Were American slaves treated as bad as they say?

It depended on the region they were slaves in. Slaves in the old aristocratic states like Virginia and North Carolina where slavery had grown naturally with the state itself were relatively humane. It was in these states where slavery was not so plantation based as it was in the deep south, but was more similar to the old smallholder slavery in the north where they could be contracted out to be store clerks/barbers/etc. Family bonds with the slaves themselves tended to be stronger owing to the generally smaller size of the slave owning households.

The areas of the deep south like Alabama/Mississippi conquered from the Indians by Andrew Jackson are where you would see the kind of slavery that was seized on by abolitionist propagandists. There the land was settled not gradually, but from the very first conquest these lands were marked out for Big Cotton. In the deep south the plantations tended to be enormous and as they were laid out from the early 19th century the slaves there tended to be mass imports who would hardly have ever been seen by the actual owner. This lack of bond between master and slave increased the general inhumanity of the situation, combined with the harsher conditions of the climate.

Slaves can work harder because nobody gives a shit about working them to death, while a kid is more important to you

>Thinking slavery ended after the Civil War

And South America was a competition on who could be the more fucked up, cruel master.

This would have never happened if they didn't import literal millions of them.

What did you expect would happen?

The Sea Wolf, Thomas Cochrane.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane,_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald

I just don't know, man. If I was really racist, I wouldn't even want a black person on my property, let alone own one.

FUCK wrong thread

>you deserve punishment because of what your decedents/ancestors did
Where have I heard this before?

>Often a poor family would pool their resources together to buy a slave and then work him very hard and treat him like shit. Since the family just owned one slave, they would have no prospect of raising a second generation of slaves, so the slave they owned had no value outside his labor.
Was this actually a thing?

American slaves had it a lot better than slaves in Brazil or the Caribbean.

>Virginia and North Carolina
>was in these states where slavery was not so plantation based
What the fuck?

>Were American slaves treated as bad as they say?

It is a difficult question to answer because they were treated relatively humanely by the conditions of the time but horrifically compared to the modern day. Modern day black activists twist history because they focus on the worse abuses of the day, ignore the average conditions and also ignore how non-slaves were treated.

An example of this is whipping, black slaves were often whipped as a punishment. But activists ignore that non-slaves and free white people were also routinely whipped as a punishment. This gives a biased opinion on how slavery was.

The only uniquely evil thing about American slavery is that it reversed the line of inherited status. In white European society children usually inherited the status of their fathers.During American slaver the children on white slave owners and black slaves would become slaves themselves. Leading to the horrific situation of men owning their own children or brothers/sisters.

>literal chattel were still healthier than the average Europoor

Can't make this shit up

What's this chart measuring?

Did anybody ever get a screencap of the post in the Veeky Forums sex facts thread about the women who used to do all sorts of sick shit to her slaves? Like remove their limbs and intestines and sow them back at different places?

penis length

Because you can do both. That said, pre modern times: Work your slave to death == Dies
Modern times: Work your slave towards death == can still be saved with vitamins, medicine and distilled water

>165cm
Why
Thats not even height

das ryte, nazi germany. we be just like the jews and they be nazi

The bible.

It varied, sometimes thye were treated decently and sometimes horrifically

It was an absolute fuckton better in the US than in the carribean though

>It is a difficult question to answer because they were treated relatively humanely by the conditions of the time but horrifically compared to the modern day. Modern day black activists twist history because they focus on the worse abuses of the day, ignore the average conditions and also ignore how non-slaves were treated.
>An example of this is whipping, black slaves were often whipped as a punishment. But activists ignore that non-slaves and free white people were also routinely whipped as a punishment. This gives a biased opinion on how slavery was.

Jesus Christos what?

>If I was really racist, I wouldn't even want a black person on my property, let alone own one.

Blacks and person/people are mutually exclusive in those days user.

Hes probably eqauting a white child getting his dads belt with a slave getting 30 lashes from a bullwhip

I am equating a solider or sailor getting 30 lashes with a slave getting 30 lashes. Whipping was also a routine punishment for criminal acts.

I propose European serfdom, persistent in the Russian empire until 1861 as it happens, was worse than slavery:

Serfs:
>Could be bought or sold
>Tied to land
>Obliged to work and pay tribute to landowner in exchange for working land to feed themselves
>Subject to punishment including death at behest of landowner
>Require permission from landowner in all private and public affairs (marriage etc).

>Could be bought or sold
>Tied to land
>Obliged to work and pay tribute to landowner in exchange for working land to feed themselves
>Provided neither food nor shelter - if you failed to have enough grain after paying the landowner, you're fucked.
>Subject to punishment including death at behest of landowner
>Require permission from landowner in all private and public affairs (marriage etc).

>Could be bought or sold
>Tied to owner
>Obliged to work for owner, but are generally provided food and shelter
>Subject to punishment including death at behest of owner
>Require permission from owner in all private and public affairs (marriage etc).

Essentially serfs had to do all the work, and were given nothing.

More information on this? I heard Brazil had some Saw-tier shit going on

back to /pol/

what did he mean by this?

what did he mean by this?

what did he mean by this?

One of the most important exports from plantations in the Caribbean was sugar--sugar plantations were extremely brutal. The sugar harvest was months long (8-9 months straight) and slaves would be worked almost around the clock just for the sugar harvest, on top of "regular" chores they had to complete. The intense physical labor combined with disease, accidents from dangerous equipment, and lack of medical care, killed anywhere from 5-10% of the slave population every year, which is why the French colonies (as well as sugar plantations in Spain, Britain, etc) had a steady stream of slaves being imported.

Plantations in the Caribbean were rarely "family" plantations in the sense that most slaves did not get to form family units in the way they did in the United States, where most slaves were generational rather than imported. Those slaves that did have children were typically house slaves. Unlike in the United States where the population grew naturally because of family units, the population on sugar plantations grew almost entirely due to importing new slaves to replace slaves who died from disease, exhaustion, or accidents.

Tribal bards, storytellers, and imams/shamans would have their tongues cut out to keep them from speaking of their heritage

Slaves in the Carolinas and Louisiana managed some autonomy;

>According to the provisions of law, slaves are entitled to the produce of their labor on Sunday; even the master is bound to remunerate them, if he employs them. He, therefore, who does not require their services on that day, and does not retain them on his plantation, impliedly permits them to earn money by their labor, and cannot complain of their being employed by his neighbors.
Rice v. Cade, 1836

Obviously, a slave has little legal recourse if their master refused to abide by it. The crux seems to be their industry of employment.

>In Virginia and Maryland, African Americans were extensively involved in a full range of shipbuilding trades as ship’s carpenters, caulkers, sail makers, and blacksmiths. A remarkable account from the Raleigh Star in 1811 describes how a brig launched in Alexandria, Virginia, was “drafted by a coloured man belonging to Col. Taylor and under his superintendence built from her keel to her topmast.” Here the design sources were unquestionably Anglo-American, but the fact that a slave was given such broad authority suggests that he was working in a context in which most of the men under his command must have been slaves as well.
Encyclopedia of African American History Vol 2

>He then took me into the ship-yard of which he was foreman, in the employment of Mr. Walter Price. There I was immediately set to calking, and very soon learned the art of using my mallet and irons. In the course of one year from the time I left Mr. Gardner's, I was able to command the highest wages given to the most experienced calkers. I was now of some importance to my master. I was bringing him from six to seven dollars per week. I sometimes brought him nine dollars per week: my wages were a dollar and a half a day. After learning how to calk, I sought my own employment, made my own contracts, and collected the money which I earned. My pathway became much more smooth than before; my condition was now much more comfortable.
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave

More about over-work and slave wages.

So he was uh

black calker?

As bad as who says?

interesting, what's this from?

amazon.com/Chattel-Slaves-Wage-Dynamics-Bargaining/dp/0253210011

No, they had higher standard of living there than in Africa.Doesn't make it right though

For slavery, that really isn't bad at all, considering the times. A couple holding 150 dollars in the bank during the 1850s is quite a bit of coin.

The French did not fuck around with their sugar. See Haiti.

Uh no, not really. Some slavers allowed enslaved people to be rented out and gave them cash incentive to keep the slaver reputable but this is not unique to the US. While only a relative few people directly owned enslaved people, their immediate family and community utilized and indeed relied upon blacks so that the vast economic systems of the South became reliant on them.

It must be said however that with higher contact with whites whether it be the house girl or the rented out servant/washer/cook meant a higher chance of sexual exploitation via rape and sexual assault. This shows in black American genetics.

Slavery's gruesomeness is not only in back breaking work, it's the dehumanization of Africans to that of robots, machines whose purpose was to make and procreate often by force.

Africans have zero issue treating eachother with inhumane cruelty showing that horrid treatment should be a normal thing for black people, humans treating them like shit is accepted as normal behavior by black americans. Notice how black americans constantly disrespect eachother and brutalize eachother yet at the end of the day they are laughing like friends, this is alien behavior compared to Eurasians. In the mind of the black a jerk who treats people like shit is "cool" while a kind being with empathy "is a pussy". This is a very alien sentiment seen in blacks where as I just said their jerks or sociopaths are always respected while their kind hearted are mocked showing that casual cruelty is just normal to black people. In other words treating blacks like shit during slavery is what they expected, humans acting genuinely kind is alien to their brain that is why they find white behavior so strange they cannot fathom actual altruism or decent behavior thus they always see a sinister motive towards any nice thing whites do because blacks cannot understand selflessness at all.

No, most of it is Yankee propaganda.

You're retarded bro

You think whites don't bust each other's balls? Or Latinos?

And where's this "sociopathy" shit coming from? I'm from west Africa and you're taking from your anus

I would firstly say the conditions of enslavement regardless of their degree was one that was not based on the fact of their supposed race.

Understanding African serfdom is necessary to contextualize enslavement abroad amongst The Americas, South Asia and the Middle East.

All people show violence to one another, crime after all is a mater of proximity first and foremost and is not unique to Black people in America.

But after all looking at your snowflake response you're not interested in backing anything you have to say with actual information beyond trite and oft used /pol/info pics you will nownno doubt struggle not to post.

*talking

Whites at least acknowledge their cruelty but blacks are seemingly oblivious to how horrible they treat other people as they see their indecent rude behavior as normal and perfectly fine no matter how many times you tell them its not nothing clicks in their brain. Its almost like there is no such thing as cruelty in the brains of black people instead its just normal behavior, a black seeing you talk about cruelty will be confused because cruelty doesnt exist, sure the black knows what torture is but to the black torture is just a game or fun it is not cruel in anyway because cruel does not exist in the brains of blacks. Seen many times with black africans casually torturing people in mob violence for no rational reason because its just fun and games they are not being mean because mean doesnt exist in the brain of blacks neither does nice, a black's concept of nice is closer to "sucker who does stuff for me" not "person who acts positive towards others" while mean is "this guy annoys me" to a black not "this person acts very rude towards me".

Understanding the psychology of africans helps you realize why there is literally nothing you can do to help them.

You just proved me right because you dont see anything wrong with the behavior of africans.

Veeky Forums is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.

I am simply backing up my post, this is not trolling. How is it racism to notice traits only blacks display regularly?

Anyway my initial point was to say that dehumanization has no effect on blacks because they are already cognitively used to human cruelty the only trauma was caused by repeated whippings but being called subhuman or the n word does nothing to the ego of blacks instead it just makes them bloodthirsty.

That is another poster, I am Habesha. The violence found in post-colonial Africa is no different than the expansionist and militaric policies of Europe from pre-roman times. Only in this post WWII era, a mere blip in time can it be said Europe is not in a constant state of war and only after they ensnared the entire planet in their squabbles something no African or Asian nation can claim.

Veeky Forums is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected.

>only blacks
>leaves out asians in the second post
>n word does nothing to the ego of blacks instead it just makes them bloodthirsty
>Does nothing to the ego
>makes them bloodthirsty

The violence I describe is random civilian violence not civil war violence.

Yes whites have a violent streak but as I just demonstrated whites admit to their cruelty while blacks like you do not. Your indifference towards african suffering is to be expected black man.

>I just demonstrated whites admit to their cruelty while blacks like you do not.
Bitch, we cant even have a slavery thread without whites tripping over themselves to justify slavery.

not that user
>random civilian violence
you mean
>Beaver’s sample of 133 African American men from the Add Health database included 6% that carried 2R. Overall, 5.6% of the men in the sample reported shooting or stabbing someone at some point in their lifetime. The association between 2R and committing a shooting or stabbing crime was statistically significant. Based on Beaver’s evidence, 2R appears to increase the risk of shooting or stabbing a victim during adolescence or adulthood [6].
you claimed it's some they have on average so I'm a little confused. Also that user seems to admit to cruelty

Blacks are the most confident humans on earth thus attacking the ego of blacks leads to the black becoming aggravated and homicidal. Seen all the times black kill eachother over insults. Calling a black the n word simply makes him want to kipl you not because of slavery but because his confidence is so high that any attempt to lower it is met with aggression. Similar to trying to belittle a sociopath the only thing you are doing is making him angry not feel a single hint of shame.

So slavery and dehumanization would provoke a negative angry response if it attacks the ego.

You sound like one of those slash fiction writers that wax poetics on the high testosterone virility of black men.

It's sad.

*it's something

Slavery in Mauritania yet Ethiopian negros are uncaring. While your cousins in the West were being enslaved you Habesha didnt give a single solitary shit at all. After all being kind is an alien concept to your brain.

>be poor
>have to pool resources to buy something expensive
>don't give a shit if it gets destroyed

Any source for your internally inconsistent ramblings?

Negros think in an alien manner they operate under "perceived insults" what this means what can trigger a negro can be anything from your skin color to your ideology. Blacks dont know what subhuman means they just think it means black is worse than white in their simple minds. Even before slavery blacks were known to have explpsive tempers.

ebay. black people break expensive shit a lot more than whites.

So can being a slave or being enslaved trigger them or not? You seem to be jumping all over the place.
>subhuman
>they just think it means black is worse than white in their simple minds.
It's a derogatory term targeted at race right?

>Whataboutism
Also I'm not black, and you just revealed your /pol/ power level.

I meant to say *partially targeted at race, I know it has basis in biology, but it also has other connotations that are pretty obvious. Anons here use it like that for example.

Today we learned that enslaving people for centuries on end tends to fuck them up royally. Who knew?

But blacks are genetically taller.

>be stongk boss nigger
>get used as breeding bull
>life is fucking prime black pussy

Yeah slavery sucked for manlets but was paradise for alphas

indentured servants, non-blacks may have it worse in short term but they didnt suffer social stigma and as a result weren't excluded from anything from their skin point.

Slaves were literally treated worse than dirt, as they are not even people to the eyes of some.

nah it was all unicorns and rainbows. Why do you think they were singing all the time? cause they were so happy and had lots of free time to write music!

1 they mature faster
2 today it has been proven blacks have more variation but whites are taller on avg.

Slaves having higher avg height could have been due to good breeding provided by the white man, artificial selection.

Was the whip every once in a while better than being killed by enemy African tribes?? Their standard of living improved dramatically. Fuck niggers

On average? No, they weren't all Uncle Tom's Cabin or other slave narratives. They did have it worse than anyone in modernity, though.

No, really few people owned slaves, mostly rich people

>Bitch, we cant even have a slavery thread without whites tripping over themselves to justify slavery.

Can't talk about Blacks, African, African history, Anything involving Blacks or Africans without the thread going to complete shit. Franz Fanon would have field day with so much people here.

My god that bubble is thick

Blacks caught and imprisoned in the black codes probably had it the worst of all if you consider death to be the worst possible outcome in life.
Imprisoned blacks were leased out to the railroad companies after the war was over to start digging the tunnels through the mountains in Virginia. They were using dynamite/explosives etc at the time to break the rock..but because of the rock types in the mountain fine particles were dispersed in the air and the people that were imprisoned were forced to go in and start working clearing away the rubble. Those fine particles would then clog up their lungs leading to 95% mortality rate as a prisonhand working for the railway crews. Free labor wouldn't go charging down in the tunnels after blasting, they would wait until the next day after the dust had settled.

Tobacco is not labor intensive user. Tobacco was also a cheap commodity by the 19th century, having fallen immensely in price. Virginia's biggest export by the time of cotton was actually selling slaves to plantations being opened up in the deep south for cotton.

>height is health
i'm 6 foot, and fat as a fucking whale, your chart is dumb and so are you.

Height is directly correlated with the availability of protein generationally, not your health because you can't stop stuffing snickers in your mouth.