Only 5% of the black slaves transported across the Atlantic actually went to the modern United States. Most in fact went to Latin America to serve Hispanic slave owners. But we don't look at modern Hispanics as evil slave owners.
It's only the United States and Canada that get the blame because they happen to be white.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
That's because slavery in Latin America evolved to be different than in Anglo America. Slaves were paid and allowed to buy there own freedom, it was considered inhumane to separate slave families, and slaves were allowed to sue their masters for mistreatment.
Maybe it's because America continued to practice slavery until 1865?
>tfw you realize you're literally living the same lifestyle as South American slaves from the 15th century
The current nigger population of Ecuador+Colombia+Venezuela+DR+Cuba combined is still smaller than all nigger Americans. Those numbers are totally off.
It was abolished in Brazil in 1888, Cuba in 1886.
Most of Latin America only banned it a few years before the US.
>He doesn't know what racemixing is
because America constantly LARPs about land of the free shit and unironically kept people as property until 1865.
>I eat food
>neanderthals ate food
wtf I'm an ooga booga now
I am counting mulattoes and zambos as blacks. 10M in DR+6M in Cuba+5M in Colombia+3M in Ecuador+5M in Venezuela=29 M. Numbers just don't add up unless there was a massive nigger genocide
That´s cause you are an American who thinks that the world is American.
>Hispanic countries
>Big on slavery
If you're looking for someone else to blame for slavery take it up with the Portuguese okay bigot
>not counting fucking Brazil
He probably thinks Brazil is Hispanic, maybe even Portugal.
> But we don't look at modern Hispanics as evil slave owners.
Racism in Latin America is just as bad if not worst. The white latinos look down on mestizos and indigenous people as subhuman.
How is Brazil Hispanic?
This.
My dude, even Amerindians look at each other as subhumans
> But we don't look at modern Hispanics as evil slave owners.
No-one looks at modern white Americans as evil slave owners either and everybody recognizes Brazil has a history of slave-owning, but it's only natural you being an American don't hear about it much because, well, you live in the US and not in Brazil, and Brazil's history has little to no effect on the current state of US politics.
OP's point is that they get looked on more favorably to White Anglos though.
More like this:
>white>hispanic>amerindian>>>black
So did the other American countries?
Actually, Anglos treated their slaves so well that the slave population had natural growth. The slave family was supported to enable demographic increase. Meanwhile, slaves in Latin America and especially on the Carribean died en masse, which is why constant imports from Africa were necessary to maintain the population. The conditions on the Latin American sugar plantations were far more deadly than on the Norht American cotton farms. The North American slave holders were far less reliant on imports.
It was common knowledge that slaves were treated better in the US than Latin America.
>"sure, we kept people as property, but some other guys did it more, so we can't really be blamed"
That's not how it works.
Thats right.
Well, Brazil also sent their blacks to war to cull some of them.
The US bred them so their population grew exponentially, treated them like absolute garbage, and even after slavery was banned, they used loopholes to keep them doing forced labor. Then Jim Crow which made sure that they would be shut out of politics. Redlining which made sure that they'd be shut out of many housing opportunities. Let's not forget the burning down of their business communities such as the Tulsa riots.
>america dindu nuffin
Gee, i wonder all those niggers from Cuba, DR and Colombia came from.
>Actually, Anglos treated their slaves so well that the slave population had natural growth. The slave family was supported to enable demographic increase.
Please be trolling, it wasn't a "natural growth". They were bred like cattle to produce more future laborers and families were regularly separated. There was nothing "natural" about it.
>and slaves were allowed to sue their masters for mistreatment.
Source?
Yeah, there isn't a positive correlation between the normalization of forced labour and the prosperity of the society.
The reparations argument is an emotional one, the numbers don't actually add up.
Some people like to pretend the wealth of the rich is predicated on the suffering of the poor.
You have to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of African slaves were held by non-whites (>95%) because it's facts like that which will make whites feel less guilty, and then we can't demand that they pay enormous amounts of tax.
Euros are pussies, hispanics will break your face if you try to guilt trip them.
>You have to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of African slaves were held by non-whites (>95%)
Calling BS on that one. Sauce
Because Latin America isn't the premiere global power. If Colombia or Venezuela was you'd sure as shit see the same forced guilt heaped on them.
American slaves could work side jobs to earn money to buy freedom. They were property and protected against murder and mistreatment by anyone other than their owner.
The USA banned slave imports early on. Then sent warships to Africa to stop the slave trade.
Capitalism is a form of slavery
Hispanic is a term for everything from the Hispanic cultures which includes Portugal and for instance Brazil, most people ignore it tho because they are retards who can separate Hispanic from Spanish.
>only a few years before the USA
Do you lie knowingly or out of ignorance?
>he actually believes this
>Hispanic is a term for everything from the Hispanic cultures which includes Portugal and for instance Brazil, most people ignore it tho because they are retards who can separate Hispanic from Spanish.
There is a term for that and it is ibero-american.Hispanic reffers to the Spanish cultural sphere.
Because modern hispanics are the result of indians, blacks and spaniards mixing, and therefore are the descendants of both indian and black slaves, whereas modern americans are white.
Lol who taught you that bullshit? Slavery in Brazil was so brutal that the slave trade was kept until the mid XIXth century to substitute all the slaves that died.
America, on the other hand, abolished the slave trade quite early because of better conditions made slave mortality diminish and slave fertility increase.
t. Brazilian
>ibero-american
Nonsensical.
Portuguese-American and Spanish-American works just as well without the silly vagaries.
I think 12 years at most does count as "a few years".
I am Brazilian and "whites"(read: just not black or native) here get shit on all the time for the slavery period.
¿? No we don't. Maybe stop getting all of your info from /pol/ charts
t. sudaca
Slavery and post colonialism are major issues in all south american countries, especially for Brazil.
Just because you dont pay any attention whatsoever to the Latin world doesnt mean it does not exist. If you are white you are bound to be much better off if you were an afro or creol.
Also
>Canada
No one blames Canada for hte slave trade
>Slavery in Brazil was so brutal that the slave trade was kept until the mid XIXth century
>America, on the other hand, abolished the slave trade quite early
Yea. On the mid XIXth century
He is an idiot.
Brazil abolished slavery in 1888.
So late XIXth century.
Hispania was the name given by Romans to the Iberian Peninsula, which obviously includes Portugal.
Also important to notice that the military forced abolishment on Princess Isabel while Pedro II was traveling, to weaken the monarchy and irritate the oligarchies.
Man, one thing is not being knowledgeable in History, and there is nothing wrong with that, but to spout inaccurate stuff on a History board as if you did is actually stupid.
So? Nobody is using hispanic to talk about Portugal or former Portuguese colonies.
Who are talking to? OP or literally everyone?
Irrelevant as Spain took the name
>portuguese/brazilians
>hispanic
en.wikipedia.org
"The term Hispanic (Spanish: hispano or hispánico), broadly refers to the people, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain."
More than half the slave trade was done by portuguese slavers
...
...
How is it not?
>Hispania (/hJˈspænjə, -eJniə/; Latin: [hJsˈpaːnia]) was the Roman name for the Iberian Peninsula.
For good reason though. Go look at the great Latin American writers, literally all of them are white with minimal native/black admixture.
Latin Americans weren't "non-whites" back then. They were mostly white immigrants from Spain/Portugal.
We can all quote wikipedia.
>Hispanicis used to refer to modern Spain, to the Spanish language, and to the Spanish-speaking nations of the world and particularly theAmericas.
>Spanishis used to refer to the people, nationality, culture, language and other things of Spain.
>Spaniardis used to refer to the people of Spain.
>The common modern term to identify Portuguese and Spanish cultures under a single nomenclature is "Iberian", and the one to refer to cultures derived from both countries in the Americas is "Iberian-American". These designations can be mutually recognized by people in Portugal and Brazil, unlike "Hispanic", which is totally void of any self-identification in those countries, and quite on the opposite, serves the purpose of marking a clear distinction in relation to neighboring countries´ culture.
Actually, how did slaves in Cuba, Brazil, or Colombia keep their African roots closer to them, unlike slaves in the USA? Was there just more segregation in Latin America to the point where the blacks could retain their own African culture?
They kept a generic African culture, a cultural "size-fits-all", any idea of heritage is lost besides "comes from Africa"
I think it doesn't. Besides, countries like Chile and Argentina proclaimed freedom of womb in the 1810's.
it's not generic actually. lots of it can be traced to definite locations or peoples since in many places the slaves were from one area or group.
No, its merely a system of organizing and distributing resources, like any other sociopolitical system.
Yep. My grandfather was a Cuban whose parents immigrated from the Canary Islands and he had to use white facilities in the segregated south.
>4.5 million enslaved went to Brazil.
Ah back in the good old days when the niggers knew their place.
Shut up you Brazilian monkey.
>everyone talks about American slavery and Latin American (including Haitian surprisingly) slavery but no one talks about the non-Latino Caribbean slavery from the British and the Dutch
Jamaican slavery was considered one of the absolute worse places to be a slave in the Americas, it's no surprised that the British "quickly" abolished it.
Hugh Thomas, author of The Slave Trade, would disagree
Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade
>It's only the United States and Canada that get the blame because they happen to be white.
they get the blame because they were the ones kind enough to outlaw slavery. people don't respect too much kindness and see it as a weakness.
>tfw brazillian with slave owner ancestor
The story my grandfather used to tell me was that he was known to treat his slaves very well.
True or bullshit i don't care.
I have slave ancestors too even though i look white.
...
They "get the blame" because that's where you live dumass
Why would they blame slave owners from other countries?
17m l taken by Arabs
12m taken by euros
Of those taken to British North America, Jamaica and Suriname you have barely 1m.
That's about 3.5%
This is without deducting Jewish ownership which was proportionately higher than white ownership, especially in Suriname.
>The Jews of Suriname were the largest slave-holders in the region (Roth, Norman: Medieval Jewish Civilization: an encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2003)
I suppose I was defining white as Germanic protestants as this is the demographic usually accused of being the primary beneficiaries of slavery, but I guess we can include French colonies too.
Of which, Haiti was the only significant destination and now you're only bringing the number up to about 5%.
This is not counting slaves owned by Jews, natives and mulattoes AND we haven't even considered the untold millions of Africans held in slavery in Africa - which owing to the dearth of sources we can only really guess at.
Regardless, non-whites held 95%+ of African slaves.
Oh of course there was exceptional few here or there but Charles Darwin git ptsd from his time in Brazil.
Lmao even if that is all true, which I doubt, you know the average normie doesn't know any of that. He doesn't even remember that hispanics owned slaves let alone how they treated them.
>I think it doesn't
Well your opinion is wrong
>Besides, countries like Chile and Argentina
Literally who gives a shit? You realise there are more than two countries in South America, yes?
Latin America didn't and doesn't hold itself up as the beacon of freedom and individual liberty.
BTFO
They had small slave populace and both had ways to reduce them/remove them.
Argentina free former slaves or free blacks actually had most cases shitter lives then slaves.
>and Canada
Fuck off leaf, nobody cares about you.
more like
>when you're largely responsible for the african slave trade, treated them objectively worse than any other nation but no one gives a shit
Just because the constitution of the "new" States also indicates that Slavery was abolished it doesn't mean it was abolished until then. As you can see in the wikipedia page you took that from, many other "forms" of what you can call the Argentinian state abolished Slavery even back in the 18th century.
>make new "State"
>make new constitution
That's it
en.wikipedia.org
(((hispanic)))
>Canada
We didn't own niggers. Fuck off.
>hurr jews aren't white meme
But Spaniards and Portuguese are also white
We did though.
>Jews are white
What?
Jews claim to be white when appropriate, when they talk about us white people, and claim to be ethnic minorities when talking about whites as an other.
We need to add Semite as a racial category
>Human reproduction isn't natural.
What do you think they were doing exactly?
Putting the negresses in sticks and squirting pipettes of prize nigger buck semen up their twats?
they bred "nigger" slaves just like how they breed horses
USA had a large internal slave trade that was unprecented anywhere else. The amount of slaves in USA grew after international slave trade was outlawed.
>This is without deducting Jewish ownership
Sephardic Jews played a minimal role outside of the Caribbean. There were so little of them each Jew could have owned hundreds of slaves and still not made a dent in the slave trade.