I don't live in Africa, and no one in my family has lived in Africa for 500 years. The countries my distant ancestors came from over there don't even exist any more..
I'm a Foundational Black American and this country was built by black people even a white supremacist like Trump says so
This country owes Foundational Black Americans tangible resources so that we can purchase and control our own safe schools, own neighborhoods, and own our own businesses. And not be subjected to the religion of white supremacy.
Not to mention the fact that Africa like the USA is dominated by white supremacy.
Oh? Which BLACK tribe captured your family and sold you into slavery? And no, black slaves didn't build this country. Capitalists did that.
Slaves were used in the backwater South, and because the South wasn't industrialized it lost the war. Slave based economies always fail against capitalist based economies.
My people suffered too. The losers, like you, whine and sniveling and get drunk and act like idiots.
Assholes, like you, want to flail out like the infants you are and hurt and kill white people who have done you no harm because you are fucked in the head.
" black slaves didn't build this country "
Of course the enslaved Blacks built this country. What kind of weed you smoking?
I didnt see any capitalists out there picking cotton and harvesting sugar cane. We know Blacks built this country because the confederates went to war to keep them there building this country. Hell if it wasn't for Blacks this country would be about half its current size.
No, they didn't. They built the South. The South was an agrarian slave based economy that was crushed by the industrial might of the North.
The vast majority of slaves in the industrial North were the white, indentured servants who you don't seem to count because they were white, so the fact they too were slaves fucks with your whole "white privilege" fantasy.
The book is cute, and panders to low educated, historically ignorant people.
Black people built the south which built the entire US economy. You aint doing shit with industrialization unless you have the raw materials to do something and the money to create industrialization. Dont take my word for it. Read a book on it. The one I posted is just one of hundreds.
A laughable assertion. The slave based economy of the South was so backward that they couldn't equip their army for the Civil War.
The South did nothing to help the growth of America. That was due to the industrial might of the North which out produced the South by orders of magnitude.
Its only laughable because they were too stupid to equip and supply an army for the Civil War. They had to use the enslaved to build and supply them which I am sure they did their absolute best to do. Doesnt change the fact that the labor of Blacks produced the raw materials that greased the wheels for the US economy in order for the North to have industrial might. You cant possibly believe that all that industry would have occurred without the raw materials. I know youre smarter than that.
“The slavery economy of the US South is deeply tied financially to the North, to Britain, to the point that we can say that people who were buying financial products in these other places were in effect owning slaves, and were extracting money from the labor of enslaved people,”
What's funny is they claim the slavery was tied to the North, but the vast majority of cotton picked by the slaves went to the UK.
So, you could almost make the claim that slavery built the UK, if only it weren't for all of those pesky other industries that made Britain the 2nd most wealthy nation the Earth has ever seen.
I would agree that enslaved Blacks helped to build the UK economy as well. So do you think that cotton that went to the UK was given to them or sold to them by the US thereby enrich the US?
The Economics of Cotton | US History I (OS Collection)
courses.lumenlearning.com
" Northern mills depended on the South for supplies of raw cotton that was then converted into textiles. But this domestic cotton market paled in comparison to the Atlantic market. About 75 percent of the cotton produced in the United States was eventually exported abroad. Exporting at such high volumes made the United States the undisputed world leader in cotton production. Between the years 1820 and 1860, approximately 80 percent of the global cotton supply was produced in the United States. Nearly all the exported cotton was shipped to Great Britain, fueling its burgeoning textile industry and making the powerful British Empire increasingly dependent on American cotton and southern slavery. "
The ONLY people enriched by the cotton trade were the plantation owners. They did virtually nothing with their money to help the country. But, once again, you have this erroneous belief that cotton was the most important industry. It wasn't.
Bullshit. Those plantation owners made northerners wealthy by buying the products made there. They literally built the economy of the north and the US as a whole.
No they didn't you ignorant fool. The North got rich off of California gold, Nevada silver, and the railroads that they built.
Sorry clown. The North got rich off Black slavery and then took that money and built up the west and got even wealthier.
According to your made up "history". In actual fact it was the gold and silver of the west that powered, and paid for the industrial revolution to go into overdrive. The slaves had nothing to do with that no matter how much your fantasy authors tell you.
It is simply, factually, untrue. In the overall scheme of things where slavery was the main source of labor....YOU sucked. In fact, it was Eli Whitney whose invention of the cotton gin (conceived by Catherine Green) in 1793 made it possible for the cotton trade to actually become profitable. See, that's where history, real history fucks up your fantasy narrative. It was the industrial North, that helped the South become profitable.
"A More Efficient Way
Greene and her plantation manager, Phineas Miller (1764-1803), explained the problem with short-staple cotton to Whitney, and soon thereafter he built a machine that could effectively and efficiently remove the seeds from cotton plants. The invention, called the cotton gin (“gin” was derived from “engine”), worked something like a strainer or sieve: Cotton was run through a wooden drum embedded with a series of hooks that caught the fibers and dragged them through a mesh. The mesh was too fine to let the seeds through but the hooks pulled the cotton fibers through with ease. Smaller gins could be cranked by hand; larger ones could be powered by a horse and, later, by a steam engine. Whitney’s hand-cranked machine could remove the seeds from 50 pounds of cotton in a single day. Whitney wrote to his father: "One man and a horse will do more than fifty men with the old machines…Tis generally said by those who know anything about it, that I shall make a Fortune by it."
Cotton Gin and Eli Whitney
www.history.com
Sorry but youre wrong. Gold was discovered out west in 1848. Slavery had long before that funded the north. Your claim is puerile and silly. The cotton gin actually contributed to slavery making it more of a force and creating demand for more slaves which in turn fueled the industry of the north even more.
" Whitney's gin used a combination of a wire screen and small wire hooks to pull the cotton through, while brushes continuously removed the loose cotton lint to prevent jams. It revolutionized the cotton industry in the United States, but also led to the growth of slavery in the American South as the demand for cotton workers rapidly increased. "
Cotton wasn't profitable until 1800. You had a 48 year head start and you couldn't even provide enough wealth to win the Civil War. Your masters have been lying to you all along, dude. Slavery was a hindrance, not a boon. These apologist, and virtue signalling books sell to the uneducated, but to the educated they are merely dropping papers for our bird nests.
Before cotton there was tobacco. Youre scrambling trying to make it not so but youre making yourself look like a fool. The summary of your argument goes like this.....
The north magically had a industrial revolution financed by precious metal that had yet to be discovered in the west. Slave labor had nothing to do with the economic explosion in the US despite tobacco and cotton being major cash crops the world was paying money to acquire. Stop it while youre still behind.
Ummm, you're the one scrambling from cotton to tobacco. I merely point out that Virginia City Nevada produced more wealth in 3 years, than ALL of the cotton you people picked for all of the years you did it. THAT is wealth creation. Oh, throw your tobacco in too, and that counts for another year. So one small area in Nevada outproduced ALL of you.
There was no scrambling. Cotton and tobacco were the crops the enslaved picked and built the US with. Now youre claiming that after the country was built that finding some precious metal in Nevada is what built the country. Thats not wealth creation. Thats a lucky lotto ticket. No effort required.
And between them they produced about 5% of the wealth of the USA. Everything else was produced in the industrial North. You are as ignorant of economics as you are of history.
"And between them they produced about 5% of the wealth of the USA."
You got your figures wrong. Cotton and tobacco easily produced about 80% of the US wealth during that time. Theres a reason they called it King Cotton and not King Silver.
" Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century. The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together. "
What a fucking joke. No, they didn't. Cotton was only profitable for about a 48 year period. That's it. And the production of wealth for that entire period doesn't come close to the wealth produced from the Comstock lode alone.
