Zone1 Only SIX PERCENT of Black slaves were sent to America. The rest went to S American sugar plantations.

[IM2]

I would disagree, it makes a lot of unsupported claims, for example the claim that the Revolutionary war was fought to preserve slavery.

That claim is supported by the fact that slavery remained after the war in America long after it was made illegal in Britain.

 

[MarathonMike]

That's right Missouri_Mike , that is exactly what happened.

Video or it didn't happen.

 

[Coyote]

Slave Breeding

The death-rate amongst slaves was high. To replace their losses, plantation owners encouraged the slaves to have children. Child-bearing started around the age of thirteen, and by twenty the women slaves would be expected to have four or five children. To encourage child-bearing some population...

spartacus-educational.com

 

[MarathonMike]

Who is suppressing that? I read that long ago. About 400,000 out of 10 million that made it to the new World. Just another fantasy conspiracy, looking for a footing.

This thread is likely the first time most readers knew that the Sugar Cane industry was taking over 90 percent of the African slaves. It certainly isn't part of the 1619 or CRT curriculum.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's right Missouri_Mike , that is exactly what happened.

Why the fuck would I care. I’m not even in this thread.

 

[Coyote]

That claim is supported by the fact that slavery remained after the war in America long after it was made illegal in Britain.

That doesn’t support the claim that the war was fought for that reason. Slavery was not made illegal in England until 1801.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Video or it didn't happen.

Stop being a fucking jackass. The slaves told us it happened.

 

[Coyote]

This thread is likely the first time most readers knew that the Sugar Cane industry was taking over 90 percent of the African slaves. It certainly isn't part of the 1619 or CRT curriculum.

There is no such thing as the CRT curriculum.

 

[Coyote]

Why the fuck would I care. I’m not even in this thread.

I think he tagged the wrong Mike…we have a lotta Mikes here

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think he tagged the wrong Mike…we have a lotta Mikes here

Indeed

And all the Mikes are Dicks, too. So that doesn't help.

*rimshot

 

[MarathonMike]

The usual crowd has showed up to take my thread down a "breeding farm" rabbit hole. That is because it puts the focus back on AMERICA'S ORIGINAL SIN of slavery rather than discuss truth and facts. Over 90 percent of African slaves were sent to the sugar cane fields of other countries. If you are going to discuss African slavery, then discuss ALL of it, not just the part that benefits you politically.

 

[Coyote]

The usual crowd has showed up to take my thread down a "breeding farm" rabbit hole. That is because it puts the focus back on AMERICA'S ORIGINAL SIN of slavery rather than discuss truth and facts. Over 90 percent of African slaves were sent to the sugar cane fields of other countries. If you are going to discuss African slavery, then discuss ALL of it, not just the part that benefits you politically.

It isn’t really a rabbit hole Mike, since it is part of the slave trade. If you breed them you don’t need to import as many.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It isn’t really a rabbit hole Mike, since it is part of the slave trade. If you breed them you don’t need to import as many.

Exactly. And that's precisely what they did.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's what happened.

No that's not what happened unless the slave owners were terminally stupid. There were plenty of tasks pregnant slaves could do. Keeping them locked in kennels would waste woman power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No that's not what happened unless the slave owners were terminally stupid. There were plenty of tasks pregnant slaves could do. Keeping them locked in kennels would waste woman power.

More, locked in rooms (and sometimes in dog kennels) with men who are forced to rape them all.

 

[IM2]

I'm not justifying slavery. It happened. It's history. It's a fact. As for your increase, by your numbers that's only 72,220 a year. But even that number is wrong. According to statistica, in 1810 there were 1,191,162 slaves in the USA. In 1860 there were 3,963760. That's an increase of 2,772,598. 2,772,598 divided by 52 equals 53,319 slaves per year. That's not a huge increase. Over the same years, in 1810 the white population of the USA was 6,048,519. In 1860 that number had climbed to 27,479,561. That's an increase of 21,431,042. Divided by 52 equals 4,213,135 per year. During the 52 years in question slightly less than 7,000,000 whites immigrated to the USA. Subtract that 7,000,000 from the 27,479,561 gives a population of 20,479,561 subtract the 1810 figure of 6,048,519 from that equals a white population growth of 14,431,042. Divided by the 52 years that's an increase of 277,520 people per year. Far more white babies were being born than slave babies.
Not a single person responsible for slavery is alive today, not a single slave is alive today. None of their great-grandchildren are alive today. So nobody alive today is responsible for slavery. I won't take responsibility for something that neither I nor any of my ancestors supported. In fact one of my great-great-grandfathers fought for the Union. He was an Irish immigrant who arrived in 1861 according to family lore. None of my ancestors profited from slavery, they were all poor. None of my family managed to get into the middle class until after WWII. I'm no more responsible for enslaving blacks than I am for my distant Swedish Viking ancestor enslaving English, Irish and Scots. Since you are almost certain to have white blood, you are as responsible for slavery as I am.

There is no excuse to be made that is acceptable to diminish what happened.

I don't give a rats derriereyour who great grandfather fought for because I had relatives fighting to and when it ended, they faced Jim Crow. Go tell Marathon Mike about who is not a slave today. I don't listen to any of these excuses. You talk about Irish relatives, this is classic white racist avoidance, but you've come to the wrong man with that.

In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish. A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic. Becoming white meant losing their greenness, i.e., their Irish cultural heritage and the legacy of oppression and discrimination back home.” -Art McDonald, Ph.D., “How the Irish Became White”

The Irish were some of the main ringleaders in race riots against black communities in America. So you, my relatives were Irish and they didn't own slaves excuse dies right there.

You say that your parents didn't become middle class until after WW2. Whites such as you waddle through life oblivious to the reality that your privilege lets you ignore. And when I say that, I'm not talking about money and you know that, but that fragility has you arguing about how many more white children were born than slave children thinking that you are making a logical argument. Meanwhile we see other whites here who refuse to make excuses or clamore about whaat they didn't own

You say your parents didn't become middle class until after WW2.

The National Housing Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. This law created the Federal Housing Administration or the FHA. The National Housing Act is the policy that may have had the most impact on wealth accumulation in modern America. My point here is the FHA was a government agency whose policies specifically provided whites with opportunities to increase wealth through homeownership. The formation of the FHA and its guaranteed loan program only worked to increase white advantage. “Of the $120 billion worth of new housing subsidized by the government between 1934 and 1962, less than 2 percent went to nonwhite families.” Black creditworthiness was no excuse for banks because the federal government guaranteed payment of the loans.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security program, state unemployment insurance, and assistance to single women with children. When President Roosevelt signed the law, approximately two-thirds of the blacks in America were ineligible. For years, most blacks were excluded from social security savings and could not get unemployment.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created the minimum wage and time and a half overtime pay for working over forty hours a week. In every law that was passed as part of The New Deal, Roosevelt had to compromise with southern representatives to get the votes he needed. In the case of the FLSA, due to pressure from southern congress members, he decided that industries would be excluded from the regulations where the majority of workers were black. Because of this, blacks were paid less than the minimum wage.

On June 22, 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, better known as the G.I. Bill. This law provided benefits for veterans returning from World War Two. This act included funds for college tuition, low-cost home loans, and unemployment insurance. As in every other program during this time, southern members of Congress fought the passage of these laws unless there were provisions that limited access to blacks. The G.I Bill was no different.

Over one million returning black soldiers were unable to get GI benefits.

Your family benefitted from these things blacks were excluded from. After slavery. So you have no out or excuses. You talk about behavior, choices and responsibility. Change your behavior and choices so you can take responsibility instead of making excuses.

Last, you dared to run your mouth about me having some white blood to try pawning slavery off on me in classic white racist style. Whatever white blood I have is due to the rape of a female ancestor by a white man who made excuses to justify his rape just like you're in here making excuses to minimize what went on. You say you are not responsible for slavery but you have the same attitude and excuses whites made during slavery.

You represent our case for reparations.

 

[IM2]

No that's not what happened unless the slave owners were terminally stupid. There were plenty of tasks pregnant slaves could do. Keeping them locked in kennels would waste woman power.

Slaves were forced to breed. It's a fact. Deal with it.

 

[Lisa558]

There is no such thing as the CRT curriculum.

They are not teaching the theory. They are pushing the anti-white racism BEHIND the theory. Leftists, of course, are desperate to hide this.

As one example, many public schools are teaching a book, “Not My Idea,” that tells readers that “whiteness” leads whites to make “deals with the devil” for stolen land (and other horrible white things).

Now be honest: what would your reaction be if schools were teaching children that “blackness” leads African-Americans to make deals with the devil?

The destructive racism against whites being pushed on our children by leftist educators must be stopped in its tracks. The reversal starts in January 2023.

Yes, critical race theory is being taught in public schools - Washington Examiner

While we all debate what critical race theory is and whether lawmakers should ban it from public schools, every honest person should agree on one thing: This theory is behind the curricula in school districts all over the country, shaping the minds of unsuspecting, malleable children.Just this...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Coyote]

They are not teaching the theory. They are pushing the anti-white racism BEHIND the theory. Leftists, of course, are desperate to hide this.

As one example, many public schools are teaching a book, “Not My Idea,” that tells readers that “whiteness” leads whites to make “deals with the devil” for stolen land (and other horrible white things).

I looked it and can see how it could controversial BUT it only showed a few excerpts so I can’t really judge it. There is also the reality of history: whites and stolen land. It was called Manifest Destiny. How do you teach that concept? How do you teach kids that slavery, racism and Jim Crowe continue to have an effect on us through institutions originally created to preserve or protect white rights? Do you empower kids to understand their history and be advocates for change or do you “disappear” it by watering it down or pretending it was just a footnote and belongs in the past? There has to be a balance here somewhere.

I’ve noticed rightists are desperate to hide the fact they are attempting to ban a wide swath of of books not only from schools but from public libraries which either feature black or LGBTQ characters or are written by black and LGBTQ authors.. Book bannings have surged to there highest level in 20 years. They include books on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

What rightists are really objecting to here is not “CRT” but anything to do with race, diversity, inclusion that discusses the impacts of racism or normalizes marginalized people. In otherwords, disappearing these people and issues In the guise of banning CRT.

Now be honest: what would your reaction be if schools were teaching children that “blackness” leads African-Americans to make deals with the devil?

I would need context. Something I don’t have since I haven’t read the original book in question.

The destructive racism against whites being pushed on our children by leftist educators must be stopped in its tracks. The reversal starts in January 2023.

Yes, critical race theory is being taught in public schools - Washington Examiner

While we all debate what critical race theory is and whether lawmakers should ban it from public schools, every honest person should agree on one thing: This theory is behind the curricula in school districts all over the country, shaping the minds of unsuspecting, malleable children.Just this...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

What do you propose to replace it with?

How will you connect with those kids who have lived with exclusion, marginalization, hatred directed at them, and now no longer have a voice that expresses that in the books they to read? I agree some books take it far, but disappearing it doesn’t make the problems disappear, it just prevents open discussion and further marginalizes certain kids.

 

[surada]

This thread is likely the first time most readers knew that the Sugar Cane industry was taking over 90 percent of the African slaves. It certainly isn't part of the 1619 or CRT curriculum.

See Sugar Jews and Conversos of Recif, Brazil before 1600. See Dutch West Indies company.
.