Shouldn't black Americans be demanding other blacks for reparations

Shouldn't black Americans be demanding other blacks for reparations.

Other urls found in this thread:

www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860b-08.pdf
theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist/)
archive.org/stream/JewsAndNegroSlaveryInTheOldSouth1789-1865/Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South - 1789-1865_djvu.txt
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm not even saying this is wrong but are you able to tell me the methodology of the source and give me an easy link to it rather than an image?

I mean obviously you have the linked saved and have already checked out out how credible it is because that is the first thing anyone would do when they saw an image like that and decided to save it and repost it, right?

Yeah I have my doubts

That op image looks 100% legit, and not poor bait at all!

Okay, so, as we know the Church of Sociology has declared all Whites to be guilty of the sin of slavery (And the Holocaust). All Whites must thus pay reparations to all Blacks.

But what about mulattos? If someone is 3/4 nog and 1/4 cracker, does he only get 3/4 of a reparation?

The link is literally in his image Jesus Christ you morons are stupid.

This doesn't read like much of a defence of the claim 68% of slave owners in 1860 were black.

This is Veeky Forums. I would be absolutely delighted if this claim is true and there is solid evidence for it, I'm centre right and love facts and evidence because that is what I use to make arguments against leftists.

I'm not so interested in shitposting and strawmen. That is for /pol/tards.

I agree it is, which is what I said in my post.

I asked whether OP had checked it out, that's the first thing I would do and why he found it convincing,

I'm looking through it right now. The problem is it is a census from 1860 that's split into 16 .pdfs, none of which are searchable due to them being images, not text.

OP, could you tell us what pdf it's in? Or at least the page number?

One last bump before I give up searching through this. OP, do you have a page number?

No, I just saw the image.

Then why did you post it?

Bit off topic but I saw on the news about an American protest that was happening about a week ago, some (white) people were holding signs saying "White silence is violence".
Can someone clarify if this means what I think it means?
I don't want to ask /pol/ and it popped into my head there when I saw this thread.

Wanted to stir shit up I bet. OP if your just going to shitpost /pol/ would probably take the bait more easily.

It implies that white Americans who don't speak out about police killings of black people are just as guilty as the officers.

Not OP, but decided to download the census and sort through it to find out. Didn't have to read far.

1860a-02.pdf
page xii

Total Colored:
>3,953,760
Total Free Colored:
>488,070
Total Slaveholding Free Colored:
>261,918

I can't find the numbers for white slaveholders, but I'll keep skimming and see if I can find them.

Found it.

1860b-08
page 247

Aggregate holders of slaves
Total, States and Territories:
>384,884

So that gives us 261,918 slaveholding free colored out of 384,884 total slaveholders. That makes a clean 68% of slaveholders, as of the 1860 census, colored.

Unless there's some other shenanigans going on with the census, that seems pretty cut and dry. There's a caveat on the document before the spreadsheet's pdf stating that this is only the number of people "directly invested" in the slaves (which is to say, the number that legally owned slaves), but I would assume that would be the same metric used to determine whether or not someone in the "free colored" category was a slaveholder.

>tl;dr OP's image is correct, sources on 1860a-02 xii and 1860b-08 247

Sage and report

Thank you for your efforts, unless you are deceiving us, in which case you receive nothing but contempt.

My family had slaves but their slaves were siblings and parents. In several states you had to leave if you became free and so people bought relatives and partners and children.

That being said we were never the majority in almost every slave holding region.


And to answer your question: no.

>Shit he's using facts and data, better report it
Pretty weak, desu

These statistics are all meaningless, because the total number of slaves in the US in 1860 was more than 3,200,000.

If there are relatively few wealthy white slave owners who own five, tens, or hundreds of slaves and control 80+% of the total slaves owned, what does it matter if blacks and mulattos formed the remaining 15%?

Well, I gave you the page numbers so that should be pretty easy to find out.

One thing that the census does not show, however, is the average number of slaves held by each group. The spreadsheet I found the "aggregate holders of slaves" stat on lists the number of owners with 1 slave, 2, 3, etc up to the "20 and under 30" to "1,000 and over" – but does not differentiate between white and black owners.

So with more information you might be able to make the argument that most slaves were held by white owners (and I don't know if that is true but it would be interesting to see), but it wouldn't change the fact that on an individual basis, by 1860 most slaveholders were colored and statistically a "free colored" was many many times more likely than a white to own a slave.

>also who the fuck is the one guy in South Carolina with over a thousand slaves

To add onto this: Each owner doesn't have just one slave. Most have many more.

The fulll chart can be found (at a much higher resolution, by the way) at the end of www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860b-08.pdf

It's anything but meaningless, because as pointed out

>So with more information you might be able to make the argument that most slaves were held by white owners (and I don't know if that is true but it would be interesting to see), but it wouldn't change the fact that on an individual basis, by 1860 most slaveholders were colored and statistically a "free colored" was many many times more likely than a white to own a slave.

The majority of slave owners were not ("pure") Whites. Whites may have owned the majority OF slaves, but that is irrelevant to the fact that non-Whites were the majority of slave owners.

In the section about Indian slave owners it talks about how the numbers are a bit skewed because one or two guys own the majority of slaves.

That chart provides no information on the ethnic makeup of the slaveholders – and if we're going to be objective, we can only go off actual statistics. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the minority of white slaveholders held the majority of slaves, but please provide the stats to show it or else there's nothing we can do with it.

And the reason why these stats aren't meaningless: if you have any exposure to American news or media, you should know that reparations, privilege, and all sorts of ideas related to slavery are a big issue right now. You don't think it's worth noting that, on an individual basis, more blacks benefited directly from slavery than whites? According to this census, the average white American is far less likely to have had such an ancestor than the average black American (not even taking into account mass European immigration and almost nonexistent African immigration in the intervening century and a half).

You don't think that's relevant within the context of things like reparations or ancestral guilt?
(And before someone starts up on it, this is still a historical topic even if it has modern connections. It's about a 156 year old census for christsake)

And it also matters because it's the truth. 68% of antebellum slaveholders being black was a shock to me, because that is quite different to what I was taught. Which is to say, I was directly taught as a child that apart from very few exceptions, only whites owned slaves. That alone gives meaning to it, I would think.

Yes, few owned the majority of the slaves, but we aren't told who they are. Unless we can actually find a source for it, it's not really intellectually honest to say, "well I feel like it would be this way" and base an argument off of that.

>implying im gonna type that shit

This article (theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist/) makes several interesting points, including the notion that often freed slaves would purchase their own family members in order to protect them, which makes a certain amount of sense. They go on to point out, however, that a good deal of black slave owners were in it solely for profit through exploitation.

It ends:
>The good news, scholars agree, is that by 1860 the number of free blacks owning slaves had markedly decreased from 1830. In fact, Loren Schweninger concludes that by the eve of the Civil War, “the phenomenon of free blacks owning slaves had nearly disappeared” in the Upper South, even if it had not in places such as Louisiana in the Lower South.

Which, if accurate, begs the question that if in 1860 68% of slave owners were free colored, and this was in fact a considerably smaller proportion than 30 years earlier, what percentage of slave owners in 1830 were black?

To add onto this, if we count Jews separately from whites only about 5-10% of slave owners were WASP back then

source it or leave

at the very least try to be a little more subtle with your bait

archive.org/stream/JewsAndNegroSlaveryInTheOldSouth1789-1865/Jews and Negro Slavery in the Old South - 1789-1865_djvu.txt

Doubt you'll actually read it though faggot

It matters because Americans need to get past their hypocritical attitude towards race.

As someone who isn't American or possessing any partialities at all on the topic...

Might we say that this issue is the epitome of being ignorant of history and data? It's surreal that such a large group of people have actually managed to start a terrorism campaign, justifying themselves through myths you can disprove as easily as this (and their target is really caused by a completely different issue). And that terror campaign actually garners wide approval by many citizens of the country it operates in!? Historically, I would have predicted such a thing more likely to happen in the Islamic world, which is actually well aware of the problems caused by terrorism.

>Which, if accurate, begs the question that if in 1860 68% of slave owners were free colored, and this was in fact a considerably smaller proportion than 30 years earlier, what percentage of slave owners in 1830 were black?

Because OP's clever image macro is actually an elaborate exercise in blame shifting.

Okay, read through it. This is the only reference to the specific proportion of Jews who were slaveholders:
>This would mean, if it is a reliable index, that perhaps one-fourth of Southern Jewish adults were slave-owners. It is instructive that this matches the Federal figures for the 1860 census, namely, that three-fourths of the white population of the South were not slave-owners. Equally important, however, is the fact that only one-seventh of Southern Negroes were domiciled in towns or cities. The proportion of Jewish slave-owners, then, was possibly even larger than that of non-Jews, since the overwhelming majority of Southern Jews lived in the towns and cities.
Not very definite, but let's take it. In fact, let's say that means ALL Southern Jews owned slaves. What then was the data he used to arrive at this estimation? 33 wills of Jews, which showed they owned 132 slaves total. 33 wills is pretty small for a good sample size – but it turns out there weren't the hundreds of thousands of Jews in the south, to have your 5-10% number make any sense.

If I've missed the stats you're basing that on, please feel free to correct me and point me to the passage where Korn states that 30% of slaveholders were Jewish, because I'm just not seeing it.

It is fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery became widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese.

I was exaggerating a bit but you get my point. Jews were the masterminds behind American slavery even though southern WASPs are always blamed for it 100%. Also, keep in mind that many (((atheists))) were/are in fact Jewish by ancestry

Define "Mastermind?" The source makes it clear Jews had little representation in the slave-trade.
>68 Probably all of the Jewish slave-traders in all the Southern Cities and Towns combined did not buy and sell as many slaves as did the firm of Fanklin and Armfield, the largest Negro traders in the South.

You weren't exaggerating a bit, you were exaggerating massively. Outright lying, even.

How were they masterminds behind it? To quote your own source:
>None of the major slave-traders was Jewish, nor did Jews constitute a large proportion of traders in any particular community.

So if they didn't make up a large percentage of slave owners, and they weren't particularly involved in the slave trade, how can you call them "masterminds?" That's absolute nonsense, even going by your own source.

And what do atheists have to do with this? If you're going to move the goalposts, at least source it.

Except this is a table of the free colored and where they live, note how the left column is titled 'states'? That is because it is referring to whether they live in the slaveholding states or the non-slaveholding states.

Basically you're a liar and this entire thread turns out to be bullshit.

This is why people complain about /pol/ 'infographics'.