>Be Southerner in 1850s
>Rape my slave even though she's married
>Slave gets pregnant
>Child clearly looks like me and is half white
>Literally enslave my own child to avoid the societal shame of having a nigger baby
What the fuck was wrong with the South?
It's not rape if it's a slave, dumdum
>"Rape" your own property
>"Enslave" what is also already your property
This is your brain on liberalism
What the fuck is* wrong with the South?
Also its not really a child, its half a child half a nigger baby.
You can't expect people with southern tier IQs to differentiate right from wrong. The best you can do is govern them benevolently but gently to make sure they don't inflict as much misery on themselves and others, like children
Were slave children actually used regularly as alligator bait, or is that the Antebellum South's version of the whole 'Jews being turned into furniture' myth?
>rape
>implying that thot wasn't asking for it
If hoes ain't loyal NOW in the good times, when EBT grows on trees and grape drank flows like a glacial spring down a mountain side, what makes you think they stood by their man in the hard times before creamy crack and KFC?
If ANYBODY was getting raped it was massa', that's the REAL reason he carried a whip. He needed it to keep those rachet-ass ashy kneed slave bitches off his dick.
What did yanks do about it? Nothing, they waited hundreds of years. You can't blame the south if there was nobody willing to stop them
>waited hundreds of years
>then BTFO'D you so hard you are still butthurt almost two centuries later
No wonder niggers are eternally butthurt, who knows how long the slave genetics ran.
>152 years and still going strong
I can smell that moonshine through the internet
Slaves were worth a great deal on money then, so it was illogical to kill any of them, as they would make you money by their labor and even more if they had children. Although I'm sure that some were killed now and again, troublesome slaves were mostly just sold off. A man who let his slaves die from neglect or harsh treatment gained the reputation of being a "nigger killer", and was shamed in the eyes of his social peers. That said, slaves were killed by Alligators in the Carolinas on the rice plantations, where most of the work would be done in or near the water.
They dind't consider niggers human, do you really think they'd consider their mulatto offspring as their own children?
>Be southerner
>Die from shitting myself.
Slaves give birth to slaves
if the child is born that person is automatically free, and must be enslaved after the fact.
Underrated
Not true, in fact many slave owners would promise gifts money or even freedom to slave women who gave birth multiple times. The reasoning is so that the slave owner could sell the children and make an enormous profit. I think the most a slave women ever gave birth to children for this reason was 15 children.
The alligator bait thing didn't start until after slavery ended.
Why would a person who claims to hate and be better than blacks surround them and use them for everything?
>have them NURSE THEIRCHILDREN
>raise their kids
>wash and clean their clothes (despite perceiving them as a dirty race)
>prepare and serve food
>entertain and perform for them
For a people who claim to hate niggers they sure did hang out with them as much as possible
cognitive dissonance to the max, hell is a place for that generation
Uncle Ruckus is that you?
very underrated
Slaves couldn’t get married though
Yeah, this is what I don't get. If I thought blacks were real subhuman shit I sure as fuck wouldn't let them around me, much less let one raise my children.
I know slave traders had a bad reputation and even plantation owners disliked them as their job was capturing and selling humans, many separated families which, which would earn you a horrible reputation among the people who wanted to buy from you. That combined with the seemingly rampant sex with slaves, how racist were plantation owners and just people on average pre Civil War. I know they viewed blacks as inferior and as a way to make money. So I have two questions. What was more prevalent, the type of plantations and slave owners we see heavily featured in movies, as in the constant whipping and horrible punishment plantations. Or plantations that treated slaves as cattle and tried keeping them as healthy as possible so they could be bought and sold at better prices. Also are modern racists, like the KKK, more racist than the people of 1800s America?
maybe.
just maybe.
they didn't hate niggers. they just considered them inferior.
I mean does anyone honestly think whites and blacks actually have the same average capability for intelligence? Like really honestly believe it after thoughtfully disregarding your assumptions and just looking at the evidence earnestly for a while? Anyone who does that soon realizes the reality of the situation, even though it is very painful for most people at first, because they have been taught their whole lives something different. But anyway, just recognizing this fact of racial difference doesn't mean such person necessarily hates the other race for being inferior. If anything, I think it engenders sympathy first and foremost.
>this is what teenagers on the internet actually believe because they saw a bad guy in a movie once.
lol
Northerners sure didn't want niggers around them. It was one of they key reasons they opposed slavery's expansion, more slavery = more nigs. Some were skeptical of abolition because of the possibilty that freed slaves would move up North and nig shit up, the copperhead Democrats exploited this.
Literally the "I don't hate niggers, I think everyone should own at least one!" joke repurposed into an "argument"
Never said I liked niggers, I especially never said I support slavery cause it's the reason we have nigs.
So do you acknowledge this same "superiority" between whites and Jews in favor of the Jews, or is that a "conspiracy" by Jews who are obviously inferior to HUHWHITES, yet who at the same time control the entire world?
Jews don't control the entire world silly, just the entertainment industry and banking.
>What the fuck was wrong with the South?
Celtic genetics and culture. Caesar did nothing wrong.
amazon.com
What people forget is that the South has always been shit. If it wasn't for gibs from the North and hundreds of years of attempts at civilizing it, it'd be worse than most of Latin America. It has always been a net drain to the country (besides part of Virginia) and has usually been its own distinct entity. Pretty much every negative stereotype of the United States, from its people being fat, to being racist, to being lazy, to being stupid, comes from the South, and if you removed the South the USA would be no worse in any of these areas compared to half of the Western world.
>and if you removed the South the USA would be no worse in any of these areas compared to half of the Western world.
Utter crap as you'd still have urban niggers bringing down your averages.
>get rid of Charleston
>keep Detroit
lol new and improved!
>Utter crap as you'd still have urban niggers bringing down your averages.
The averages would still be way higher. The murder rate of the Deep South is over twice that of the rest of the country.
They tried to stop it multiple times. Some of them even wanted slavery abolished in the constitution. Southern pettiness was the sole force thing that kept that shit going.
West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri are all overwhelmingly white (85% white or more, almost none of whom are Hispanic, a far higher proportion than the national average of le 62%) and they're poor fat stupid shitholes that are below average in every way.
There is a much smaller difference between average Jewish intelligence and average European intelligence (about 5 to 10 points), than between white and black (about 20 to 30 points). The former difference is so small it can easily be explained by other factors such as cultural discipline. However Jews practice intense in-group preference for their own kind, unlike modern whites, leading to Jewish domination in certain areas such as finance and the media. It's not really a conspiracy, it's just tribal behavior vs. nontribal behavior in practice.
Not to mention that when people bring up the intelligence of Jews, they're always only referring to Ashkenazi Jews, which have a very heavy admixture of European DNA, to the point they look almost indistinguishable from Europeans. Other Jewish ethnicities do not display higher than average intelligence.
A better example for you would be East Asians, who do have a slightly higher average intelligence difference on whites (5 to 15 points).
>Ashkenazi Jews, which have a very heavy admixture of European DNA
They've done the tests, Ashkenazi Jews owe the bulk of their DNA to the Levant and cluster closely with Levantine populations as a result, while what European mixture they do have comes almost entirely from southern Italy and Sicily, regions which are slightly BELOW the rest of Europe, rather than towering above it as Jews do.
Then why are modern Levantines about 10 to 20 points below the average?
>There is a much smaller difference between average Jewish intelligence and average European intelligence (about 5 to 10 points), than between white and black (about 20 to 30 points).
Except when you account for socioeconomic factors the gap is basically identical to the one between Asians/Jews and whites.
Said gap shrinks to being on par with the Jew-White gap when socioeconomic factors are accounted for (Sub-Saharan Africa is extremely poor). The average IQ of most European countries, including the pure white ones like Poland (which is also nearly first world in living standards, rated with an IHDI roughly on par with Italy's as of 2016), is between 95 and 100 (lower in few places like Moldavia [92] and Serbia [90], but generally in that range). The IQ of American blacks is between 85 and 90 depending on the source, being higher in the Northern states and lowest in the Deep South.
anepigone.blogspot.com
This is about a 5-10 point difference on average between first world blacks and whites. In Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, the sole East Asian areas with 'first world' standards of education and living, the IQ averages 105-110 (consistent with the results for Asian-Americans). Or a 10-15 point difference compared to most of Europe.
IQ of Israel is on par with Denmark (90% native Danish descent) despite having a much larger percentage of impoverished people than most of them, and being a warzone for the most of its history.
>"dude fuck NIGGERS they are subhuman and disgusting, do not even touch them"
>"oh bingo-bongolia, i am going to rape and impregnate you, against the wishes of my white wife, because i hate niggers so much and find them so subhuman and disgusting"
did these men have no principles?
>claim to hate niggers
this is a revisionist perspective, they looked on them as simple innocent mental children who needed a firm guiding hand
well said, this guy gets it at least
>Ashkenazi Jews, which have a very heavy admixture of European DNA
It's not that heavy. They cluster more with Greeks, Turks, and other populations from the near east. Their relationship with northern Europeans is fairly distant.
Interesting how France has a higher IQ than Poland or Denmark while being about 20% Arab or black.
Population density has a lot to do with it though, only 1.8 million for west Virginia is less population than in my country.
Places with a small population that aren't retreats for wealthy people are always going to struggle and more importantly are at the whims of local events. In fact I read that in the last few years some major accidents have happened there which have severely hurt the states economic output which is hardly surprising given how few people there are there. The same is in my country when diary and other agriculture is having a hard time the nation suffers.
Maybe I am biased because I have met a fair few southerners and midwesterners who are amazing people while northerners tend to be a mixed bag. Southerners I find are really hurt by stereotypes too as their initial impression is similar to that of an american black in terms of how they talk (hardly a surprise) but their actions do not match that of a black guy, so once you get past that they are great people.
>Population density has a lot to do with it though, only 1.8 million for west Virginia is less population than in my country.
Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, Utah, and a dozen other states are all less dense than West Virginia, not to mention Missouri and Kentucky. They don't suck nearly as bad.
No they flat out hated them.
>they looked on them as simple innocent mental children who needed a firm guiding hand
despite the fact that the firm guiding hand was an anal fisting more like it.
you mean to tell me you believe slaves aren't allowed to consent.
Practically all slaves were captured and sold by other africans, as criminals and PoWs
Not that guy but I really do not think they hated them. Look down upon, yes, think they were inferior, yes, but if they hated them they would not do shit like give gifts to women or even free women who gave birth to enough new slaves, aka slave women who printed more money for the slave owner. If they really hated them they would be killing them. I think the hate came during and after the Civil War when the entire South became pretty disillusioned with everything and blamed it all on them damn Yankees and niggers. Also the whole guiding hand meme is something they did say but only to justify slavery itself.
Not in America itself, that is what I was talking about. Men buying cheap slaves in the East and taking them to the West to be sold at higher prices.
>What was more prevalent, the type of plantations and slave owners we see heavily featured in movies, as in the constant whipping and horrible punishment plantations. Or plantations that treated slaves as cattle and tried keeping them as healthy as possible so they could be bought and sold at better prices.
These aren't mutually exclusive. Slaves were treated quite terribly but didn't die at extraordinarily high rates like they did elsewhere. Which is why British North America only had 500,000 slaves shipped to it, yet today there's a large African-American population of tens of millions while pretty much none of the 4 million slaves shipped to Caribbean colonies (Bermuda, Haiti, Cayenne, etc.) survived.
slaverysite.com
I also find southern hate surprising because west Virginia is still a better place to live than the majority of the world (despite it's population rapidly declining) yet they still get hated on by the people who would find it abhorrent to hate a black or other coloured nation for more valid reasons.
They aren't perfect, but there is little they can do to improve that I can see.
Considering it's population is 1/4 of mine it's GPD is pretty good compared to mine. Sure it doesnt rank as high as other states, but New Zealand is really nice place to be, I assume West Virginia is probably on par with my country.
>a firm guiding hand
kek, more like
>I, at the moment of your birth, get to be the single deciding factor that picking cotton for my monetary benefit is the greatest thing you'll ever be capable of amounting to in life, and if you so much as question me on this I'll beat and humiliate you till you have Stockholm Syndrome
At this point I think whether the motivation was malice or supreme delusions of grandeur stops being relevant.
>Practically all slaves were captured and sold by other africans, as criminals and PoWs
Lol no. That's a total myth, Africans that were enslaved occupied at all social strata and positions (one slave rebellion leader was a rich merchant back home).
>I also find southern hate surprising because west Virginia is still a better place to live than the majority of the world
No it isn't. You literally have to compare it to the lower tier mid income nations for it to confidentially beat it. WV if isoalted would be way more fucked then if say Texas, Florida or California left the union.
I would rather be a slave to america than live in a shitty African country as a slave to some African. Sounds like trading up to me and time proves it. African Americans are a parasite to their host nations and live great lives compared to their African homelands and some Africans in America have been able to do things with themselves.
Overall it was for the best really.
kek
Thats not a good metric though, because in any coalition/nation there will be the ones near the bottom. Anybody who has been to kindergarten or school or worked will know this. But even though WV doesnt generate the wealth of their peers it's still better than having, say, Burma as a state.
>would you rather have a log of shit or diarrhea stew for lunch?
>would you rather get fat while being slave or get killed and replaced with new slaves?
Considering they'd rather use dollar a day Irish labourers for dangerous jobs, it's probably bullshit
>Were slave children actually used regularly as alligator bait
Yes. Only in Florida though.
>eat diarrhea since the birth of humankind
>finally get to eat log of shit
>amazing
>over a century later eat KFC and grapesoda
>worth it
West Virginia sucks dude. It leads the nation in obesity (38%), drug overdose deaths (41.5 cases per 100,000 residents), extreme poverty (18%) and unemployment (only beaten by DC and Alaska), all while having the country's lowest life expectancy (75.1 years, nearly four years below the national average and about on par with Albania or Panama).
>the slaves were all just lazy niggers!!!!1!
>wanting to eat shit at all
>But even though WV doesnt generate the wealth of their peers it's still better than having, say, Burma as a state.
Not saying much, as Burma is one of the worst places in the world. And they're only this 'good' because of federal gibs. Most of the South is nonviable without donations from the northeast and the west.
Sure bit even California has I think 25% obesity and that one is only 4th or 5th best from memory. Considering West Virginias rapidly aging population it's not a huge increase as the general trend is people fattening with age.
Again, in context of America it sucks, but for the rest of the world it aint that bad at all.
This isn't an argument, how many whites had to eat progressively better shit in it's history before living nice?
Compared to the African american getting it handed to him in just a few generations.
>one slave rebellion leader was a rich merchant back home
>not a total myth
you are bugging
>Again, in context of America it sucks, but for the rest of the world it aint that bad at all.
Again, because of federal gibs. Also Mexico is better than most of the rest of the world and so is Poland, doesn't stop people from shitting on those places. It's just a thing we do here.
>doesn't stop people from shitting on those places
Why not shit on blacks too? I never understood this about Americans.
I wonder how many West Virginians leave the state and do great things in places like california (given their small population) but because the leave the state credit goes to the state they went to for opportunity?
It's kind of like many small asian countries where their doctors and other educated peoples all leave to other countries leaving the countries they left worse off.
>Why not shit on blacks too?
Have you seen this board?
Did they really do that? Monstrous. I know Jefferson sent his slave babies away and sent them money, acts responsible
>whataboutism that isn't even accurate
wew lad
>I would rather be a slave to america than live in a shitty African country as a slave to some African.
Why? African slaves had far more freedom at home than in America. You also didn't have to get crammed into one of these and risk an early and horrific death before you even got there. You wouldn't have your culture forcibly stripped from you by your owner, you'd probably have a less likely chance of getting beat for minor shit like reading, and there'd be a much higher chance of being able to stay with my family and my kids potentially gaining their freedom at some point than on some plantation in Carolina.
> Sounds like trading up to me and time proves it
Let me ask you something. If you were approached by some Chinese billionaire and they told you that they would make sure that your great great grandchild would have an incredibly charmed life with great education, health, and career opportunities, in exchange for you and all your descendants up to your great great grandchild being literal sub-human slaves and having their American identities destroyed in exchange for Chinese identities, would you do it? Would you subject yourself to that along with forcing your next 3 generations into the same life against any say that they might have had in the deal? Because a southern slave from 1800 was given anywhere near as good a deal, and didn't get a choice in the matter.
Jefferson was so wishy washy on the topic about slavery that eon could argue that made him worse.
>In 1819, he strongly opposed a Missouri statehood application amendment that banned domestic slave importation and freed slaves at the age of 25 on grounds it would destroy the union.
>African slaves had far more freedom at home than in America
I'm not really sure if you're totally grasping this "slavery" concept. It also seems to me as if you want to limit my freedom to sell myself into slavery.
It's not as if black freemen didn't exist in basically all the states you know, there's at least one famous court case concerning a black slaveowner.
>Child clearly looks like me
Yeah, sure...
Take reddit for example(refugee-sorry) , they will shit on the south a lot while hating racists.
Personally I think south is a little hard done by since the New South has been undone by the loss of manufacture.
Many of the greatest Americans came from the south and Virginia and other southern states seem to have made the most presidents and so on.
For all the hate they get they have achieved a huge amount in their time and have a huge amount to be proud of. The same can not be said for many other people in the world.
>Take reddit for example(refugee-sorry) , they will shit on the south a lot while hating racists.
I don't know what Reddit does, but I assume that they offhandedly refer to places like Mexico as shitholes, yes? This is basically the same thing. Hating the South isn't racism (unless you specifically hate Scots-Irish people or something), nor is noting that it's a backwards place.
>and other southern states seem to have made the most presidents and so on.
This is specifically because they always threatened to break the country if they weren't given overrepresentation in every elected body, not because of any virtues on their part.
> For all the hate they get they have achieved a huge amount in their time
They are and always have been the worst part of the country that props them up. This rubs people the wrong way given their tremendous arrogance about muh southern pride.
White southerners literally had worms from the slaves, immune to the negative effects, brought over.
The caricature of the lazy southerner is a mix of Scottish/highland culture and the negative effects of parasitical worms. This also meant that slaves were, effectively, more productive than the host population in regards to working the fields.
I guess the South has just had a fall from grace since the first world war, I wonder if southerners hated on northerners like this back in the early 1800s before the Norths economic expansion.
It sounds more like he had different priorities when it came to the nation versus when it came to his personal life. Jefferson certainly had pretty flimsy morals when it came to the matter of slavery, but I don't think that's a good example of it because he likely saw opposing Missouri's statehood in this case as a lesser evil in the long run. Jefferson with slavery was like the modern equivalent of a person who still eats meat even though they know about the factory farming process and feel guilty about it. He thought it was an ultimately toxic system for both master and slave, but he supported a more gradual transition out of the roles as opposed to just outright abolishment. Now is that a rather questionable and idealized view? Yes. But I think it's hard to say that he let that come into his political life all that much.
The South never had grace to fall from.
Well by then, eradication campaigns removed the major advantage blacks had over whites. Whites, free of worms, could now achieve the same productivity as blacks.
Well I should specify "rural southern whites"
>I'm not really sure if you're totally grasping this "slavery" concept
I don't think you grasp how varied slavery has actually been in practice. Not all slavery in history was the kind of chattel slavery you saw in the American south. It varied, and slaves in Africa were more often afforded far more choices in life than an American slave. Now it wasn't all the same across every part of Africa, but one's chances of having a less restricted life as a slave were far higher in Africa than in America at the time.
>It also seems to me as if you want to limit my freedom to sell myself into slavery.
How? I said you had a choice in this hypothetical scenario i.e. you still have more freedom in this scenario than any African picked up in the trans-Atlantic trade would have had. You have absolutely no guarantee in this scenario that you or any of your descendants will ever gain your freedom in the process. You might be able to. Chances are though you probably won't. This was the case for the 19th century slave after all.
>It's not as if black freemen didn't exist in basically all the states you know
They did, but they were most often either runaways or people that were let go by the whims of their owners. In other societies there were sometimes even hard rules for how long one could even be a slave in life. Becoming a free man in the American South happened a lot less than it did in West Africa, one because of the stigma of inherent inferiority that surrounded a slave in the American environment, and two because a slave owner in the South was far more dependent on slave labor for their business than an African slave owner would have, because African slaves more often filled service roles. An African slave owner losing a slave was like you losing a butler. A Southern slave owner losing a slave was like you losing livestock.
>>Using Richard Lynn and Audacious Epigone, white supremacists, as objective sources.
Is this a bad case of the noble savage?
>noone stopped me from murdering children, so you can't blame me
>having sex with something you consider to be an animal
>breaking your marriage vows and damaging your property
>being a slave in one country is a kindness compared to being in a other country
Or you could, you know, let them choose their employer and not have torture, or having their family stolen from them as punishment
>would rather just flood country with foreigners than just fucking do the work themselves
Southerners are the ultimate dindu nuffins.
>be Southerner
>import hundreds of thousands of foreign Africans
>have sex with your slaves so much that currently most blacks are 30% white
Makes me think.
>Were slave children actually used regularly as alligator bait
If you believe this bullshit you should stop watching Disney movies, it could makes you cry. Alligators were just distant wildlife back then, they weren't hunted for any purpose and were avoided at any means. Unless you were the local Jeffrey Dahmer there was absolutely no reason to feed alligators with babies, moron.
If there weren't people buying slaves for the Americas, then there wouldve been alot less slavery happening in Africa since there'd be less demand you idiot. This shit is basic economics.
Also, whyhy the fuck is there such an overlap in slave-owner and slavery apologists, and libertatians?
>ye olde American south imports foreigners of a different language, culture, religion, physical features, without skilled professions to have them do unskilled manuel labour
>modern american south and alt-righties warn against the same thing being done but with willing participants, while also siding with the actions of the slave-owners, and while claiming to be men who value individualism, free-speech, and free-market capitalism
Really joggins my noggins
Why would you import blacks to just chose their employer? They can barely do that today, imagine it would have been 10 times worse back then.
Many slaves were skilled and many slave owners did infact train their slaves to suit their labour needs. Post and Pre emancipation many skilled free blacks could not work due to white worker barring them out from those jobs.
>black iq 84
>southern iq 99
>FUCKING HICKS
I'm ashamed to be from the North desu
The average northerner is probably the most servile, incompetent, jelly spined ankle grabber in all of America