...making it retarded that I get the 3rd and you get the 2nd...but a deal's a deal.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...


We disagreed on the Emancipation Proclamation being a war tactic, first and foremost, we disagreed that Lincoln would have kept slaves if it would have kept the union together (it's simply not true. That was one of Lincoln's main political aspirations...freeing the slaves.), and we disagreed that the Emancipation Proclamation was made, mainly to weaken the Confederacy.



I'll give you Lincoln's rhetoric, and I get the first and last one. Deal? (Strangely, the last one ties into the 2nd...making it retarded that I get the 3rd and you get the 2nd...but a deal's a deal.) Good enough. Good day, sir.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am focusing on America.

figures, jingoist prick!

Originally posted by inimalist
figures, jingoist prick!





That's right.


For christmas, I give my friends and family a pack of bullets and a little American flag.


Yippee Ki Yay, Mother F***er.