"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith
Google it.
You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:
"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."
And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.
Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really *$#*$ insane. I should stop here and delete that.
You mean most brainwashed liberals would say that. For one thing, intelligent, objective people would recognize your posturing as sheer and ignorant demagoguery, especially after they read the entire paragraph and the surrounding paragraphs.
When someone, let's say, is wrongfully imprisoned but they go to a prison where they learn a new skill and where they eat more and better food than they would have in their previous situation, it would be perfectly factual to say that their wrongful imprisonment had some good aspects, even though it was wrong and inexcusable.
As I make clear in the article from which you dishonestly snipped my statement, slavery was morally wrong on several levels. Even if, as the evidence seems to indicate, only a small percentage of slaves were treated with cruelty, even if only 5% were treated that way, 5% of 3.5 million is still a lot of people (165,000). Any institution that is causing 165,000 people to suffer brutality is morally unacceptable and unjustifiable, no matter how humanely other slaves were treated.
But you guys always take the exception and portray it as the rule, when in fact according to the slave narratives themselves, most slaves were not abused and most said their masters treated them humanely. No, of course this does not mean that slavery was "ok." But it does mean that the Hollywood portrayals of slavery are misleading.
Many slaves, as I document in the article, learned valuable job skills that they were able to use as freemen. In fact, Southern slaves had more opportunities to learn trade skills than did Northern free blacks. Slaves had a longer life expectancy and a lower suicide rate than many European whites. Slaves on average worked less hours than some/many/a majority of Northern factory workers. Many slaves had better housing than many Northern factory workers. Many if not most slaves were converted to Christianity and found personal peace and salvation in their lives. I would certainly call that a good aspect, just as I would if a man framed and jailed for a crime he didn't commit found God while in prison. Etc., etc., etc.
But, of course, you can have none of this because your programming tells you that you must smear anyone who factually discusses the conditions of slavery, that you must accuse them of defending or approving of slavery. To abandon that lie would force you to deal with facts and evidence, not talking points.
