Upload
Login or register
x

Daily Reminder

 
Daily Reminder. Slavery is horrible, but lets stop pretending America is the only country that did this. ASK THE AVERAGE SCHOOL Man mew THINK TMT ONLY . fir wane

Slavery is horrible, but lets stop pretending America is the only country that did this

ASK THE AVERAGE SCHOOL
Man mew THINK TMT ONLY . fir
wane PEOPLE HAD SLAVE I ....) / l
viii' F_ WERE we FIRST PEI._ l_ IFLY TO STOP
SLOWELY lit TIMES, WHERRIES SLOWELY
STILL IN TO THIS DIN.
...
+1251
Views: 38910
Favorited: 133
Submitted: 12/22/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to omegafriend

Comments(196):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
123>
[ 196 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
100 comments displayed.
Reply
+306
User avatar #2 - quotetype ONLINE (12/22/2015) [-]
After the slaves returned to Africa, in some areas they used the slave methods that we used to enslave native Africans.
Reply
-52
User avatar #65 to #2 - reginleif ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Exact methods? How would that work? As far as I know the US was one of the few countries in the world where slave status was hereditary.

Africans do that too?
Reply
+79
User avatar #76 to #65 - arandomanon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
>the US was one of the few countries in the world where slave status was hereditary

Name one single country whose slaves breed free people. Just name one.
Reply
+25
#79 to #76 - batmanuel (12/23/2015) [-]
I fully acknowledge that these nations no longer exist, but it still seems relevant.
In Hellenic Sparta the slaves were prisoners of war who chose servitude over execution for their cowardice (i.e. failing to die on the battlefield and allowing themselves to be captured). And in the Aztec empire, slavery was also used as a punishment, not inflicted upon bloodlines as their lot in life. The Aztecs even held footraces annually between the slaves, the grand prize being freedom for the first to reach the great pyramid in the center of the city.
Reply
+18
User avatar #104 to #79 - ennaburning (12/23/2015) [-]
Sparta was literary known for its Helot slave population which was self-reproducing
... just saying...
Reply
+14
User avatar #80 to #79 - arandomanon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Yes and the ancient Mesopotamians used slavery as a way to pay debts, once your debt is over you are free to go but I meant more recent countries, where slavery has a different concept (Roman-Medieval concept, which is the slavery concept present today). Should've specified, true.
Reply
+4
User avatar #84 to #80 - batmanuel (12/23/2015) [-]
Well, I honestly couldn't think of any modern countries that fit the profile. So I'd say that your point is a strong one. I just thought I'd leave some history in the comments as a leavening agent, so to speak.
Reply
+12
#85 to #84 - arandomanon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
As a history student, I strongly support any kind of history debate (as long as it's relatively respectful).
Reply
+4
User avatar #86 to #85 - batmanuel (12/23/2015) [-]
And as a History enthusiast, I concur.
Reply
0
User avatar #148 to #85 - processing (12/23/2015) [-]
As a fellow history student.

I agree.
Reply
+2
#119 to #79 - kingtravis (12/23/2015) [-]
The Aztecs also killed a slave daily so that the sun would continue to rise. Also, trust me the slaves of Hellenic Sparta didn't last long in those conditions. The Spartans lined em up in the front ranks and watched. As far as using blood lines to decide where you rank on the social status hierarchy, everyone used that to one degree or another. The Aztec Emperor Montezuma was not an elected official. I'm pretty sure that we can infer that if your the child of a slave that the Aztecs would not treat you as an equal. For starters the Aztecs only made up a small percentage of their civilizations population while the large portion was made up of other Native American Tribes that they conquered.
Reply
0
User avatar #197 to #79 - lieutenantderp (12/27/2015) [-]
The Aztecs also held matches between slaves of which the losers get their heads chopped off. I don't think those who failed to reach the great pyramid first would have a good time
Reply
0
#123 to #76 - lollypopalopicus ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Britain didn't allow slavery within Britain. In its colonies, sure, but in Britain, during the slave trade era, there were none. In fact, the thing that kicked off the whole "end of slavery" was started in Britain, when a slave of an American was in Britain and legally one a case setting him free.

That said, inherited slavery status was instituted in varying states shortly after slavery began, but it was not certain for a few years. Virginia instituted in in 1662.
Reply
0
User avatar #124 to #123 - arandomanon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Inherited slavery status was a thing since Roman Empire, man. The concept of slavery we are using here is basically the same than "things" or "cattle". Slaves weren't considered people until recently. Even Christian Church allowed slavery and saw nothing wrong with it (although I must say that thanks to them, slaves started getting treated better in Early Middle Ages). Maybe it was not "institutional" for a while in America, I'm not sure but I'm almost certain that it doesn't mean slaves' children were treated like free people.

When Spain banned within the country itself, slavery was still legal in its colonies. That, however, doesn't mean that slaves breeded free people. If a slave managed to scape the colonies and reached somewhere where he could live freely, good for him. But if he happened to come back, he would be a slave too and so would be his children.
Reply
0
#152 to #124 - lollypopalopicus ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Well, the Vikings did have slaves whose children were born free, and they were around roughly the same distance away from 1600s as we are, if not less. Only that is further back, so a civilization that was even older then the era we are discussing did not have it.
Reply
0
User avatar #106 to #76 - vigilum ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
If I remember correctly that was the case with the Norse. At least the ones who became slaves due to debts they could not pay.

In other cases, since you pointed out debt-slaves in another comment, a male slave could have a child with someone who wasn't a slave. Then the kid would have whatever status the mother had.

I'm unsure if it applies but there were also "leilendinger", which were equivalent to serfs. Contract for life, work a plot of land. Except it wasn't hereditary unless they signed a new contract. The word has had a few meanings though, since it's been around for several hundred years.

We didn't learn all that much about thralls and slavery in my classes. Enough to know it was there and stuff. Or maybe we did and I was more interested in other stuff
Reply
0
User avatar #113 to #106 - arandomanon ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
That what you are talking about is a sorry if it's not the English term, I'm Spanish and I literally translated the term to English "semi-free", that means someone who is just a slave but for a limited period of time. A "semi-free" is not the same than a slave.

Serfs are, a grosso modo I'm not trying to sound smart using a latin locution, it's just the best term I can think of right now to better express what I'm trying to state slaves. They aren't economically free and even when they are "legally" free, they are still sort of slaves. I'm unsure right now if germanic (or norse) tribes had serfs their populations are divided in free men, "semi-free" men and slaves and since I haven't really studied the Norse cases, I'm unsure what are you talking about, but it just sounds as free men working for a landlord (which is not exactly the same case in serfs).
Reply
0
#116 to #2 - robbiemad (12/23/2015) [-]
I always get a weird feeling of bravato on the part of most of americans on this subjet, mainly due to their reaction to the word slave. It's not exclusively an american issue, but most americans do this. Im talking about the reaction to the word "slavery" as if it was an american problem. America is a relatively young country and before its existance slave trading was a HUGE part of the European culture. We had more slaves, treated them more harshly and traded them like caddle. I'm not saying this is a bad thing on the part of the americans. In fact, im surprised at how easily you see an american demonstrate guilt for the whole "slavery" thing than an european. Maybe because we didnt have a revolution about it, it just ended. Anyway, I find this odd and fascinating.
Reply
+1
User avatar #120 to #2 - enlightednatzie (12/23/2015) [-]
Aww, they grow up so fast :3
Reply
+1
#156 to #2 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
well that will prove that human beings are **** whether they are black or white.
Reply
+2
User avatar #81 to #2 - rumpsalva (12/23/2015) [-]
The Europeans never enslaved anyone though. The slave markets in Africa were in full swing when we got there, we just bought the goods that were avalible.

Now, this is the duality that made many african nations fail. First of, they built their societies on dictatorial slave-economies with poor state centralization.
The large impact Europeans made on the slavemarket accelerated it though, and cemented it further.
Reply
+3
#96 to #2 - oinos (12/23/2015) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you honestly believe a white guy from a ship lands there and doesn't get straight ****** by the multitudes of local inhabitants in tribes far superior in number to a boat's crew?


If you want to know the real bite of it, the Africans sold defeated Africans to merchants and Portuguese or other ships to then be transported to other places. Whites were not the majority there for actually doing the deed of enslavement. They were the brokers that funded and institutionalized it ; which made the locals eager to get resources and ship off their competition.

As for Arandomanon : All slaves breed slaves. If one ***** in captivity their offspring are born into it as part and parcel of the estate of the owner. It's no differed than cattle or livestock ownership. If the slave ends his debts or term in servitude then they and their kin possibly are freed as a singular transaction. Sometimes not as much. See minor countries in Asia for such things in case you doubt. People can still be bought and sold, and their offspring can be sold separately as secondary estate sales. Not even going into old Japanese debt systems of selling off a daughter or son to pay a family debt. Or China and the many children sold off randomly or put into state hands. English indentured servitude practices before America even formed as well. You could go all the way back to practices from the BC times even. Most lands that had humans had slavery, and most slavery was part and parcel to being inherited under terms, or total to the stock of people and their children. Romans were perhaps the worst.


Dayum some of you guys are just lacking.

1-2-3-Google some **** .
Reply
0
User avatar #179 to #96 - quotetype ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
1-2-3 google some **** ? **** you for the comment, god damn I read what you said, but that is such a cunt way to talk.
That sentence alone makes me think your face is a very punch-able one.
Reply
0
#180 to #179 - oinos (12/23/2015) [-]
Oh **** . Don't think too hard then bro. Lest we punch history until it agrees with us too.



Matter of fact. You go ahead and get on that. Go find some history and **** and go ahead and punch the **** out of it. I'd love to see you obliterate the battle of 1812 or something with nothing but your fists.
Reply
0
#181 to #180 - quotetype ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Never said I wanted to. Trust me, i'm not trying physically dominate you out of this argument. I'm just saying you can speak in a way that isn't as douchey as you put it.
Who the **** says "1-2-3 google some **** " except for an angry edgy faggot.

next, I just want to show you what a punch able face looks like.

This face and that comment add up pretty well don't they?
Reply
0
#182 to #181 - oinos (12/23/2015) [-]
Hrm. Your point fails.

Maybe you need better graphics?

Maybe you just need to punch the monitor harder a few times.

Keep trying. Be angry. Be impotent. It's all good. You're attempting to argue **** on the net, homes. Think about that. All those possibilities must be mind boggling or something since you're latched onto a line of text like it was your sole purpose in life, and the only **** you had to go on. But just think : You win, and you still lose ; You lose, and you're still losing. Pick one. Move on.
Reply
0
User avatar #183 to #182 - quotetype ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
All of what you just said is either wrong, or can be applied to yourself.

level with me, We're arguing on funnyjunk, which means we've both ****** up to an extent already, and I believe that that is implied in all arguments or comment on this website. I do it because it's fun, and it makes me laugh, so **** it.

Next, I'm not really angry, I'm just trying to point out a major fallacy in your argument, that's all.

What you said was well said, you were just a little faggot about it.
Reply
0
#184 to #183 - oinos (12/23/2015) [-]
I haven't offered you violence.

I wouldn't punch you in the face.

I've not attempted to argue invalidating history by brutalizing the opposition of my point no matter how douchey he was/is.

I haven't seen you laugh at all yet, as all your posts seem pretty square, and are eager to get in my panties I'm currently in boxer-briefs. Good try tho..

Fallacy in the argument would be if the part of history there was a non satisfying statement.... which would mean I would be utterly lying about history in a way that would run you in circles ; Like the Loki's Wager fallacy.

So given up to this point all the previous statements are true, though stated in harsh tones of dickery while having pictures mocking your intentions and attempts with them... Lost where I was going with that. XD. I think It was that you're still wrong. Even should you have decided either of the options before. That and no matter how much an asshole I propose things under the wording of, I still didn't make false statement.


It's time bro. Hit everything. Hulkmode all those feels out bro. You were right. A man does not deserve to be an arrogant and flame tongued pleb on the internets. White knight me into corrective poise. Then hug it out with your monitor if it survived.



When you finish everything. i mean everything. All your rage and feels are emptied. Then ******* hug me. And maybe demand love and futa.
Reply
+12
User avatar #42 to #2 - phtholognyrrh (12/23/2015) [-]
you meanthe same exact "methods" they had been using when white people first arrived?
Reply
+2
User avatar #63 to #42 - quotetype ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Are they not methods? Why the quatation marks?
And They used slavery, but the same **** that the Americans did to beat and "Train" the slaves was used. And It was most likely different than the methods they used before.
Reply
0
User avatar #188 to #63 - phtholognyrrh (12/24/2015) [-]
read the rest of the thread and then come talk to me
0
#50 to #42 - elcreepo has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
+6
User avatar #54 to #50 - phtholognyrrh (12/23/2015) [-]
first comment: "after western slaves went back to africa, they started enslaving each other!'

my comment: "they had been enslaving each other before europeans ever arrived

your comment: "no. they were less cruel"

there seems to be a disconnect
0
#57 to #54 - elcreepo has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
0
User avatar #58 to #57 - phtholognyrrh (12/23/2015) [-]
you really need to work on reading comprehension.

comment #2 is talking about methods of enslavement i.e. kidnapping, enslavement by birth, etc.

i posited that the africans had been using those same methods (again, methods of enslaving another human being, as in the actual process by which one human enslaves another)

and then you walked in talking about methods of slave treatment, or how slaves were treated.

do you see the aforementioned disconnect?
Reply
+1
User avatar #59 to #58 - elcreepo ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
I suppose. It's 3 am I can barely understand it.

Perhaps I did jump the gun and think you were talking about something else.

Sorry. Please enjoy your evening/morning.
Reply
0
User avatar #60 to #59 - phtholognyrrh (12/23/2015) [-]
you gucci holmes no need for apologizing. thanks for keeping it civil
0
#52 to #50 - elcreepo has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
+24
#11 to #2 - csgtsheep (12/23/2015) [-]
Learned from the best.
Reply
+15
User avatar #8 to #2 - thesovereigngrave (12/23/2015) [-]
Ah, good old Liberia.
Reply
0
User avatar #14 to #8 - seniorawesomesauce ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Liberia is different cause they were sent back to Africa with the mission of creating a colony, whether or not slavery was involved is irrelevant
Reply
0
#19 to #14 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
What the ****

adopting the practice of slavery is no different than supersizing a mcbuger meal?

wow
Reply
+4
#23 to #19 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
Don't fall for bait anon, just hide all and move on.
Reply
+34
User avatar #6 to #2 - lordhaha (12/23/2015) [-]
actually africans sold other africans to us. so yeah they just used what they used before us
Reply
0
User avatar #29 to #6 - Mortuus (12/23/2015) [-]
It was mostly the arabs.
Reply
-1
User avatar #45 to #29 - lotengo ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
No Arabs had slaves of their own.
Reply
+43
User avatar #13 - shleker (12/23/2015) [-]
slavery always existed and every single civilization used it at some point. It will always exist in some disguised forms, because the desire of domination regardless of your skin colour or religion will never die. And there will always be people to fight it.

Now, knowing who is the bad guy in History does'nt really make sense... the essential is to fight slavery in all its modern manifestations. we cant blame all whites for triangular trade and we cant blame all Maghreban for barbay slave trade.

The fact is that especially in the US as far as I know you dont even study Medieval/modern Europe.... In france I remember spending a lot of time on mediterranean civilazitions, and learning how the first slave trade was mediterranean and how northern african pirates would attack the coast and kidnap people. Sometimes, european governements could even make dissenters disapear by selling them away. If you asked me this question when i was in middle school i would have talked about Egyptians and greeks...not white VS blacks. If you dont study it in the US i's just because you have an history programm focused around your country and the important periods of its creation. it's not a question of "political correctness" and it's not a valid argument if you are trying to say that education focuses on the evil white who steals the land and enslave everyone darker than him... because slavery in America is as topic than cant be skipped and to explain how a dirty british colonny became the symbol of freedom for a lot of people you have to say that things were'nt always that bright...
Reply
-1
#20 to #13 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
I agree with you on most points, but at certain points in my education it was pretty much how other people were saying it: "White people enslaved black people" without any mention of blacks selling other blacks into slavery, historical context, or any further information or historical context.

While it was true that whites had slaves in America, the lack of other context made it seems like every white family had a slave, and only whites ever had slaves. This in turn led to groups of friends who were previously multiracial segregating themselves along racial lines within months after those classes.

On a broader level I think the way it is being taught is increasing racial tensions within the US.
Reply
0
#89 to #13 - tanitakavirius (12/23/2015) [-]
Exactly, it's a problem of education, and it's not limited to the US, many countries have self centered history lessons.
Reply
+12
User avatar #21 - buddywuggle (12/23/2015) [-]
>"Political correctness must die."
Thinking only whites had slaves is neither political or a correct statement. Why is this non sequitur Facebook **** in front of my eyes. Choose a channel with this kind of stuff so I can block it.
Reply
0
User avatar #55 to #21 - omicronperseieight (12/23/2015) [-]
And that's exactly what political correctness is.
It's entirely incorrect.
It's literally a hate movement against men and white people that wants to restrict freedoms, and they use "political correctness" as a front so that they get away with it.
Reply
-1
User avatar #108 to #55 - buddywuggle (12/23/2015) [-]
I think that's a bit too organized view of how it works. Sure, it seems it could and probably does get used that way, i.e. the SJW movement, but it can be used to simply stir up any racial and general turmoil no matter the recipient, i.e. the entire trump campaign.
It seems like one of those things a news channel babbled out to cover their ass. Especially since racial and gender matters aren't political, and the term in usage is like a straw elf you can throw at someone when you are losing.
Reply
+12
User avatar #27 to #21 - feelythefeel (12/23/2015) [-]
>he doesn't know what political correctness is
Reply
0
#150 to #27 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
It means ostracizing anyone that doesn't toe the line of a political ideology. It has nothing to do with "hate whitey".
Reply
0
#147 to #27 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
Political Correctness is Fascism acting as manners. Yeah, it can die in a sewer.
Reply
+105
User avatar #7 - cubicalpayload (12/23/2015) [-]
I'm all for facts, but blacks were treated like **** after slavery. It wasn't like the 13th amendment stopped racism.
Reply
-3
User avatar #90 to #7 - catpisseverdeen (12/23/2015) [-]
Hardly. Bleeding heart activists like Harriet Breecher Stowe would have you believe that with her over exaggeration, Uncle Tom's Cabin, but they were not treated nearly as bad. What the **** is the point of damaging your tools constantly?
Reply
+3
#101 to #90 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
We're talking about after slavery. When they were no longer allowed to be "tools" just second class citizens.

So really neither your "Stowe exaggerated" nor your "damaging your own tools" arguments hold any water against what >>#71 said.
Reply
0
User avatar #118 to #101 - catpisseverdeen (12/23/2015) [-]
I admit that I misread that.
Reply
-10
#17 to #7 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
if your all for facts you would know that they were not universally treated like **** . in major (democrat controlled cities) they were treated like **** , in many of the other places around the US they were treated like any one else, In the west they were treated well as well. It's hardly the fault of all the American people that the blacks decided to settle down in the racist cities they settled down in.
Reply
+13
#30 to #17 - Gute (12/23/2015) [-]
That's simply not true Anon. I'm sure there were some instances of Blacks being treated equally after the 14th amendment, but they were isolated and extremely rare (If at all). Now if you look at history (this is info passed down from my economics course on poverty.) When African Americans migrated from the South to the more liberal and presumably less racist North, they had major issues with finding homes and jobs, although obviously better prospects than in the south or they wouldn't have left. This was due to newly created racial tensions that occurred because of the mass influx of diversity, sounds similar to modern day actually. But the racial tensions and their effects can still be seen today, just look at Milwaukee and other major northern cities and see how bad segregation is.
Reply
0
User avatar #141 to #30 - meganinja ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
A lot of sources say that racism was about as bad in the North as it was in the South, but it was a bit different. In the north if I'm not mistaken it was more along the lines of xenophobia where they hated blacks because they 'took the low paying jobs' leaving less jobs options for 'good white people'
Reply
0
#187 to #141 - Gute (12/24/2015) [-]
yea, definitely not saying it was completely the same or had the same causes and repercussions. But it was/is still a problem.
Reply
+2
#78 to #17 - onecommentonlyone (12/23/2015) [-]
Are you talking about the West of America? Because that includes Oregon, where it was illegal for black people to live until 1926. You are chatting absolute **** .
Reply
-26
#10 to #7 - blarghimdead ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
**blarghimdead used "*roll picture*"**
**blarghimdead rolled image** well they did kinda deserve it
Reply
+8
#110 to #10 - jaxonnn ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Reply
+1
#145 to #10 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image**
Reply
-2
User avatar #71 to #7 - dantemp (12/23/2015) [-]
So what, we are talking about slavery, not racism. If we are going to talk racism, there is a **** ton racism happening in Africa as well.
Reply
+7
#103 - sexuality (12/23/2015) [-]
Wait. Ask the "average school student" or ask the "average American school student"?

Are you really mad that American school children are taught the history of American slavery more thoroughly than they're taught the history of European/African/Egyptian slavery?

Because that's kind of stupid.
Reply
+5
#121 - angelious (12/23/2015) [-]
everybody might have dabbled in slavery at one point or another.

but white folk mastered it.
Reply
+1
#134 to #121 - MisfitsFan (12/23/2015) [-]
>Slave Master race
Reply
+1
#166 to #134 - invshika (12/23/2015) [-]
this ***** clever
Reply
+2
#153 to #121 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
Like in most things, white people were just better at it.
Reply
+5
#44 - DarkRyter (12/23/2015) [-]
I don't know, man. I just asked my niece about slavery and she said even the Egyptians had slaves.

What a ****** nerd. Jesus.
Reply
+25
#26 - lordraine ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
There are also two different kids of slavery, though history likes to pretend to ignore that fact.

There's western slavery, practiced by the Greeks and Romans and their descendent empires, and there is eastern slavery, practiced by Africa, India, and Muslims, particularly the adherents of Islam.

Western slavery is an economic state of being. You are enslaved to pay off of a debt. We refer to this as indentured servitude today. It is a temporary state only, and intended to wipe away debts so that at the end of it, the person who was indentured is a free man once again, having fully paid off his debts. This is, by the way, why the Jews were so often reviled everywhere they went: they practiced usury against non-Jews as commanded of them by the Talmud, which to the westerners was viewed as an abomination, because usury keeps someone in debt perpetually, which was seen as enslaving someone forever. The Jews were viewed as slavers because of this, and spited for it.

Eastern slavery, by contrast, was a social state of being, not an economic one. If you were taken as a slave, you were a slave forever. There was no amount of work you could do to work your way out of it, there was no amount of labor you could perform to buy your freedom. It was a social caste that was permanent, and would be passed on to your children and your children's children as well.

Here's a fun fact: the vast majority of all slavery in America was intended to be western slavery, i.e. indentured servitude. The African slaves were purchased from African slavers, brought to the new world, and intended to serve out a period of time as labor equal to their expense before being freed. This is why you see free black men very early on in American history.

The problem happened when a first generation African who had worked his way to freedom bought slaves of his own, and refused to free them when their time was up, because being African, he was used to caste based slavery, and wanted his slaves to be caste slaves, even though they were indentured servants.

So he went to court over it, demanding his right to keep his indentured servants past the point where they had worked themselves to freedom. He won his case, and that set a legal precident for any slave in America to be converted from an indentured servant to a caste based slave at the discretion of their current owner. This effectively killed indentured servitude in America as a mechanism to wipe away debt, and replaced it completely with the social eastern slavery.

That's right. A free black man sold every other African in America out so he could sit pretty with his own personal slaves, which his culture and society taught him he deserved.
Reply
0
#34 to #26 - rollfourexplain (12/23/2015) [-]
I'm willing to believe this but that last bit about legal precedence is completely new to me. I've never heard of it before.

It's also worth stating again that colonial slavery began with indentured servitude. Want to go to the new world but can't pay your way? Get someone to do it for you so long as you be their slave for a period of time! Some people who couldn't read were terribly swindled, but it was by and large a good gamble.

I've never heard of any sort of transition, or if I have I've forgotten it from school, of this indentured servitude and economic slavery to life-long slavery. This was back when "United States of America" was just British colonies so I don't know how passable any legal precedents were then. I always thought that it was just introduced one day because the large nation of Britian was an imperial empire that conquered other peoples.
Reply
0
User avatar #91 to #34 - catpisseverdeen (12/23/2015) [-]
The Indentured Servitude type of slavery was used on the Irish when they first arrived to the US. Anthony Johnson is the name of the first American slave owner, and the man who challenged the government to keep his slaves.
Reply
0
User avatar #95 to #26 - sergeantpopeye (12/23/2015) [-]
Do you have a source for this I can use?
Reply
0
User avatar #144 to #112 - sergeantpopeye (12/23/2015) [-]
Thank you!
Reply
+1
User avatar #28 to #26 - feelythefeel (12/23/2015) [-]
The gospel truth.
Reply
+1
#149 to #26 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
Mostly right, but it's too generalized to say that there was only Eastern and Western slavery. For example, in most African Kingdoms of the 1300-1400s, slaves were treated like indentured servants as well. Their slavery was temporary and they mostly served for a limited period of years before they were free once more. On the other hand, not all European countries practiced "western slavery" either, where a slave was only an indentured servant who served to paid off debts, but rather there were many cases in which slaves in Europe or South America were slaves for life.
Reply
+9
#49 - elcreepo ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
According to this ****** though and take it how you want he was pretty ******* British-ized Africans treated their slaves FAR better than whites in the colonies, especially on sugar plantations where if a slave died it was no big deal, just sail a day to Montserrat and pick up five more.

Africans pretty much, according to Equiano, enslaved their own and then made them a part of their household, allowing them to eat at the same table as their peers and everything else. Only thing they lost was freedom to leave. They were fed, rarely ever beaten, etc. It was similar to the native american process of capturing an enemy child or warrior to replace a lost loved one.

But that's just what this African slave turned British slave turned free man wrote.
Reply
+1
User avatar #135 to #49 - oceanfrank ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
sounds like a roman type of slavery where they were treated pretty much like the family. I can believe it.
Reply
0
User avatar #178 to #135 - elcreepo ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Pretty much, if European documents on it hold.

Equiano's narrative is the only one I know of a firsthand account by an actual former slave, though. And his experiences with British masters made him more loyal to the crown than to his former countrymen.
Reply
0
User avatar #151 to #135 - CupcakeMaster ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
Pretty much. African slaves in Africa weren't treated much like **** before the Atlantic Slave trade took off.
Reply
+4
User avatar #82 - thisguyissmallllll (12/23/2015) [-]
stfu whiny cunt
Reply
+9
User avatar #36 - greatgatsby (12/23/2015) [-]
Can we stop with this cancerous political junk, I come here to laugh not read autism
Reply
-4
User avatar #38 to #36 - phtholognyrrh (12/23/2015) [-]
fun fact:

pressing the next button takes less effort than bitching about the post
Reply
-1
#94 to #38 - anon (12/23/2015) [-]
BBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
+3
User avatar #109 - nimba (12/23/2015) [-]
It's history relevant to their own country. For example, I know **** all about USA history but I could school you on Boudica and the history of the protestant-catholic dynamic in English-Scottish politics.
Reply
+3
User avatar #99 - ScottP (12/23/2015) [-]
Throughout history, basically every society with power owned slaves or something similar. It's not about the color of the skin. It's about what you could do with the power you had because no one else could stop you.
Reply
+2
#35 - rollfourexplain (12/23/2015) [-]
Even Abraham Lincon did not see Black people as equal to whites. He supported them being shipped off to Africa after the dust of USA's Civil War had settled.

The OP has a point but this is being told to the wrong audience. FJ as a collective has heard a hell of a lot about white people telling other white people how terrible white people are. It's one of the worst things to ever come out of colleges.
Reply
+2
User avatar #16 - doombunni (12/23/2015) [-]
Something that I have to teach to my students is that slavery didn't start in America, and it didn't end in America. It is one of the oldest institutions in the world, and is still practiced today in many countries and in many different forms.
Reply
+1
User avatar #196 - nanako (12/27/2015) [-]
>Daily Reminder
>Posted by: Not schnizel

Reply
+1
User avatar #162 - chaosraptor (12/23/2015) [-]
reminds me
when i was back in high school in the 90's, i remember the year i took history class as an option

teacher spent a whole year with one big long sob story about apartheid in africa

not... the collapse of the USSR tyhat happened a few years previous... nothing about the yugoslav war,... barely enything about real world issues and not much about even thuis country,.....

nope teacher just had one year-long big boo hoo over the poor dindus, the evil warlords running the countries in africa, and how nelson mandela was a poor oppressed hero
****** 90's were a huge leap towards social justice ********
Reply
+1
#114 - cheesywilly (12/23/2015) [-]
You speak to any racial minority in the UK these days and you'd think the English invented slavery, never mind became the first country to outlaw it.
Reply
0
#3 - anon (12/22/2015) [-]
Whites were not the first to end slavery Jesus Christ this is a bad post
Reply
+1
User avatar #68 - platinumaltaria ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-]
>> Europeans bought_ slaves off the african slave owners... This should not be that hard to grasp.
123>
[ 196 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)