[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

I was watching a show not long about and they were tracing the ancestry of Emmit Smith. Anyway, they trace it back to the port city in Africa that his parents where shipped out of. It was a huge slave trading hub for Africa where nearly all the slaves were rounded up, auctioned off, sold, etc. and then put on ships to go all over the world. In fact, it still does human trafficking today.

But my question is this. Do you really think that slavery was as cruel and forced on those people as we have been lead to believe? Don't you think that a large majority of the slaves volunteered to come to a new world for jobs and food and shelter, etc. And don't you think that a large majority of the slaves were treated very good and given fair trade for their work?

I'm not jusitfying the concept, because its wrong to do that. I just wonder how much of it has been stereotyped as people chained up and beaten and whipped and families torn apart, etc.

Thoughts?

[SporK]

I've always said that offspring of slaves ought to be greatful to slave traders for bringing their ancestors here. Be it not for the slave trade, Emmith Smith could be dying of aids in some hut in africa instead of being an extremely wealthy sports star.

-SporK

[BIRD33]

I was watching a show not long about and they were tracing the ancestry of Emmit Smith. Anyway, they trace it back to the port city in Africa that his parents where shipped out of. It was a huge slave trading hub for Africa where nearly all the slaves were rounded up, auctioned off, sold, etc. and then put on ships to go all over the world. In fact, it still does human trafficking today.

But my question is this. Do you really think that slavery was as cruel and forced on those people as we have been lead to believe? Don't you think that a large majority of the slaves volunteered to come to a new world for jobs and food and shelter, etc. And don't you think that a large majority of the slaves were treated very good and given fair trade for their work?

I'm not jusitfying the concept, because its wrong to do that. I just wonder how much of it has been stereotyped as people chained up and beaten and whipped and families torn apart, etc.

Thoughts?

My thoughts: You are an idiot.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

My thoughts: You are an idiot.

nice.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

slavery taught in schools today is somewhat of a lie. a great example of what slavery was really like can be read in the "slave narratives", these are stories from former slaves explaining what slavery was really like. They paint a much different picture of slavery than what is portrayed on tv and in school. Slaves in some cases had a better standard of living than white northern factory workers. their caloric intake was 10% higher than free whites in the north. vitamin content was much greater, protein content was 110% higher than northern factory workers. Slaves were allowed their own gardens and were even allowed to sell what they grew at local markets. contrary to popular belief, slave owners generally relied on motivational incentives rather than whip to increase the work efficiency of slaves. Some typical incentives were cash payments, time off and team bonuses. remember, slaves were an expensive investment, beating a slave until he couldnt work only meant less profit for the slave owner. Even the housing standards for black slaves were better than conditions in the north for the free white worker, medical care was better for slaves than the northern factory worker. one more thing i'd like to add is that famous picture we've all seen of the black man and his entire back is scarred from being whipped...that doesnt mean anything, all it means is we know of one specific case where someone got beat bad, we dont know why he got beat, and we dont know if that picture accurately represents slavery or not, is that the rule, or the exception to the rule.... i could ramble on and on, but this is a good start for you

interesting.

[BIRD33]

You know I was thinking about the holocaust the other day and I was wondering out of the 6 million jews killed how many were trying to lose weight?Think about it for a second.Say 2% of those murdered jews were trying to get in shape for swimsuit season.Thats 120,000 people that indirectly lost weight due to being imprisoned in concentration camps.I think thats a underreported aspect of the holocaust.Your thoughts?

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

come on bird, you aren't this stupid. the jews were not volunteering to be rounded up and killed. but i wonder how many of the slaves brought over from africa were actually volunteering to go? i'm not advocating the concept of slavery. just wondering how the whole thing developed.

I would imagine that the boat ride over here would have been probably the worst and most cruel part of it. And I can't even imagine what those people that owned and operated those boats must have been like.

[SporK]

You know I was thinking about the holocaust the other day and I was wondering out of the 6 million jews killed how many were trying to lose weight?Think about it for a second.Say 2% of those murdered jews were trying to get in shape for swimsuit season.Thats 120,000 people that indirectly lost weight due to being imprisoned in concentration camps.I think thats a underreported aspect of the holocaust.Your thoughts?

You are an idiot.

-SporK

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

And to be honest, look at the living conditions and death rates and industrial accidents etc of some of the italian immigrants, and germans and irish, etc. they weren't slaves, but the magic of coming to the "new world" wasn't as glamorous as its been portrayed. At least not by the first generation immigrants.

[BIRD33]

come on bird, you aren't this stupid. the jews were not volunteering to be rounded up and killed. but i wonder how many of the slaves brought over from africa were actually volunteering to go? i'm not advocating the concept of slavery. just wondering how the whole thing developed.

I would imagine that the boat ride over here would have been probably the worst and most cruel part of it. And I can't even imagine what those people that owned and operated those boats must have been like.

Slaves don't volunteer.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Slaves don't volunteer.

how do you know that? did you know that they still sell slaves out of those same areas of Africa. Most of the slaves bought there travel ridiculously long distances just to be sold off. Some parents ship their kids off just because they know they either can't afford them or fear for their lives growing up where they are.

I'm just saying that I don't think the slaves were living such a grand lifestyle in africa that men snuck into their houses at night and chained them up and forced them onto boats.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

I'm also not saying that there might well have been some that were forced to go, and I'm sure there were. I just wonder how many came just as an opportunity to try something else.

[BIRD33]

slavery taught in schools today is somewhat of a lie. a great example of what slavery was really like can be read in the "slave narratives", these are stories from former slaves explaining what slavery was really like. They paint a much different picture of slavery than what is portrayed on tv and in school. Slaves in some cases had a better standard of living than white northern factory workers. their caloric intake was 10% higher than free whites in the north. vitamin content was much greater, protein content was 110% higher than northern factory workers. Slaves were allowed their own gardens and were even allowed to sell what they grew at local markets. contrary to popular belief, slave owners generally relied on motivational incentives rather than whip to increase the work efficiency of slaves. Some typical incentives were cash payments, time off and team bonuses. remember, slaves were an expensive investment, beating a slave until he couldnt work only meant less profit for the slave owner. Even the housing standards for black slaves were better than conditions in the north for the free white worker, medical care was better for slaves than the northern factory worker. one more thing i'd like to add is that famous picture we've all seen of the black man and his entire back is scarred from being whipped...that doesnt mean anything, all it means is we know of one specific case where someone got beat bad, we dont know why he got beat, and we dont know if that picture accurately represents slavery or not, is that the rule, or the exception to the rule.... i could ramble on and on, but this is a good start for you

interesting.

Why don't you post where this is from or are you embarrassed to have people know you frequent white supremacy boards?

[BIRD33]

I'm also not saying that there might well have been some that were forced to go, and I'm sure there were. I just wonder how many came just as an opportunity to try something else.

Hey you know what I would like to try?Being chained up and whipped while having my wife raped in front of me.Sounds like a real change of pace.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Why don't you post where this is from or are you embarrassed to have people know you frequent white supremacy boards?

:lool: I have no idea now, its was just from googling "was slavery bad?". Some Q&A site like ask.com or something. it just sounded like the guy knew what he was talking about and was voted "best answer" to whatever the question was.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Hey you know what I would like to try?Being chained up and whipped while having my wife raped in front of me.Sounds like a real change of pace.

See, you always go for the parts that find their way into the history books. And yeah, I know that did happen, but I think most historians would agree that was the exception far more than it was the rule.

And don't think those factory workers weren't having the shit kicked out of them and forced to work in ridiculously unsafe conditions. The only difference in t hose northern factory workers was that they were a disposable commodity, because if one of them got killed on the job, there were 5 more waiting for his job.

[phantom]

Being slaves was the best thing that ever happened to them and their decendents. End of story.

[BIRD33]

See, you always go for the parts that find their way into the history books. And yeah, I know that did happen, but I think most historians would agree that was the exception far more than it was the rule.

And don't think those factory workers weren't having the shit kicked out of them and forced to work in ridiculously unsafe conditions. The only difference in t hose northern factory workers was that they were a disposable commodity, because if one of them got killed on the job, there were 5 more waiting for his job.

I'll post again in this thread when you give me the basis for this statement.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

and according to Spike Lee's story on that ancestry show, one of his ancestors was impregnated by her owner, and she and her offspring were treated better than anyone else. Almost like part of the family. And when they were freed, they were given a shit load of land, given money to start their crops and access to the tools from their former owner. And they stayed there and raised their families there.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

Bird, I know you won't probably read all of this, but give it a try.

The Civil War started in 1861, and though it was more than a century ago, there is still controversy and many questions arising about the subject. What were they really fighting over? Should the South have been able to succeed? What were the South's true reasons for succeeding? Was the North's only reason to go to war to free the slaves? Were Slaves truly treated as cruelly as we are to believe they were? Did the Abolitionists have other motives hidden behind tightly shut doors, which were not made public? These are only a few questions people want to know the answers to regarding the American's War against themselves. Some of these questions are hard to give a definite answer to, and say what is exactly is correct. History textbooks in the public schools, private schools, even homeschools, answer these questions, but are they really the truth? The textbooks are written in the North's point of view, the winners of the war. They are telling us what they want us to think the reasons for the war really were. But they might leave out little key parts that aren't beneficial to their view.

Did the Northern industrialists want a war to end slavery? No, not to end slavery, but to end the South or, put more accurately, they wanted an end to the Southern power and influence in the Nation. They, or those members of the industrialist clique, who dominated the Republican Party then, were determined to dominate the country by whatever means; but slavery was too profitable for it to be ended until they could "bring off their grandiose plan of domination". There was no way they could have both the profits of slavery and domination of the nation; and domination was far more important. Forcing an end to slavery was the handiest method of destroying the South. The Industrialists did not originate the abolition crusade. That developed coincidentally and played into their hands as conflicting interests moved the two sections toward confrontation.

The Industrialists knew that the abolitionists were not going to end slavery. The Industrialists were realists; the abolitionists were not. But the abolition movement was creating a climate for war, and that was what the industrialists wanted. It was as simple as that, too simple for most people to appreciate. Slavery was the real reason for the war.

It was the emotional part of the war. The Northerners knew that if they found every newspaper clipping having something negative to do with slavery, and publish it, making it seem as if all of the South was beating and torturing the slaves, people's emotions would start to flare up. Which is exactly what happened. Civilians started getting the impression that the slaves were being treated horribly, and they were ready to intervene. The big behind-the-scenes northern industrialists with their enormous financial resources were making political decisions, and these hardheaded people were not playing for sunflower seeds. They were out to win more enormous wealth and power.

The fifteen states in the Southern block were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia (including what is now West Virginia). These fifteen states comprised all the land in the country where Slave labor could be used profitably in large numbers and to better advantage than white labor. The South had reached its peak of expansion. There were eight million white people and four and a half million Negroes, and nowhere could the South look for additional political strength. In the North there were nineteen million white people and one-forth million Negroes and a vast area of undeveloped territory which was rapidly being settled with people whose economic interests would not be with the South.

Against such odds, the South could not hope to hold its own against the Union. On every issue, the South was being and would continue to be outvoted, especially on commercial regulations. Paying high prices for what it bought and getting low prices for what it sold would have brought the South completely under the domination of the North, the "North" really being the rest of the country. The South is always looked on as if the only reason they wanted war was to be able to keep their slaves; they wanted slavery and being able to own someone else's gave them a thrill. This is another lie.

The attitude of the South has never been well understood because the insistence of the abolitionists upon instant and unconditional emancipation forcing the South to defend slavery whereas the South most wanted an end to it. No practical plan for ending slavery was being proposed by anybody, perhaps because there was none. "Cool heads" might have worked out a plan for some kind of gradual emancipation, which could have been preparation for the impact of farm machinery later on; but there could be few cool heads in the climate created by radical, fanatical abolition. The South should have been able to succeed if they wanted to. There was no where were it said once a State became part of the Union it had to stay.

On the contrary, it says that if a State feels as if it needs to leave the Union, the State may do so. The North was in the wrong for forcing the South to stay. The Constitution states that all men are equal, and the abolitionists were trying to get that point across in freeing the slaves; but the South was not being treated "equal". They were being over-taxed for manufactured goods, and under-paid for their crops the northern factories needed. History textbooks come across as if the majority of the slaves were not fed, cared for, and were beaten regularly by their masters.

Yet again, another lie. Most slaves were lucky to be bought in the United States. If they were not bought here, they were shipped off to Haiti, the Dominican Republic or Cuba. There, the majority of the slaves were beaten regularly. If a slave could be bought in the United States, it was the best place for them to be purchased. Some would work harder than others, but almost all were treated as family. The Southerners were mainly Christians, and would start their day off by praying and reading the Bible to their slaves and families.

Very few slaves were beaten. There were however, the exceptional few plantations that would whip and treat the slaves like animals instead of real human beings. However, there were consequences if caught in such a horrendous act. The white person would be sent to jail for a period of time, and occasionally, have their plantation taken away from them. As Northerners starting putting more pressure on the South, they were more cautious about the flogging of slaves. Before we go on, let me go into some history of slavery in the United States. Lifetime slavery was not used here until around 1653.

There were Indentured servants, who would serve a master for seven years, and then they were given their own piece of land they could care for themselves. Then those free indentured servants would have other indentured servants come out to the U.S. and the same would happen with them. At first, only whites were used as Indentured servants. Then slave dealers started to come to the ports and sold blacks as indentured servants.

They were treated just as the white indentured servants were treated. They would serve a master for seven years, and then they were set free. However, in 1653, a Negro named John Casor complained that his master, Anthony Johnson, had kept him in servitude some years longer than he should have, which was a serious defense. Johnson, frightened, released Casor from all claims against him, but then found that Casor had bound himself to one Parker who had aided him in obtaining freedom. Johnson sued Parker, claiming that he, Johnson, was entitled to the lifetime service of Casor, and won his case. This entitles Anthony Johnson to be called, "The Father of Negro Slavery in Virginia", and changes somewhat the complexion of "that peculiar institution" because Johnson himself was a Negro.That story is not found in our history books today.

We are made to think the white man had the blacks being slaves right from the beginning they first started touching land in the United States. All of these issues were leading towards one thing: War. All the essentials were there: "1) An established agricultural class furnishing most of the military and political leadership, rich but at the peak of its power; 2) A new industrial class gaining wealth and political influence, ambitious for more of both, allied with political groups out of office for a long time and willing to do anything to regain power; 3) A violently emotional issue promoted by fanatical crusaders, to stir the people; 4) A president (Lincoln) who surpassed all previous presidents in lust for power, who had devoted all his adult years to his ambition." (Springer). The Civil War was a bloody war between the same nation, two sides. We lost many men, woman and children due to the selfishness of one side. Hearing parts of the other, the parts left out of the textbooks makes one think a little deeper about the emotional reason versus real reason for the war.

There are still questions that have not been answered, and ones that will never be answered. Such as, what would have happened if the South hadn't tried to succeed in the first place? Or what if the South had won the Civil War? How different would our country be if it had? These are only a few questions we will never have answered. BibliographyWar For What? By Francis W. Springer Copyright 1990, William M. CoatsTo Be A Slave By Julius LesterCopyright 1968, Scholastic Inc.