Slavery wasn't that bad?

[spinner981]

If you ignored the beatings, rapes, seeing family members sold off, being sacrificed to the gods anytime things got strange, then yea it was very charitable.

Methinks you haven't observed many forms of ancient slavery.

[Speaker]

Forgive me, but based on what I read he never said slavery wasn't bad... He was just saying that not only slaves built the White House, but regular people also helped build it as well. I think he was just upset that Michelle made it sound like only slaves built the White House, which is incorrect. Not that it makes any difference to me, but I think the title was misleading.

[Speaker]

Trying to find a silver lining in humans literally being property is pretty much bending over backwards to be an apologist for the institution of slavery.

You are way too serious man. The dude was just pointing out that Michelle was not telling a full truth. Give it a break man.

[oxymoronic]

Africa is a disaster because of colonialism. It's a mishmash of countries that are organized specifically to extract wealth and maintain power over a less than co-operative populace. That's why there are so many kleptocratic dictatorships in Africa. The infrastructure and institutional organizations have been set up for them.

if you argue that bullshit then i can easily argue the only reason they have what they have is colonialism. that if not for that sub sahara africa would be living in huts in villages and have absolutely no contact with the rest of the world. imagine the same, but worse.

do you really think if not for colonialism sub sahara africa would be as prosperous as western society? serious tho?

[oxymoronic]

Africa wasn't exactly a bunch of huts before European colonization, not to mention living in huts isn't automatically worse than any possible scenario involving a more modern environment.

most of it certainly was, the places where slaves originate from.

[ati87]

if you argue that bullshit then i can easily argue the only reason they have what they have is colonialism. that if not for that sub sahara africa would be living in huts in villages and have absolutely no contact with the rest of the world. imagine the same, but worse.

do you really think if not for colonialism sub sahara africa would be as prosperous as western society? serious tho?

What's your argument actually? That the continent of Africa is better of because of colonialism?

You're really going that route?

Not every society thinks that having bigger and larger buildings is the epidemie of what they should aim for.

Also this is exactly forcing your values and idea's upon others is something half of this forums blames Muslims for doing.

[caervek]

People sold people. That is the slave trade. You can dress it up in different names if you want, you can say it was different when white people did it if you want, but ultimately it always comes down to people selling people. It has existed since the dawn of time, and it exists to this day. The only reason it is not as widespread as it used to be is due to the influence of white people.

Boom, game/set/match.

[Beet]

what they want and what they are better off with is often two different things.

- - - Updated - - -


before that? how did they allow a small foreign force to do this? why did they help a foreign force do this??? surely something was gained.

And who are you to say that being a slave with two parents is better than being a free man with one parent? Jesus Christ I can't believe you think this. You think having two parents makes up for being a slave. I'd hate to see how far down that rabbit hole you'd go.

[Themius]

Yes it did, but it was only through the morality of the supposed "evil whites" that it ended. The noble African sold his brother to the slaver, and continues to do so to this day.

That is why Africa is a shithole, the rest of the world advanced, they didn't.

Whites often say our ancestors didn't sell slave our ancestors weren't related to the slave trade. So explain to me why some northern Africans for instance selling their rivals who aren't the same ethnicity as them suddenly selling you're brother? You don't know shit do you about this topic maybe stay quiet.

It's like if Germany enslaved Italy and then sold Italians. Years later people say to the Italians. Well your brothers did slavery first! Like what the fuck are you talking about?

[Felnoire]

No matter how well the slave is treated, they're still a slave, and that's bad. It doesn't shift it's morality to good comparing to a worse treated slave, as it's still slavery. Also doesn't' guarantee said slaves will be able to live together with family, that's entirely up to their owner's whims, who can sell them piecemeal or as a group depending on which benefits them most. Families were split right off the bat as not all slaves were taken as a full family, so again no way to suggest it would beneficial to the number of parent's they're likely to have as a slave. Not that having multiple parents is an indicator of anything, as plenty of people raised by a pair of parents still end up as gits.
Though the entire point of her words were to indicate that America has come far, from a time where the only hopes for a group of people were a kind master who might even let them earn their freedom to being able to rise to the highest position in the land. There is still much to do in America, as with the world, but America's still young and the future can become even brighter.
But sure keep comparing slavery in America with the slavery in other nations, as it's always interesting to see the mentality of deciding which turd is shinier. Though as it's election year I thought that would be solely showing up on the candidate discussions, so interesting it turns up here on slavery of all things.

[tj119]

The U.S. would not be in the position it is in today without slavery, so in a way, for us...yes it wasn't that bad.

[Felnoire]

Depends on how you would've dealt in WWII, as that was a turning point in how America rose to economic prominence. Would a lack of slaves in the past reduce the ability for America's industrial manufacturing hubs to churn out metric tons of resources, would the lack of slavery in the past reduce the value of the lend leases to America's allies? Would this manufacturing boom not last till the same period in American history had there been no slaves in American history?
As slavery wasn't legal when America's industrial might was on full display, and earning it vast sums of money. I would be inclined to believe slavery may not have played much impact in America's ability to become a superpower in the 20th century. That of course is not proof, as its equally possible without slaves that America would crumble before the founding father's put pen to paper. America could very well be a different nation without slavery in it's history, I could see hindrance to it's growth and opportunity to grow faster. After all America without slavery would need a workforce, this presents opportunity to immigrants wanting a better life, and what better place to carve that out than a nation that's still in it's infancy? A need for industry to flourish where once slaves would've toiled, sparking the need for invention, endeavor, and enterprise. But then I'm being optimistic I suppose, most likely people would've sat around all day doing nothing wondering why they didn't have people outside picking the cotton. Followed by a decline in productivity as there was nobody to do the jobs that slaves once did, and the eventual collapse of an independent America as the British decide to reclaim it for the Empire and there being only lazy unproductive people sitting in their way.

[Noxx79]

People sold people. That is the slave trade. You can dress it up in different names if you want, you can say it was different when white people did it if you want, but ultimately it always comes down to people selling people. It has existed since the dawn of time, and it exists to this day. The only reason it is not as widespread as it used to be is due to the influence of white people.

Yes, slavery is not as widespread because the people who have power have finally decided its not OK to have slaves...

That's like saying we should be thankful for criminals who decide not to rob your house. We should be thankful for the government for deciding not to stomp us into the ground with the military.

[Deleted]

Whites often say our ancestors didn't sell slave our ancestors weren't related to the slave trade. So explain to me why some northern Africans for instance selling their rivals who aren't the same ethnicity as them suddenly selling you're brother? You don't know shit do you about this topic maybe stay quiet.

It's like if Germany enslaved Italy and then sold Italians. Years later people say to the Italians. Well your brothers did slavery first! Like what the fuck are you talking about?

So you agree that Africans were selling Africans, you just disagree with my wording? Glad you've got that cleared up.

And the Germans and Italians were enslaving each other, pretty much everyone in Europe was enslaving each other, if you go back to the Roman Empire, but then Europe advanced, decided that slavery was abhorrent, and outlawed it. And they outlawed it everywhere they could.

[Themius]

So you agree that Africans were selling Africans, you just disagree with my wording? Glad you've got that cleared up.

And the Germans and Italians were enslaving each other, pretty much everyone in Europe was enslaving each other, if you go back to the Roman Empire, but then Europe advanced, decided that slavery was abhorrent, and outlawed it. And they outlawed it everywhere they could.

Would you say to an italian slave who was sold by germans that "you were sold by your brother" or would you not becuase that sentence is fucking stupid?

[Nfinitii]

Nothing O'Reilly said was an opinion, he only stated historical facts.

Quit trying to smear him, idk where u get that stated or inferred that slavery wasn't that bad.

[Deleted]

Would you say to an italian slave who was sold by germans that "you were sold by your brother" or would you not becuase that sentence is fucking stupid?

You keep worrying about the wording that you don't agree with, i'll keep bringing out facts.

[Themius]

You keep worrying about the wording that you don't agree with, i'll keep bringing out facts.

The wording is important because Africa is A CONTINENT. Not a homogenous country. So saying "well africans did it" is not an argument, it's fucking stupid because it's like saying "well Germans enslaved Italians so look whites did it!"

Your facts are worth nothing, when you begin it off with such a silly statement.

[Kujako]

The wording is important because Africa is A CONTINENT. Not a homogenous country. So saying "well africans did it" is not an argument, it's fucking stupid because it's like saying "well Germans enslaved Italians so look whites did it!"

Your facts are worth nothing, when you begin it off with such a silly statement.

But it's true! After all, more or less all of us are "Africans" genetically.

[Deleted]

The wording is important because Africa is A CONTINENT. Not a homogenous country. So saying "well africans did it" is not an argument, it's fucking stupid because it's like saying "well Germans enslaved Italians so look whites did it!"

Your facts are worth nothing, when you begin it off with such a silly statement.

Right so its ok for all white people to be blamed for slavery, but when it comes to black people, they don't all get blamed.

Nice double standard. And once again, nice attempt at deflecting because of wording you don't agree with. If you aren't even going to bother to defend the actions of the black slavers, then don't respond, because you've got nothing to say that I want to hear.