If African American slavery never happened in the 1700s...

if African American slavery never happened in the 1700s, would the civil rights and immigration problems of modern America and Europe not be happening right now?

>Civil rights
Probably not as those African Americans were the central focus of it.

>Immigration
Assuming the scenarios remain the same minus black people in America, I can't see how this changes in any way. Especially in Europe.

Europe never had much of a problem with blacks like americans. Germans treated black american soldiers better than their american countrymen after ww2

I figured since civil rights became prominent with black americans and their 'fight for equality', that now there's a fight for the equality of refugees, and I figured that fight for refugees wouldn't be happening without black history
maybe not in Europe, I don't how the civil rights movement of the 60s affected them

This depends on whether Africans were still brought over to America en masse or not,

You'd still have civil rights though. Also a replacement underclass in place of blacks.

The Civil Rights movement had a pretty huge cultural impact. I doubt there'd be nearly as many liberals lining up to suck third-world cock if not for the white guilt.

would be preferable, damn southerners

maybe, but I don't think to the extent there is now. There were SJWs in the 18th and 19th Century fighting for black rights, a lot in the North, and looking at the Civil War alone shows there were a lot of high up politicians who were willing to sacrifice young white men to free slaves (way more to it than that, I know, but black rights were used as a reason to end slavery)
I think those civil rights activists getting to grow in the academic communities of the North, and spread around for around 200+ years on such a hot topic like black rights has peaked recently.
Someone would probably take their place, because someone had to pick that cotton. Maybe we'd have a lot more trouble with workers rights or something, if white americans were getting worked that hard back then, or maybe Brazilians would've been slaves.

Yes, America would be an agrarian shithole and thus set back the western world progress so people wouldn't be trying to immigrate to it.

with no slavery, either the cash crop latifundia is economically unsustainable or they import labour from elsewhere.

so basically, following the british precedent of the 19th century, the americas import millions of indentured pajeets to work the plantations, like they did in the caribbean and south africa.

>pierre patel, the liberator of haiti
>martin luther gururananthan, civil rights activist
>the southern hindu league
>the grand mufti of alabama

lols

they weren't really SJWs

proto-SJW then? Most of them were doing for economics reasons, right?

SJW's are moral activists, but not all moral activists are SJW's.

The incubator for civil rights ideas back then was the church, not the academy.

Abolitionists were doing what they did because they thought slavery was a sin. The movement was heavily associated with Christianity.

SJWs are moral activists, but they are the most annoying, obnoxious, and the most retarded moral activists.

lolwut

slavery was part of the antiquated agraian shithole mindset, industrialization was independent of the existence of blacks

Or maybe some of them did because it was the "right thing to do"; which it kind of was

>Europe never had much of a problem with blacks like americans
Yes because europe is full of virtue signaling cucks infact its europeans or British fuckhead that got slavery ended in the first place.

Because the south had an obsession with farming. Literally the gentry had a hard on for it and banked everything on it.