Could America have thrived without African slaves...

>Work all life under an overseer on a few crops, these principally not being food crops since the South imported all that
>Gain no significant experience of diversified labor, and of course little to no
>No experience of having to independently manage a farm or one's own life
>Little agricultural implements or capital after becoming "free"
>Face violent attacks upon themselves after emancipation through racialized terror in the south

They probably were decent cotton farmers, but working on a plantation on one crop doesn't do much to prepare one for being an independent farmer, no more than working in a factory all one's life prepares one for being a small craftsman. That doesn't make them bad farmers, that makes them farmers unsuited for the conditions they faced.

what exactly am I looking for? reference the exact area

this has not been discussed but slaves also helped serve as encouragement for european immigrants to move to the US. I'm sure some people thought American life was a life of leisure while the slaves did the work.

Slavery composed a significant proportion of the economy but technology was overwhelmingly responsible for America's wealth. Most of America's growth took place after the civil war.

Rice, cotton and indigo were all domesticated in Africa. The cultivation and techniques and skills around that were utilized by europeans that owned enslaved West Africans.

The foundations of southern economies are largely based on the cultural innovation surrounding African crops in the Americas.

Without them the south would have been a sparsely populated region of small farmers with limited exports. Blacks both free and enslaved were instrumental in Sailing, Whaling, Cowboy ranching, iron smithery, carpentry, etc... Used not only by masters but also rented out to others and/or selling their own services once freed or if born free.

Not him, but those are all super short. Just read the whole thing for your own edification.

Indigo and cotton are from India. Rice is from East Asia. Dunno about the rest, but all sounds dubious at best.

See this
Also
>smithing
Bronze age europe produced better metal goods than traditional metalworking in africa did last week.

>Ranching
West africans didn't really keep much cattle, its more of an east and southern african thing.

Carpentry.
Find me traditional west african woodwork that shows that they even figured out saws and then we can talk

>Sailing
Hahahahaha

>Whaling
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>It wasn't Brazil where slaves were almost a necessity for manual labor thanks to the climate and shit like malaria.
The book 1491 or 1493 says the same about the American south. It does say it was like Brazil.

And there was more to it, but I can't remember it from memory.

Well, that book is wrong then because Brazil would work slaves to death and then import more. You couldn't afford to do such things in the American South. There's major distinctions to be made between Brazil and the American South. The only similarity is that both were hot and humid in the summer. Brazilian and American slavery were two distinct institutions with a cosmetic resemblance.

gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/origins-slavery/resources/american-slavery-comparative-perspective
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Brazilian_and_United_States_Slavery_Compared

I remember it vague so I could be wrong.

Ranching comes from Spain.

In the long run, slavery is bad for the economy (and therefore society) because it restricts cash circulation. If you have a moneyed working class, you'll get a market emerging to cater to their demands. Slavery might seem like a great short-term idea to a business owner, but 100 years down the line your country's quality of life will be lagging way behind an equivalent nation which outlawed slavery.

Yes african slaves were used because niggers were impervious to the diseases and the climate of the tropics in the New World where as we whiteys got that sunburn thing, however new world colonies would have thrive even without the niggers as the blacks were just biological machines to pick crops for us while we actually planted and grew each individual one.

West Africa independently had domesticated cotton, indigo and rice. Their skills and intimate knowledge of their cultivation and utilization came from labour performed and perfected by African, not Indian people.
Iron and bronzes were utilized and perfected by blacksmith castes. Their skills were so much so that for decades the ancient Caucasian myth was used to justify the existence of Benin Bronzes. Carpentry also was recognized for it's beauty and skill

>"The king's palace or court is a square, and is as large as the town of Haarlem and entirely surrounded by a special wall, like that which encircles the town. It is divided into many magnificent palaces, houses, and apartments of the courtiers, and comprises beautiful and long square galleries, about as large as the Exchange at Amsterdam, but one larger than another, resting on wooden pillars, from top to bottom covered with cast copper, on which are engraved the pictures of their war exploits and battles..."

Ranching and Animal husbandry supersedes agriculture in Africa. By definition it was their "thing" until Tsetse inhibits it in the humid equatorial lowlands.

Sailors and Whalers of Africa descent made up significant amounts of Crews. Looking at the history on both sides of the Atlantic we see "Black Jacks" of American birth as well as Cape Verdeans and groups such as Krumen in Liberia highly acclaimed in this skills and prowess.

There is a reason why Sea Shanties have an overwhelming African tune and structure to them.

Really you should actually study before commenting. It just makes you look stupid

Indigo was first cultivated in India but had been long established as a major industry in West Africa by the time the US was founded It still is, Tuaregs are a famous example). It's possible that Eliza Lucas used West African knowledge to introduce Indigo to the South. How probable that is is up or debate.

The earliest cotton production is in India and native America but again, it had long been established in West Africa. Portuguese explorers mention extensive agricultural systems for the cultivation of cotton and rice.

As for rice, there are two main species, Oryza Sativa or Asian rice, and Orya Glaberrima, or African Rice. African rice was the first to be cultivated in the American South, most famously among the Gullah-speaking people in South Carolina.

>Bronze age europe produced better metal goods than traditional metalworking in africa did last week.
Not true

>West africans didn't really keep much cattle, its more of an east and southern african thing.
not true

>Find me traditional west african woodwork that shows that they even figured out saws and then we can talk
Are you seriously suggesting Africans didn't have saws?

I'm a different user but if you think you see bullshit, don't counter it with more bullshit

if West Africa was so superior why did they get conquered by Europeans then

why did they never produce any great science like Isaac Newton

any great mathematics like Gauss or Euler

any great weapons

?????

what kind of dumb ass question is that?

you said West Africans were superior, how did they get fucking REKT by Europeans then, if they were superior

Isaac Newton single handily had a greater influence on science than all of the history of West African science

>European Scientific Advancement: 9/10
>American Scientific Advancement: 9/10
>Hispanic Scientific Advancement: 6/10
>Slavic Scientific Advancement: 7/10
>African Scientific Advancement: 2/10
>Asian Scientific Advancement: 7/10
>Muslim Scientific Advancement: 6/10
>Indian Scientific Advancement: 5/10

where did you get these numbers from?

If europe is so superior why did it get rekt by the muzzies, mongs and turks?

I was making a bait post like that one "Hole left by the Christian Dark Ages" time vs "Scientific Advancement"

not the question

if West Africa was superior to Europe like you said why did they never produce any great science like Newton and why were they conquered?

wow you relly made me think

they didn't....the Mongols got as far as Serbia until they were soundly defeated and forced to retreat

ok

Your question is extremely loaded. Life isn't an RTS game. West africa took a long ass time to be conquered because europeans were happy enough trading for captured niggers.

you were the one that claimed they were superior

again no great science like Sir Isaac Newton....couldn't defeat Europe in war

and yet you claim their superior

which is in europe.
They rekt european powers.
Constantinople was the capital of the Ottoman empire.

If europeans are so superior, why did they only domesticate rabbits?

they still got ultimately conquered and were inferior in all regards essentially

You can say the same for europe by that metric.
>they were conquered by the muzzies therefore they are inferior.

and then they got their ass REKT by Europe in WW1

The British Empire legacy is greater than the Ottoman's in size, technology etc.

they were able to fight back though...Europe reclaimed its lands (The Reconquista)

while Africa only got independence because Europe ALLOWED them too...

And the british empire got REKT by a bald lawyer who made salt.

>allowed
more like
>unable to hold it so we run away and save our face.

>the reconquista
and which is why constantinople is the capital of greece...
oh wait.

Muslims are literally living in shit holes today compared to the greatness of europe

And time stopped. Things will remain the same for all time.

lol...we could of literally nuked africa if we wanted too...we gave them independence'

are you really trying to prove blacks are superior to whites, cause history is against you my friend

>we

>There is a reason why Sea Shanties have an overwhelming African tune and structure to them.

>African structure
>not Celtic
Let me guess white people were living caves until the the black man taught them to bathe too right?

His post literally never mentioned anything about superior, anyways you can be good at one thing and bad at another.

Reddit is unironically a better site to discuss the history of slavery as I have noticed. This site is filled with revisionists.

go there then.

>you were the one that claimed they were superior
Where? When?

Claiming one civilisation is "superior" and lying to degrade the other one sounds more in form for you than for me. I've only made two posts in this thread. I think you may have the autism.

I do.

then stay there.

> Along the African coast you will hear that dirge-like strain in all their songs, as at work or paddling their canoes to and from shore, they keep time to the music. On the southern plantations you will hear it also, and in the negro melodies every where, plaintive and melodious, sad and earnest. It seems like the dirge of national degradation, the wail of a race, stricken and crushed, familiar with tyranny, submission and unrequited labor… And here I cannot help noticing the similarity existing between the working chorus of the sailors and the dirge-like negro melody, to which my attention was specially directed by an incident I witnessed or rather heard.
1845

>The old sailor songs had a peculiar individuality. They were barbaric in their wild melody. The only songs that in any way resemble them in character are "Dixie", and two or three other so-called negro songs by the same writer. This man, known in the minstrel profession as "Old Emmett", caught the true spirit of the African melodies—the lawless, half-mournful, half-exulting songs of the Kroomen. These and the sailor songs could never have been the songs of civilized men… Undoubtedly many sailor songs have a negro origin. They are the reminiscences of melodies sung by negroes stowing cotton in the holds of ships in Southern ports. The "shanty-men," those hards of the forecastle, have preserved to some extent the meaningless words of negro choruses, and have modified the melodies so as to fit them for salt-water purposes. Certain other songs were unmistakably the work of English sailors of an uncertain but very remote period

African/Black Atlantic, not Celtic.

She got the information from an African slave and stated so in her diary.

Secondly while I agree with your sentiment my stating Indigo and Cotton are in fact African it is not ultimately Indian in origin. Indigo is not a single plant. Rather they are a class of plants that through fermentation created blue dyes. Some were in fact native to West Africa.

Native Cotton is derived from a Nubian rather than Indian cotton, while its considered a later arrival via Nile populations migrating to West Africa its history is one in Africa. The strip loom is a unique process to the region.

Yes, Australia and Canada are examples of this

The saws thing was speculation based on the fact that most of the tradational west african woodwork I've encountered seems completely hand carved, even doors and windows and therefore suffer in precision.

You'd have a underclass regardless.

Nobody said jack shit about Blacks being superior to Whites or anything. Are you insecure since the some Black dudes shamed you the last time you went to a house party or something ?

> Tyrone fucked the girl I have wet dreams about, even though she thinks I'm dirty weeb
> b-b-but muh niggers' ancestors were enslaved by mine, he must be inferior and bow to me
*starts furiously masturbating on /a/ in rage

I was starting to write a big ass post to debunk your bullshit, but I realized it was the third time I got triggered by one of these /pol/ trainwreck "muh niggers be inferior to muh glorious white genes".

So all in all, fuck you.

Fuck off.

>thread about slavery
>turns into shitposting about WE WUZ vs MUH EUROPA
You should all be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

I'm the OP and I was thinking of this thread earlier today. There are so many variables to consider...

>were africans necessary in establishing early settlements? europeans did arrive with african slaves and surely those slaves also provided labour of some sort. africans have always number 10-20% of the US population...

>if african slaves were not a necessary part of early settlements, how would the US have constructed industries that were built on slaves (agriculture, the textile industry, banking instruments like mortgages, and insurance -- were based on african slaves)

>if I remember correctly, during the 1800s roughly 60% of the US exports were from cash crops. it's partly the reason why washington dc was chosen as the capital and not NYC

>slaves also hindered agricultural development. was there some form of technology that could have been easily implemented instead of slaves?

I think this thread could be a lot more interesting...

>music
>petty

The 20th century would be insanely different. No ragtime, blues, jazz, rock, disco, hip hop, house, techno, etc...

I mean, I guess it's petty in the grand scheme of things, but that's pretty significant.

there was no "We Wuz" though.

Idiots here are so obsessed with Hoteps it's just pathetic.

There is an African species of rice actually. Domesticated about 2,000 years ago, it's currently being mixed with Asian rice to make a superfood in Africa.

>No replies to this guy's comment

No really, why were rabbits and reindeer (Lapland only) the only animals Europeans domesticated? Did the Middle East introduce all the livestock they needed?

America not only would've thrived without Africans, it would be in significantly better shape than it is today. The American economy would've suffered, but ultimately the long term reward would've outweighed the short term benefit of not having a third world crime rate a few centuries later

No you'd have whatever underclass would replace them..

To even make a profit slaves were needed to compete down there because the South had little.

Nice, you guys did my work for me. No one is saying West Africa was more advanced than all of Europe, you two were just saying that they had some influence.

Either Mexicans, Native Americans, or lower class "whites" like the Irish or Italians

Slavery thrived in the South because it was such a huge sunken cost to the gentry class so they decided to remain with it.

There was heavy class inequality in the South so there were a fuckton of poor whites who lived in godawful conditions that could've done the labour for cheap/indentured labour. If Blacks were much smaller in numbers or importation of slaves cut off very early or weren't brought in it would've been poor whites who were the cocksleave bitch of upperclass Southern society and it would be EXTREMELY class based (much more so then Europe at the time) with the divisions being "Us landed, sophisticated old bloods vs those dirty, degenerate immigrants".

what repercussions would that class divided society have on modern america? do you think the class division would remain a heated subject similar to how races are divided in the US? that is, if industrialization was possible without slaves.

i'm still looking for more comments related to this

>Dunno about the rest, but all sounds dubious at best.

It's from that shitty "refutation" .jpg of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

No its not this is literally common knowledge of Sahelian society and Black participation in the Americas.

i'm not the person you are replying to but what is the source for your claims?

Black Rice by Judith Anne Carney speaks on not only rice domestication but the complex dike and field creation of west Africans to America. So complex were they to the first Europeans who saw them it was assumed Asians had somehow taught them though now we know better

Cotton cultivation is common enough to Google but Abdul-Rahman Ibrahim ibn Sori is a great example of a west African using his knowledge of cotton in Fouta Djallon to the plantations of the South

Cattle before crops a pdf showcases animal husbandry as the foundation of African subsistence patterns replicated by Senegambians in Louisiana but also the south in general

Indigo as mentioned above was mastered by a slave from the Indies

Ironworkers from various castes were very highly sought after. An example of their works in America can be found in Dr. Carter G. Woodson’s “Journal of Negro History,” published by the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, says of the slaves, “Their training in the mechanic arts was not something originated in the American colonies. Negro craftsmanship ... had its origins on the continent of Africa.”

There are hundreds of sources speaking on the influences and presence of blacks in the South, North and West. It's just a matter of finding the sources and reading them.

that is interesting and thanks for the info. I've never heard of this before.

what are your thoughts on my questions here

>Women typically stayed in the house as maids and raped pretty much every day.

Yes. That's why there aren't any black people anymore. Black women were raped daily by white men and only had mixed babies. After a few generations they all looked white.

Hollywood has poisoned your mind.

Do you just make this shit up or is this some Afrocentric nonsense that black people tell each other?

Imagine the UK but much worse with class division at the time period.

You need to read more
Depends where. New England blacks were sailors and craftsmen. South they were critical not only in clearing land, crafting and working in trades but early on 2/5ths of the army during the Yamasee War were heavily armed enslaved men.

In the "West" George Bonga, Paul Reeves, James Beckwourth, Buffalo soldiers, Black Seminole Scouts and upwards of 20% of far west Farmers were black.

Its just a sliver of people and groups of African ancestry who influenced the course of American history.

Idk why d.c. was made the capital but free blacks and enslaves blacks really made the city what it was

Enslaved people utilizing technological innovation that only increased the efficiency of the plantation. 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850 and from 700k enslaved people to 3.5 million.

Technology and labour worked and works hand in hand, they are opposed.

life is an RTS game

Without slavery, New England would have remained a theocratic society for longer. The influx of wealth, via the triangular trade, contributed to the decline in Puritan beliefs during the eighteenth century. By the late 1700's, the new merchant class (people like John Hancock and Samuel Adams) had supplanted the old ministerial elite. The Quaker influence would have similarly persisted longer in Pennsylvania. I'd imagine that the entirety of the U.S. would look and feel like New England, the Midwest, and Canada does today.

>Yes. That's why there aren't any black people anymore. Black women were raped daily by white men and only had mixed babies. After a few generations they all looked white.

Nice hyperbolic strawman anonymous, it must be nice debating your own made up arguments. You can't lose!