The slave trade

How and why did the concept of it and resulting narrative get so warped?

How did it go from african warlords selling thier PoWs and "criminals" to colonials in desperate need of labor(the reality); to "whites enslaved blacks?"

Who would have thought the narrative would be intentionally warped to imply black weakness and lack of agency?

It's crazy because the colonials presented themselves as humanitarians in africa, saving people that would have otherwise been killed or at the very least subjected to the brutalities of african poverty.

Attached: 1520834626309.jpg (640x644, 134K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#African_slavery
journals.openedition.org/cea/1214
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_(1977_miniseries)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>the colonials presented themselves as humanitarians in africa
>this delusion

They were doing them a favor, and they weren't exactly wrong?

>It's crazy because the colonials presented themselves as humanitarians in africa, saving people that would have otherwise been killed or at the very least subjected to the brutalities of african poverty.

That didn't happen until the Berlin Conference and the Scramble for Africa. The Atlantic Trade itself was almost purely about fulfilling labour needs on as low a budget as possible and justifiying it with a developing racial hierarchy. Even with colonialism proper, the humanitarian pretext was flimsy from the start (though flimsier in some places than others).

American chattel slavery was far more brutal than basically any other form of slavery at the time.

Regardless of how it started, the entire Atlantic Trade built an entire racial hierarchy in the nations it supplied. Also, if it were actual humanitarian work, then they would have ended slavery and freed the slaves. Buying slaves for the purpose of using them as slaves and then claiming you're saving their lives is the poorest justification I've ever heard in my life. Additionally, the sheer demand for slaves from the Atlantic slave trade only ramped up the slaving in Africa. Slave merchants and slave owners outside of Africa have just as much blame for enabling slavery as the African warlords who captured slaves in the first place.

There is zero evidence that is true. The man who set the precedent for lifetime slavery in America was a slave owner in America of african descent. It's almost as if there are alot of whites who secretly harbor a white on black brutalization fantasy, it's odd and unsettling.

Buying slaves and using them as slaves under the pretense that they would have been killed is not humanitarian work. Ending slavery and freeing slaves is.

While American slavery could be brutal, I'd still give the cake to Haiti. Holy fuck, some of the stories out of there are brutal. I can't fully blame the Haitian slaves for the zealous revenge they inflicted in the uprising.

They paid money for them. And they(the slaves) weren't exactly upstanding people. They were essentially exiled from Africa for "reasons". At first it started as indentured servitude, until an African slave owner in America was basically like "nahh, you ain't got to be nice to these motherfuckers."

If I paid money for someone I'd be damned if I didn't get my money's worth, plus setting him free near me could be dangerous, you don't know what he was like in africa.

>It's crazy because the colonials presented themselves as humanitarians in africa, saving people that would have otherwise been killed or at the very least subjected to the brutalities of african poverty.
This was after the end of the trans-atlantic slave trade, and while they used abolitionism as a justification for their expansion into Africa the colonial powers ended up maintaining slavery and using systems of forced labour because it was convenient and avoided conflicts with local elites. The colonial powers became more serious about getting rid of slavery in the interwar period, but systems like the French using military conscription as a way of acquiring forced labour for private enterprise persisted. Leopold's Congo and German West Africa were some of the worst examples of European humanitarianism.

Attached: 1518339011532.jpg (1200x1750, 286K)

>slavery was just african slavery
Fuck's sake. This makes me believe Veeky Forums is dumber than /pol/ who at least have the excuse of trolling people about niggers

If I go to Africa today, and I purchase a condemned political prisoner, or any prisoner for that matter, basically guaranteeing that not only he will get to live, but in America no less. I am doing him huge a favor, even if I make him work for me. This should be obvious.

I think he was referring to the Atlantic slave trade.

>zero evidence

Yeha minus the thousands of first hand accounts of the brutality of slavery.

>They paid money for them

The US law renders many contracts unenforceable if they resemble slavery or are entirely perpetual/require you to incriminate yourself.

This argument is dumb.

>They were essentially exiled from Africa for "reasons".

They were innocent people who were captured by other tribes.

>At first it started as indentured servitude, until an African slave owner in America was basically like "nahh, you ain't got to be nice to these motherfuckers."

American slave owners can't think for themselves? Seems like you're really discounting their agency when it comes to being ethical..

>If I paid money for someone I'd be damned if I didn't get my money's worth

Which is what happened. However, nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to own slaves - in fact they even went to war when their peculiar institution was threatened.

If I go to Africa today, and I purchase a condemned political prisoner, or any prisoner for that matter, basically guaranteeing that not only he will get to live, but in America no less. I am doing him huge a favor, even if I make him work for me. This should be obvious.

Chattel slavery in the US was far worse than being imprisoned. You were whipped, worked to death and if you were a woman then you were often raped.

Lmao where did you get this education?

Poor people complain, it's just what they do, it's all relative. Go to any prison in the US, and most prisoners will describe it as if they are in a gulag.

Except the fact that I'm forcing him to work for me would likely resemble slavery to the extent that the government would (rightfully so) force me to free him and likely imprison me.

American chattel slavery was unprecedented in terms of cruelty throughout history. Even in Roman times and even further into the Bronze Age slaves were treated more humanely than Africans in the US.

The Latin colonies and the USA used similar systems of working people to death, whether you're picking cotton, refining sugar cane or mining bat guano for fertiliser you're still being worked to death in the hot sun and assaulted if you don't obey your master.

How do you know they were innocent? We're you there?

And people wonder where the "dindu nuffin" mindset comes from. It is enabled by those who secretly despise black agency.

kek

Attached: slavery.jpg (295x340, 37K)

>whipped

In africa you'd be lucky if you get to keep your hand.

>How do you know they were innocent? We're you there?

How do you know anything outside of what you perceive with your bodily senses? Don't be a retard.

>According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[21] Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[22] A reminder of this practice is documented in the Slave Trade Debates of England in the early 19th century: "All the old writers... concur in stating not only that wars are entered into for the sole purpose of making slaves, but that they are fomented by Europeans, with a view to that object."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#African_slavery

>And people wonder where the "dindu nuffin" mindset comes from.

Yeah, we already knew you were from /pol/

> It is enabled by those who secretly despise black agency.

Maybe if you were making a commentary on African Americans in the modern era, however shitting on people who were enslaved just comes off as retarded.

So you're saying we shouldn't help Africans? It's like giving them a loan, and their service to you is simply the payback.

>if someone else does something bad then we can do bad things too

Do you often engage in such fallacious reasoning? This is the hallmark of an idiot.

But also, Africans often had their limbs cut off by the Belgian colonialists in the Congo.

Why do you hate black people?

>So you're saying we shouldn't help Africans? It's like giving them a loan, and their service to you is simply the payback.

Except...

- They didn't have a choice

- They traded their entire life and any children they might have

- The conditions weren't improved and it wasn't worth the trade.

- In the trans-atlantic journey many of them died, they were kept for months in enclosed cages where they had to piss and shit on the slave below them.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 136K)

This is low effort bait. You'll never get anywhere on this board with such low effort posting.

/pol/tards literally can not help but infect everything they talk about without their edgy maymays

Attached: you-sure-are-fuckin-stupid-read-a-book-nigger-4499904.png (500x446, 91K)

Freeing people from slavery isn't something that should come with the expectation of repayment. Most of these people have absolutely nothing and would realistically have no way of paying you. There are hundreds of humanitarian organizations who actively free people from slavery every day without any expectation of compensation from their victims. They're happy if they can help but they would never expect it from them.

Why are you framing this as helping people? The perpetuation of slavery is never humanitarian. Slavery is responsible for some of the greatest suffering mankind has ever witness. This isn't even a race thing.

He's not smart enough to rustle any jimmies. He would have to learn about history and then we have to deal with his lack of wit.

Maybe OP would have success trolling some SJW's on twitter or tumblr?

>didn't have a choice

You know..... having choices is not as common as you may think even today. Stop projecting your privileged life onto everybody else.

The people enslaving the slaves had a choice to not buy the slaves, the slave could not consent to his purchase.

I guess you always have a choice.

>go to work
>starve

Technically it is a choice.

The slaves choices would have been
>fight my captors and be killed
or
>Let's see where this goes

The enslavers don't buy the slaves. The purchasers do.

Do you know how merchant type businesses work? You buy something and then sell it for a markup, the higher the profit margin the better.

Do you think that Target, Walmart etc make every single product that they sell? They buy it from the factory that makes it or from a supplier that bought from that factory and then they sell it to you for an increased price.

Attached: 163xpj.jpg (500x551, 65K)

>being this out of touch with reality.

If I was locked up indefinitely, possibly on death row, imagine it being a guessing game, and somebody came by and paid my bail with the stipulation that I work for them. I would consider myself rescued.

Even if they are mean to me, it would be a small price to pay, I would never forget the predicament I came from.

Yes but to enslave is a verb, that is different than to sell, which is also a verb.

You are basically conflating the manufacturer(enslaver) with the retailer(slave trader).

What proof do you have that they were on death row. If the Americas stopped patronising the African Slave trade then the scale would severely decrease.

It takes two to tango and those funding the slave trade were those that purchased the slaves.

If you buy a slave you're still enslaving them.

>European slaveowners didn't have a choice whether or not to buy and own people, something they were advanced enough to know was wrong

If they wanted to remain economically competitive they literally had zero choice. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

When did buy and enslave become synonyms?

It would be like me buying a beer and saying I brewed this beer.

You just don't want to live a world where whites weren't kicking black ass 24/7, I get it.

>You just don't want to live a world where whites weren't kicking black ass 24/7, I get it.

Ah, so it really was about race for you all along, wasn't it?

Also, not the guy you responded to but I'd rather live in a world were people don't enslave each other.

Except when you buy a slave, you own that slave thus enslaving them.

He's already enslaved when you buy him. Unless you were the one to defeat him in battle and get him in shackles, you didn't enslave him.

You're enslaving him again by buying him.

>humanitarians in africa
Wow and you're accusing other people of having a warped narrative? You're clearly delusional yourself

No, your just not freeing him.

Just stating facts

Lol are you trying to say that those who bought the slaves are somehow ethically different from those that enslaved them?

What's the difference between getting enslaved and getting arrested?

There's differences to enslave another human being takes skill, courage, and cunning. Superiority. To buy someone who is already detained just takes money.

He did say they PRESENTED themselves as humanitarians, so he's not entirely wrong though perhaps not in the way he intended.

He clearly takes those claims at face value himself

And your point is?

Exactly

buy and enslave have nowhere near the same meaning. Implying "whites enslaved blacks" is essentially implying white supremacy, but in a way that is wrapped in PC concern trolling. It's underhandedness makes it far uglier than outright /pol/tier racism.

>It's crazy because the colonials presented themselves as humanitarians in africa

>Slavery
>Humanitarian.

I guess human trafickers are great humanitarians then.

They give people an opportunity at a better life. If you're against human traffickers then you must support trump and his wall designed to stop them.

I think it's a pretty retarded distinction considering that the Americas + Europe bankrolled all the wars from the profitable slave trade.

Kek

>He thinks the wall will get built or would even stop people willing to build submarines to sell cocaine.

Not even close.

Bump

This. American slavery could be bad but Haitian slavery was notoriously terrible due to how cheap slaves were on the island compared to the wealth sugar brought in.

They had codenames for the different ways slaves were punished and killed.

>Even in Roman times and even further into the Bronze Age slaves were treated more humanely than Africans in the US.
>Literally forced to fight to the death and fed to wild animals
>treated better than some losers that had to pick cotton
Fuck off.

>What proof do you have that they were on death row
The fact that would be sacrificed by the tribes that captured them.

>whites enslaved blacks
>literally transported people to the colonies
>didn't pay them
>whipped them if they didn't work
>frequently raped them
>DIDN'T ENSLAVE

Attached: IMG_5915.jpg (645x773, 65K)

Yay I wanted to make another ‘why Rome fell meme’
Nah he is /pol/

To enslave means to make a slave. They were already slaves when whites bought them. It is essentially whites taking credit for something Africans did. It's a crypto white dominance fantasy, and the dishonesty of it all is indicative of an underlying complex on behalf of whites.

>whites enslaved blacks
they didn't do that first part
>literally transported people to the colonies
free airmiles, not worth complaining about
>didn't pay them
they gave them bed and board
>whipped them if they didn't work
nothing quite like the sting of the lash to pep you up, that is why your office has free coffee, the whippings were free too
>frequently raped them
what, is this that weinstein thing again, just because there is a "power imbalance" doesn't mean it is not consensual

>To enslave means to make a slave
Every second you don't free them you make them a slave.

Uncle Ruckus pls go

No, you're just not freeing them. In order to enslave somebody who must defeat them in one way or another, and physically put them in bondage. That's completely different than buying someone who has already been enslaved, the hard work has already been done, it's giving credit for an African accomplishment to whites, and it is odd.

It comes back to the veiled yet wildly racist notion of "deny black agency" which by extension is "deny black masculinity" even if it means rewriting history, that lefties love so much.

Portuguese Africa was one of the worst ever. Legit slavery in everything but name and the Portuguese palpitation owners literally screamed "you are my slaves!" to the forced labourers.

>journals.openedition.org/cea/1214

Accounts from the people themselves.

France literally killed people through work on it's Congo railway top the point natives fought a brutal rebellion against them because the death toll was that high.

Also in Equatorial Guinea, Ngeuma's (yes that Ngeuma aka the Santa Claus massacre guy) father who was a chief was punched to death by a Spanish colonial administrator.

only 1.5% of americans owned slaves

Yet in society everyone would want one because owning a slaves is a marker of some form of financial success. Also people lent out slaves to family and friends.

Stop this concern trolling. If ownership of a fucking slave has been transferred you are still enslaving them. enslaving refers to the status between the owner and the slave itself.

not everyone in America was financially successful enough to own a slave.

a few rich people and some farms in the south.

He fell to the "the bible has absolutely nothing against slavery meme"
The bible only directly condemn those who enslave.

If they were financially successful they'd get slaves based on it. One to 100 or anything inbetween.

Regardless if jews were the majority of slave owners, the slave trade would not exist without the funds of europeans so its is still the fault of europeans AND jews but jews are more at fault since they are the ones who proposed the system and worked to ensure it stayed running.

It all has to do with how the slaves were treated here. If they bought them and used them like indentured servants, where an ending was clear, US history would be completely different. The reality is people of that time thought colored people were inferior and treated them as such, eventually changing from "we need cheap labor" to "niggers have no god given rights".

Africans were selling thier captives since way before europeans ever became a client and still do it to this day. Europeans were simply another client in the market. African kings didn't realize that it would eventually be equated to a racial thing by other races via black=slave, they were completely blind to the mindset of other races and the complexes at work

The Africans brought to America didn't really have any rights, because they were lucky to be alive. The colonials who bought them literally saved thier lives, and now thier descendants are overall the most well off black people on the planet. It's almost as if white people want to feel guilty about something the vast majority had nothing to do with, and frankly wasn't even a bad thing. How did we get to this point?

Are you clinically retarded?

It would be akin to a black person looking at black on white crime and white flight and being like, why are we killing white people and running them out of cities.

That misinterpretation would be absolutely ridiculous and clearly fueled by some underlying black dominance narrative.

Whites have a more collective mindset, a hivemind and project that. Imagine if blacks all over the world framed the SA situation as why are WE genociding whites? It would be a ridiculous oversimplification, but black people don't do that simply because they are not nearly as collectivist so don't project such foolishness

Attached: 1513996850567m.jpg (311x1024, 77K)

It's true user

>The Africans brought to America didn't really have any rights, because they were lucky to be alive.

No the clear majority of the slaves were captured because the Europeans kept buying slaves which meant it was extremely lucrative for the slave selling states.

The majority of slaves bought actually died, many died on the trans-atlantic journey, many died on plantations and

>now thier descendants are overall the most well off black people on the planet

I think if they had a choice of dealing with chattel slavery or 500 years in the future their offspring being marginally better off they would choose not to have their life thrown away.

>t's almost as if white people want to feel guilty about something the vast majority had nothing to do with, and frankly wasn't even a bad thing.

I'm from Australia so I have nothing to do with the trans-atlantic slave trade. Lying about it won't change history and it will only make racial tensions in the US worse.

It's almost as if some white people want to pretend that very well documented history never happened and that what happened wasn't even bad. How did we get to this point?

That statistic includes states where slavery was illegal and is obviously misleading.


>Using Census data to research his book, Glatthaar calculated that 4.9 percent of people in the slaveholding states owned slaves, that 19.9 percent of family units in those states owned slaves, and that 24.9 percent of households owned slaves. (Households are a broader category than families.)

Go be stupid somewhere else.

Trying 2 hard

ohhhhh I'm from a secular country so I had no idea where he was going with that tangent

>implying most gladiators actually fought to the death
>implying that there are any actual records of gladiators being fed alive to animals

>How did it go from african warlords selling thier PoWs and "criminals" to colonials in desperate need of labor(the reality); to "whites enslaved blacks?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_(1977_miniseries)

>It's crazy because the colonials presented themselves as humanitarians in africa,
That didn't come until later.

I dunno what that poster was saying fuck off to.

Considering that in biblical times the slaves had clearly defined rights and often had ways to eventually get out of being enslaved. Whereas in the USA the slaves were seen as property and the slaves were often forced to breed so that the plantation owners wouldn't have to buy more.

Slaves in Haiti had a life span of 18 years, you are an absolute moron if you think American slavery was worse.

Haiti being the sole exception, I think that the main point is that Chattel slavery in the America(s) was historically worse than any other point in history.