Food myths

>owners largely treated them well
>le revisionist benevolent slave owner
>they didn't hurt nobody

Yeah, no. Fuck off Simon Legree.

>thats pretty doubtful,

You're not using your head, user. It's far more cost effective to have your labor force provide their own food with their own labor. All it takes is an initial investment in breeding livestock, and then you let your labor do the rest. In time, you'll no longer have to provide for their food welfare, AND, you can recoup your initial costs when the labor finally develop a surplus that you can sell.

You'd make a terrible slave owner.

Well yeah but they are working the field all day so they must be producing their own food already anyways

Isn't it still that way today? Not everyone thinks that abuse and fear is the best way of control
Remember black people owned slaves, black people fought for the south

>Yeah, no. Fuck off Simon Legree.

Yes, they did.

Slaves were expensive as hell, and like horses, mules, and any other beast of burden, you want to maintain them well in order to get a return on investment.

The only slaves that were treated like shit were the ones that rebelled and caused problems.

The lack of punctuation and sentence structure suggests that you haven't even hit Middle school. It's no wonder you don't really understand slavery.

First, growing season didn't last all year, and didn't require the field hands to be in the fields all day, every day, throughout the entire season. Once the seed is planted, then all you can do is weed, and wait, which doesn't take all day. The next big labor intensive event doesn't come until harvest.

Second, you're assuming the slave / slaves responsible for animal husbandry were also field hands, but this is not necessarily the case. While smaller farms surely used their slaves in a variety of roles, most owners would try to develop slaves with special skills, like animal husbandry, cooks, carpenters, blacksmiths, and such, as it made them more valuable, and provided the owner with a more skilled labor force.

slaves were just another form of livestock and farmers always have a vested interest in keeping their livestock fed and healthy

ok, we have the first angry cuck of the night, you know there are better ways of communicating than ansulting someone over a lack of punctuation. Very mature of you
Practice with me i (meaning you) am very insecure and angry right now

>you're assuming the slave / slaves responsible for animal husbandry were also field hands
im not but certainly there are more farm hands and well they wouldnt be slaves if someone didnt make them work for no pay so he could sell the surplus of their labor
what im saying is there sure was plenty for all slaves, how does it make sense for a slave to take care of (his) land anyways? if a slave has free time for that he has time to work more

Honestly. You're right. I'm not even going to pretend. My post added nothing to the conversation. I posted that in an irritated mindset.

continuing
some crops do in fact grow all year, there is also the concept of rotating crops aswell plus slaves arent hobbits, they cant exactly grow out of season either

>Once the seed is planted, then all you can do is weed, and wait, which doesn't take all day

Has no conception of the effort required to produce a crop of cotton, sugar cane or tobacco on thousands of acres on a plantation in the 1800's. Field slaves were fed the minimum caloric intake in the cheapest form to keep them capable of working 12-16 hours/day.

>how does it make sense for a slave to take care of (his) land anyways?

It's not "his" land, it's the owners land. The slave simply gets a percentage of the final yields.

You have no conception of reality, hence, you're not even worth arguing or interacting with any further.

Believe what you want to believe, idiot.

thats the point of the brackets, its his land in the sense of he takes care of it and decides what to grow there and all he grows there is for himself and other slaves
>The slave simply gets a percentage of the final yields
so now is like a king and a pleb type relationship in wich the slave manages the land and gives 10% to the king and 1% to the church?
slaves were property like a horse or a chicken is, if a slave wasnt busy doing something he either escaped the plantation or was in for a whipping

>slaves were pretty cheap

Want to know how I know you're stupid?

not to mention thats just picking the stuff off the ground, some procedures like actually making sugar out of cane was so labour intensive and dangerous you would rather just go to hell

>so now is like a king and a pleb type relationship

Pretty much.

You are correct in that there was a stratification between "house" and "field" slaves. The house slaves were generally quadroons or octaroons, the byproduct of the master's raping some wench on a whim, who could sometimes pass for white and generally lived a pretty pampered existence. That kind of racism among blacks still exists by the way, in that lighter skinned blacks look down on darker. But the field slaves were treated no better than hogs slopped at the trough and oxen yoked and worked to death.

well you are wrong, i dont know what else to add

>the field slaves were treated no better than hogs slopped at the trough and oxen yoked and worked to death.

That's just a myth perpetuated by blacks, liberals, and leftists to use as ammo to demonize whites.

Sure there were shitty owners, just as there are shitty parents, shitty ranchers, and shitty pet owners. That doesn't make them the norm, though.

Slavery was a financial institution designed to save labor costs, and slaves were expensive as fuck to replace, especially those with skills. Owners understood this and ensured they were treated well enough to get a return on their investments, and to cover the costs of maintenance per each slave. Underfed and overworked field slaves break down and can't recoup their investment costs, let alone any profits.

You people need to do some actual research on slavery and quit buying into the bullshit you've been sold by SJW morons over the years.

>That's just a myth perpetuated by blacks
you do know about corporal punishment and inhumane working conditions right?

Problem with this whole debate here is that slaves aren't all treated equally. You have slaves working on larger plantations, slaves working on smaller farms, miner slaves, servants, entertainers, crafters etc. They all had a different master/slave relationship depending on the position. A slave working on a small farm propably had a better life than a slave working on a plantage as the slave working on a small farm is less replaceable due to a lack of money and has a better relationship to the master as he likely owns less slaves. Making a general statement about all slaves and thier situation is really hard as the only thing they really have in common is the fact that they aren't free

>Problem with this whole debate here is that slaves aren't all treated equally
right, to properly understand what slavery was we have to see slavery at it worse because its not about how some slaves had it better, thats not questioned here, some slaves were kept for company.
Its about what slavery truly was, its about what masters could legally do to slaves without repercusions, thats how you properly understand history

>owners largely treated them well....as long as they did their jobs.

It's the same thing as how we treat modern prisoners. We give them stuff that people say they don't deserve (like TV and exercise equipment) because you have to provide a sensible level of comfort if you have any hopes of them not rising up and killing you (or themselves) at the first inkling of a chance. All the motivation a slave would need is to consider the risk of their death being worth the chance to kill the slavemaster. Same for modern prisoners.

Texts reflect that historically, in every nation across the world, slaves have been treated well. The reason you don't hear about it is a lot like how snakes are always shown zipping around, hissing, and striking on TV. In reality, they spend 97% of their day not moving to the point that you are unsure if they're alive or not. And pretty much every snake that isn't venemous (ie: 99% of them) will run away first chance they get unless they are cornered (they don't attack unless given no choice)

But that doesn't make a good story.

Same thing with slavery. The dramatic idea of the evil demon slavemaster beating and raping his slaves every chance he gets is more captivating, so that story gets told instead of the truth. It's not about racism. It's simply historical accuracy.

Slaves were about $36,000 each (adjusted) on US soil.

>punishment falls out of the sky for no fucking reason
DIN
DU

NUUFFFFIIIINNN

nobody is legally allowed to punish smeone physically in todays world, we dont even allow it at war

>The biggest myth of all, when it comes to slavery, is the myth that they were all treated like shit and starved, when the reality of the matter is that owners largely treated them well....as long as they did their jobs.

Sounds great unless you want to be anything more than a human of burden.

its great for all those slaves that got raped

If you don't find the notion of slavery abhorrent in and of itself, I don't think you really appreciate what it means to be free. And you ought to, because it's a significant thing.

>why feed chicken to a slave when you can feed him grains and guts, slaves were pretty cheap so it's not like you had to worry too much about feeding them
Brown meat chicken has always been classed as an interior cut but I can clearly tell you've never had a real working animal

You can't even make a point without arguing against it.

It's a myth that field slaves were treated no better than hogs even you just admitted there were shitty owners but it wasn't the norm? Dosen't sound like a myth to me, especially in an unregulated practice that made it literally okay to treat human beings like animals? You didn't have those "troublesome regulations" then. No social services, peta, even local news. No one checked up on you to see if you were treating your slaves well enough beyond getting a "return on your investments". Maybe you got lucky, most really weren't. Especially slaves who aspired to be free.

If you really want to "undemonize" white people you would do some actual research yourself and remind those blacks,liberals, and leftists that many white people risked their lives to free slaves and their families as well.

>cuck of the night, you know there are better ways of communicating than ansulting someone over a lack of punctuation.
Call hiroshimoot is leak

It wouldn't be rape if they found it great.

> That kind of racism among blacks still exists by the way, in that lighter skinned blacks look down on darker

I can tell you learned all this in class taught by other clueless retards and not actual experience with other races because you talk like racism is something that whites made up towards blacks and that it can go away, and not what it actually is which is human instinct and not even inherently bad.
It's usually the lighter skinned ones that get the shaft (from other blacks) because they're less numerous, they also tend to be slightly more intelligent and less niggy in behavior so I'd say those who would look down on them would be completely understandable.

I agree.

>If you don't find the notion of slavery abhorrent

Never said that.

Regardless, you seem to be unable to separate emotion from the issue, so there's no point in discussing it any further with you.

>Dosen't sound like a myth to me

That's because you're an unreasonable dolt, intent on pushing an agenda.

We're done.

if it was allowed it means it was the norm, it doesnt matter if it happenned most of the time (and it was allowed for a reason dipshit)
You seem unable to distinguish between the concept of slavery and the practice of slavery, you dont understand that pointing a gun and threatening someone is bad on its own even if you didnt shoot him, do you perhaps suffer from autism?

Disregarding the fact slaves were fed a barely subsistence diet, the owners could rip families apart by selling the buck or wench or offspring if it was an economic advantage. The fact that in 2017 someone can attempt to justify slavery as a benevolent institution is absurd. You're argument rests on the premise that some humans are not human, but beasts of burden, and modern genetics proves that's not the case.

The alt-right really shows their true colors with this bullshit.

most of the alt right detests slavery actually, they seem to think wagecucking is the thing to be. in all seriousness slavery was awful and anyone who thinks otherwise probably didn't know why it was economical in the americas in the first place and would do well to learn about bahamas and sugar

>oil was expensive
Depends on the oil. Lard was dirt-cheap and readily available, and cooking oil was as much a necessity as salt.
>slaves got the thighs
Plain and simple, yes they did.
>why feed a slave chicken when you can feed him grain and guts
They fed them that too. Only since this is the south we're talking about, they got corn like everyone else. chitlins were a big staple. Chicken was cheap, but a bit of a "special occasion" sort of thing.
>Slaves were pretty cheap
Big ol' fat load of shit. People are about the most expensive livestock you can own. Their cost at the market was high, their housing is more expensive, so on.

To be the cook for the slaves was a huge responsibility. You would be provided the bare essentials and not much else. And yes, the bare essentials of the time included salt, oil, a few basic spices, and actual meat.

IN SUMMARY
>why weren't they fed just water and gruel
Because even the owners thought they were people. Hell, the common term an owner used to refer to their slaves was "my people."

I refuse to believe there is any reason to seed a cucumber

>The alt-right really shows their true colors with this bullshit.
im alt right and i have been arguing against this moron all night
i guess you cant expect a liberal to actually know what he violently protests

i know how awful slavery is because it destroyed rome the same way chinese slaves are destroying the west right now

>people who dont peel a cucumber and eat the bitter skin

>they were treated like beasts of burden
>they were treated well

I think what you call "being treated well" might have made sense in the context of slavery, but by any reasonable standards they were treated like shit, period.

>cant expect a liberal to actually know

Fuck off, drumpfcuck. I'm extreme leftist ala anarcho-syndicalism, not liberal, you silly sack of hot air.

...

No, you're a brainwashed, spoiled, child with zero life experience.

you know roleplaying stoped being cute when you took it out of the sonic fandom

OK. How many slaves do you really think there were?

i am crying over here

On matters like these if you can separate the emotion, then it isn't an issue.

Are you implying the standard for maintaining other people is comprable to maintaining a mule?

Was watching James Townsend cake video and I was surprised slaves even got cakes

When they unleash your yoke for a water break, bury your head in the sand, wage slaves. Keep giving up your control of the production of goods and services. They are right now thanking you all the way to the bank.

>being a slave to pathos

how are the tyrants that rule us now any worse than the tyrants you want in power?
hard mode how are they worse for me, not spies that would sell their mother for a chance of having a goverment position and proving their loyalty to the leader like you?

Fool. Just give it up. The south will never rise again.

This. Though black men in general prefer lighter skinned black women, there's the redbone and yellowbone phenomenon. This creates a lot of butthurt dark skinned women creating the narrative that light skinned people look down on them.

Somebody get this non person outta here

truth is nobody likes black women and for a reason, they top the charts
obesity
uneductated
single parenthood
unemployment
wellfare
numbers dont lie, its not about them being women or being black, they are estadistically the worst people

Slaves were expensive, you couldn't kill slaves willy nilly like conquistadors did.
Only 5% of people in the South owned slaves. (((Slavemasters))) were pretty smart in getting everyone to defend their livelihoods.

I like black women if they're qt

the dick has no need for frivolities like "race" or "ethnicity", the dick knows what the dick wants

Right, but only betas allow themselves to be lead by their dicks, son.

It's easier for black women to be hired than black men because

1) They get along with the workplace easier

and

2) The working ones are usually no-nonsense about earning their pay or at least can play the part well.

Chances are if they're unemployed, they ratchet as fuck, too nasty to work with or retired but a lot of 'em do seem to have their shit together.

>Bring in the cane

You wish, fuckwad. Fortunately people are waking up. Your emperor helps the cause.

As long as you don't put them in any position of power

Your doubt from complete ignorance on the topic doesn't really counter all the actual historical knowledge that exists.

>tfw I used to just straight up eat whole unpeeled and uncut cucumbers
the fuck was wrong with me

Slaves were a huge capital investment, they didn't get fed grain and gizzards. They weren't fed gourmet meals but there's no sense in giving a 20+ year investment in equipment shitty maintenance

>slave owners wuz good boys then dindu nuffin wrong!

WHY is this website so fixated on blacks? Any and OTHER thread turns into "muh debate fest ur argument is stupid and mine is right". FUCK OFF.

It's true though.

you imply that this wasnt created from the same person and/or individuals who religiously come to this board to spam their pepe, fast food, and all around shitpost threads.

>WHY WHY WHYY HURRRRR

because they are masterful at coming up with insta-clickbate, insta-reply threads and topics. and they know that mods on this board (and in general) just dont give a shit anymore

You do know that the very first legal slave owner in the US was black...

triggered af

>that makes all slavery ok, le duh XD

You all do realise that chicken was a luxury before mass production and were valued more for their eggs than meat. Only the ones that stopped laying would be eaten.

Frying was a Scottish thing also.

Were Negroes allowed to own anything? I thought all their owning would be given to their master.

Also this The "a chicken on every table" thing was because meat was a luxury. And it's still more expensive than vegetables everywhere the gov doesn't subsidies the fuck out of meat production.

All this hype about black slaves working on farms in USA but nobody ever wants to talk about the 1.5 million European slaves that would be captured by pirates and sold to middle east. The whole reason African colonisation happened in the first place was to stop these pirates who would pillage some village on the coast of Western Europe,then they'd travel through the Mediterranean and rest in North Africa... I guess the winners really do write the history books.

>doesn't really counter all the actual historical knowledge that exists.
...of wich you have none

Fried chicken became a thing after slavery, dumbfuck white cunt.

>You know frying with lard is a thing right?

The #1 ingredient in soul food is Lard
The #2 ingredient in soul food is Butter

This is the first thing that came to my mind.
Was deep-frying foods even that popular during the time of slavery? Or in Africa?
You'd imagine they'd make food of their home country.

Can't fully comment on the food, but a lot of you should give pic related a read/listen.

You can find the book pretty easily, and it is a very good book that covers a lot of topics.