Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
To pretend slaves just bred as part of the family unit is naiveYou keep saying "forced slave breeding"; to misquote Inigo Montoya, I don't think that phrase means what you think it does. From the posted chart, it looks like a natural population growth to me. Simply slave families having children. Most families had five six or more children in those days. I'm not making excuses for slavery or slave owners, but it doesn't seem to be the horror you claim it was and it was far worse at the time in other places. Personally, I wish that either no African slaves were ever brought here, or that after the ACW they had all been deported. The legacy of slavery has been nothing but a headache for this country.
Here is the REAL TRUTH about the Black slave trade from the 1500s to the 1800s. Only SIX PERCENT of the slaves were shipped to America. The other 94 PERCENT of the slaves were sent to work the sugar plantations in South America and anywhere sugar cane was abundant. That was because Europe, especially England, developed a great demand for sugar. Africans were forced to work under conditions that made American slavery a vacation by contrast. But for some reason all we hear about is the SIX PERCENT of the slaves working in America. Now why would historians suppress these facts? Hmmmmmm
The South American slave trade
Kate Ayling writes a potted history of the South American slave trade, often overlooked in favour of the more prominent trade in North America.manchesterhistorian.com
And?
389,000 slaves came here from Africa. We live in America not Brasil or Peru. Those 389,000 blacks turned into 4 million. 9 times more blacks were produced in America by forced slave breeding than Africans "sold" to whites in America..
And then we have what happened after slavery. Racist whites keep trying this diversion. Historians have not missed anything but racists wanting to shift blame look at this trying to make excuses. If we lived in South America this would be an issue to discuss.
So black men were "forced" to have sex? Ah....you really believe that? Did their women rape them, or did the slave owners somehow brainwash the men to have sex against their will? Please do tell, I think your explanation should be fascinating.
More word spinning to smear America. They make it sound like Black women were locked in kennel cages pumping out little slaves.You keep saying "forced slave breeding"; to misquote Inigo Montoya, I don't think that phrase means what you think it does. From the posted chart, it looks like a natural population growth to me. Simply slave families having children. Most families had five six or more children in those days. I'm not making excuses for slavery or slave owners, but it doesn't seem to be the horror you claim it was and it was far worse at the time in other places. Personally, I wish that either no African slaves were ever brought here, or that after the ACW they had all been deported. The legacy of slavery has been nothing but a headache for this country.
I’m sure that happened, but the pattern of population growth doesn’t show it. If slavers were really breeding for commercial growth, the rate of increase would have been much steeper. If more slave children made slavers more money every female slave would have been producing a child every eighteen months, as soon as the first child was weaned and she became fertile again. Instead the pattern is the same as free women, a straight line of increase. I don’t doubt selective breeding was going on to produce valued features. If there was a breeding program, I would think as soon as girls became fertile they would be impregnated and put on a breeding schedule along with all the other women. The data would then show a steep curve upwards as more and more girls became pregnant every year.To pretend slaves just bred as part of the family unit is naive
Mates were picked based on breeding characteristics….just like livestock. Often a slave from a neighboring plantation was brought in for breeding purposes.
There were actual breeding farms
Slave breeding in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
To pretend slaves just bred as part of the family unit is naive
Mates were picked based on breeding characteristics….just like livestock. Often a slave from a neighboring plantation was brought in for breeding purposes.
There were actual breeding farms
Slave breeding in the United States - Wikipedia
And?
389,000 slaves came here from Africa. We live in America not Brasil or Peru. Those 389,000 blacks turned into 4 million. 9 times more blacks were produced in America by forced slave breeding than Africans "sold" to whites in America..
And then we have what happened after slavery. Racist whites keep trying this diversion. Historians have not missed anything but racists wanting to shift blame look at this trying to make excuses. If we lived in South America this would be an issue to discuss.
I dont see it as making excuses. I see it as putting the "american" experience into historical perspective. The monstrous cycle of trade that involve human slavery traded for goods returned to the Empires was LARGELY focused on the Caribbean and lower Americas prior to about 1830. 10% of the black population were NOT slaves in the US prior to the Civil War. Those 500,000 or so were split 50/50 between the Northern and Southern states with a bit larger number in the South.
The DIFF was that Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands, etc -- DIDN'T emphasize "colonization" or nation building in terms of massive influxes from their homeland populations like we did. They emphasized exploitation of resources. So the ONLY labor source large enough to exploit all those products produced came from imported slaves or indigenous natives.
Pasty white Euros didn't want to LIVE in the tropics or near-tropics at that point.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I see it as an excuse used to dodge the issue of slavery and racism by whites here because that is exactly what it is.I dont see it as making excuses. I see it as putting the "american" experience into historical perspective. The monstrous cycle of trade that involve human slavery traded for goods returned to the Empires was LARGELY focused on the Caribbean and lower Americas prior to about 1830. 10% of the black population were NOT slaves in the US prior to the Civil War. Those 500,000 or so were split 50/50 between the Northern and Southern states with a bit larger number in the South.
The DIFF was that Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands, etc -- DIDN'T emphasize "colonization" or nation building in terms of massive influxes from their homeland populations like we did. They emphasized exploitation of resources. So the ONLY labor source large enough to exploit all those products produced came from imported slaves or indigenous natives.
Pasty white Euros didn't want to LIVE in the tropics or near-tropics at that point.
Buy this book and read it."Forced slave breeding."
Of course it was. You might also read about Seasoning camps.The tropics were largely a death sentence for whites and slaves. Jamaica was notorious for extremely high mortality where whites became fatalistic about dying and in turn treated their slaves generally much worse than the British colonies in North America.
The countrie continues sicklie': white mortality in Jamaica, 1655-1780 - PubMed
The tropical regions of the New World in the early modern era offered European migrants great wealth but were also demographically deadly. This paper presents hard data on white mortality in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Jamaica and shows that white susceptibility to disease, especially...
Buy this book and read it.
Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016,
But….but….THEY did it too!I see it as an excuse used to dodge the issue of slavery and racism by whites here because that is exactly what it is.
And I told you to buy that book and read it so you would know why. So,I asked you to explain why and how black men were forced into having sex. That is what you said. Forced. Apparently you can't Sad....
Exactly.But….but….THEY did it too!
It's amazing how many Americans are so emotionally frighteneded about confronting their country's past that they prefer to be stupid and ignorant instead.I dont see it as making excuses. I see it as putting the "american" experience into historical perspective. The monstrous cycle of trade that involve human slavery traded for goods returned to the Empires was LARGELY focused on the Caribbean and lower Americas prior to about 1830. 10% of the black population were NOT slaves in the US prior to the Civil War. Those 500,000 or so were split 50/50 between the Northern and Southern states with a bit larger number in the South.
The DIFF was that Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands, etc -- DIDN'T emphasize "colonization" or nation building in terms of massive influxes from their homeland populations like we did. They emphasized exploitation of resources. So the ONLY labor source large enough to exploit all those products produced came from imported slaves or indigenous natives.
Pasty white Euros didn't want to LIVE in the tropics or near-tropics at that point.
blackthen.com
kottke.org
face2faceafrica.com
blackthen.com
10% of the black population were NOT slaves in the US prior to the Civil War. Those 500,000 or so were split 50/50 between the Northern and Southern states with a bit larger number in the South.
www.theroot.com
Why did the 13 colonies import ANY slaves? 6% was too many as far as I'm concerned. Why didn't the European colonists do their own work?Here is the REAL TRUTH about the Black slave trade from the 1500s to the 1800s. Only SIX PERCENT of the slaves were shipped to America. The other 94 PERCENT of the slaves were sent to work the sugar plantations in South America and anywhere sugar cane was abundant. That was because Europe, especially England, developed a great demand for sugar. Africans were forced to work under conditions that made American slavery a vacation by contrast. But for some reason all we hear about is the SIX PERCENT of the slaves working in America. Now why would historians suppress these facts? Hmmmmmm
The South American slave trade
Kate Ayling writes a potted history of the South American slave trade, often overlooked in favour of the more prominent trade in North America.
