Slavery

>looking up slavery for a petty internet fight
>find out that during the ~300 years of slavery in America there were only about ~350,000 slaves
>look up modern slavery
>there are an estimated 30-45 MILLION slaves right this very second
>India itself has about 18 million
>China has like 3.5 million

What the fuck? Why do Americans get so much shit for slavery? I'm not even American, why was all of the slavery that we learned about in class focused on such a small sample of slaves?

Other urls found in this thread:

civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total
youtube.com/watch?v=PWJpwc21Ft4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Only in "west", rest of the fucking world couldn't give two shits about it.

>I'm not even American, why was all of the slavery that we learned about in class focused on such a small sample of slaves?

Because it's such a massive part of American culture and history. Literally nobody else gave a fuck about it. I bet you didn't even learn that the British navy spent most of the 19th century freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves, or that there were still Arab slave kingdoms in East Africa until relatively recently.

In 1860 there were a little under 4 million slaves in the United States, representing about 13% of the population. And that is the total population of the United States, in slave states it was a much, much higher percent of the total population of the state.
civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total

Using your upper estimate, 45 million slaves represents about 0.7% of the world population.
18 million represents about 1.4% of India's population, 3.5 million represents about %0.25 of China's population

The problem that you're forgetting is scale. The Antebellum South practiced slavery as a legal institution backed up by the full faith and credit of the federal government, and once the cotton gin arrived they began practicing slavery on an industrial scale. Slavers in China and India have to work under the radar and are more a reflection of corruption, rather than institutionalization.

But the blowback against the slave-owning south has less to do with the number of slaves that they held and more to do with the culture that they were fostering, where even poor whites who didn't own a single slave was trained to think of themselves as belonging to the superior race, and live in a world where a social hierarchy strictly separates races into superior and inferior while systematically depriving the "inferiors" of their labor and giving them all the menial, dangerous jobs.

Because the whole "if you're black your bad and deserve to be slave, and if you're white you're good" thing. This means after slavery is abolished EVERYONE still knows what's what. You can't forget about it because 200 years later you can still clearly identify who belongs to the group that was slaves and who belongs to the group that was slavers.

And then you became a worldwide influential culture meaning that even in my country nowadays black folk act like they're ancestors of slaves and white folk deserve blame for it.

Modern narrative is what made Whites seem like all powerul demons and Black slaves dindu nuffin. Truth is things were a lot more complex than that.

A lot of people also don't know that California had a majority of Native American slaves and Blacks were given preferential treatment there. Black people flocked to California in the 1800s to live as free men and make an honest living.

The average poorfag in the south was willing to die protecting the confederacy because it benefited him, not because of racism. Slavery wasn't the key issue here, it was the federal government outstepping its bounds.

The CSA also banned the slave trade, and if slavery itself was abolished there wouldn't be much of a difference for the south as the wages they could pay the negroes would be only marginally more expensive than having to provide food and housing for them, and security to make sure they don't run off.

A good number of free blacks in the south also owned slaves, and only a small percentage of those were family members.

But is India and China's slavery based purely upon race?

No one bats an eye regarding Roman, Norse, or other cultures who practiced slavery based on means of conquest, as this was seen as just a right of victory rather than any specific belief of racial superiority. You can claim the immorality of the whole issue, but you can argue it is no more immoral than the act of conquest--but just an inevitable side effect of war.

But, for whites of the 16th through 19th centuries, African slavery was strictly limited to Africans, and legal status was determined by skin color and heritage. This is not to say that stigma of freedmen did not exist in other cultures, but, I do not know of any accounts of Africans willingly leaving their homes to travel to America; for someone in the New World, if they saw an African man, he was either a slave or a man freed from slavery--never just a free person.

As more modern ideas formed regarding the status of different races, as did ideas form regarding the differences between the races, and ideas of superiority of whites over blacks. Justifications of science, God, and their duty to oversee and educate the stupid, faithless, and dishonorable black man, regardless of how they were raised, creates a societal divide that can't be mended easily. Even with the American Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, tensions and residential angers still lie, as can be seen galvanized in modern race relations.

The slavery in America was also not based on race. Negroes were just prized because they better adapted to work in the south's wetlands. They cost a lot more than your average Irishman did.

When did white people go off the deep end and create the racial caste system that plagues America today?

When LBJ created the welfare state.

winners write history.

muh slavery is the equivalent to muh holocaust (in essence)

What about the Jim Crow era?

The welfare state was far more destructive. Legally, Jim Crow didn't even affect the north, it just let private businesses make their own decisions on who they want to do business with. The laws themselves were redundant in the south too as racial segregation is only natural.

So LBJ ruined America

>The laws themselves were redundant in the south too as racial segregation is only natural.

Lynching niggers and burning their homes is quite natural too

Him and Ted Kennedy.

The frequency of such attacks is blown way out of proportion, and I agree, it would have been better if there were never any niggers in America to begin with.

Maybe if you wanted better relations with black people today you shouldn't have burned their homes and bombed their churches? Also slavery is still a pretty awkward subject at the dinner table. Whether it's blown out of proportion or not, it still happened. There's more that could have been done on both sides to end racism, but blacks and whites keep playing victim telling themselves they dindu nuffin and demonizing each other.

>because it benefited him,
Of course they did, it kept them off the lowest rungs of society. But everywhere in the Western world except the antebellum south accepted compensatory emancipation

>The CSA also banned the slave trade,
I'm going to need a source on that. Slavery was hardcoded into the Confederate constitution, their entire economy revolved around middle men in depleted areas buying slaves and selling them to new territories out west and in the Caribbean. Their whole model was contingent upon unlimited growth and when Lincoln was elected on a platform of stopping new slave states from being created that was enough for them to revolt, knowing that it would cause their entire society to come crashing down like a house of cards if they could no longer expand their operation into new markets

>good number of free blacks in the south also owned slaves,
culture exists independently of race. A virulent culture can spread like a disease, especially among opportunists, grifters, and the profoundly confused/misinformed

Slavery in India was based on caste. Skin color is a major caste signifier, and the whole caste system is as much socially constructed as race is.

Black crime is a way bigger problem than the KKK or lynching ever was. It kills more people in a year than the Klan did in its entire existence.

The best thing that could have been done is ship all the freed slaves back to Africa.

>Of course they did, it kept them off the lowest rungs of society. But everywhere in the Western world except the antebellum south accepted compensatory emancipation

The common southerner didn't want his homestead burned down by yankee "liberators" and didn't want his state right trampled upon, which was a pretty good incentive to go fight for the south. The average southerner didn't profit from slavery at all, it was in fact quite the opposite.

The transatlantic slave trade was prohibited by the confederate constitution, and each state had the right to abolish slavery if they wished to do so.

>culture exists independently of race.

Yeah, that's why we see the triumph of enlightened values throughout Africa...

>muh social construct

I'm pretty sure Veeky Forums is an 18+ site

As for compensatory emancipation, you said it yourself, no other region on earth powerful enough to rebel against its government had an economy so dependent on agriculture.

Plus, it was the north trying to tell them what to do with their own states, which was a big no-no.

Black crime affects blacks. I don't even see why you racist types are so concerned. Black people aren't even killing you.

>The common southerner didn't want his homestead burned down by yankee "liberators"
It's more accurate to say that he was willing to burn down his own homestead rather than let yankees liberate someone to whom he had no economic ties

> and didn't want his state right trampled upon,
the state's right to define living human beings as the legal property of another

> The average southerner didn't profit from slavery at all, it was in fact quite the opposite.
They threw themselves into the meat grinder of war to protect their assumed racial superiority because they were being cucked by a small minority of aristocrats who were trying to create an old European-style feudal state who told them that if they worked hard and kept the faith, that some day they too could own slaves and liberate themselves from the tyranny of drudgery.

>The transatlantic slave trade was prohibited by the confederate constitution,
citation needed
> and each state had the right to abolish slavery if they wished to do so.
technically true, though in practice it would have been virtually impossible.

>Yeah, that's why we see the triumph of enlightened values throughout Africa...
A culture built on brutality and exploitation continues those traditions when the white folks flee with all the money and capital and everyone is left destitute and without leadership. Who'd have thought

>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. -Alexander Hamilton Stephens.

what did he mean by this?

>this
its literally just people trying to co-opt the suffering of others to claim VICTIM status for free gibs.

>African slavery was strictly limited to Africans
obviously
But places like Suriname had loads of Indian "workers" and Irish people and native americans were also often slaves. Truth is slavery was only about race late in the game and only because it was convenient in it's own way

There were 500 black on white murders in 2014 alone.

Wow! the CSA was racist, who gives a fuck, the Union were white supremacists as well. The difference was that the South didn't want to have 4 million freed black slaves roaming around and knew the north would use that as leverage against them.

>“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” - Abraham Lincoln

>Wow! the CSA was racist, who gives a fuck, the Union were white supremacists as well.
False equivalence which ignores scale. Sure there were racists in the north but there weren't enough of them to concentrate into a politically significant voting bloc the way that they did at the south. What the north did have was New England abolitionists who did constitute a politically significant voting bloc

>Shit Abraham Lincoln said to get elected in an electoral system specifically rigged to favor slave states
The fact that Lincoln won such a commanding victory in the north and no where at all in the south despite its structural favoring of slave states should tell you what you need to know about the concentration of racists in America in 1860.

Lincoln was a compromise moderate elected on a platform of preventing slavery's spread to new states. In all of his personal letters and correspondences Abraham Lincoln abhorred slavery and compared it to life under his loutish, illiterate father. When the opportunity arose for him to emancipate the slaves (something that never would have been possible without emergency wartime powers), he only waited for a military victory so that the European powers didn't think he was acting out of desperation

>youtube.com/watch?v=PWJpwc21Ft4

Blacks kill whites at a disproportionate rate actually.

Can you buy and sell slaves there? like is legal?
Does the newborns of slaves belong to the owner of the slave and are slaves too?
Can you legally torture the slaves and whatnot?.

are wageslaves slaves?

actually whites kill a higher % of the black population than the opposite

>actually whites kill a higher % of the black population than the opposite

what a faggot way to measure killings

so in a hypothetical society where there are 5 blacks and 1 million whites, and the blacks kill 500 thousand whites and the whites kill 3 blacks, you would say "whites kill more blacks as % of population"

>Black crime is a way bigger problem than the KKK or lynching ever was.
This is complete bullshit.

>implying lynching was ever a problem
>From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.

3450 blacks in 86 years. That's about the amount of people that get shot in Chicago in one year.

India and China outlaw slavery and actively fight against human trafficking.

It's incorrect to assert the notion that ujst because of state of affairs exists it is somehow encouraged as a policy; this is the same rubbish feminists use to assail the patriarchy etc

how does one black kill 100,000 whites? what a strange hypothetical and it does nothing to prove your point

in any case only about 12k people die as a result of homicide each year. cancer is a greater national threat than black people. even suicide claims more victims than all homicides by over 3x

>only about 12k people die as a result of homicide each year
>ONLY

I wonder if you Americans actually realize how absurdly high that number is.

only, in comparison to the other rates that i mentioned. i'm not even american

do you want to try that again?

0.004% is pretty high, yeah

I've heard somewhere that chances are higher to be eaten by a shark, than die from a terrorist attack.

dunno if is true.