With people like this I simply ask if they were a slave. I worked with a guy once who sounded like this and would just ignore his rantings. I then asked him one day what his secret was. He was confused and I said well for someone who is over 150 years old you look amazing
Everytime I have pointed out that there were black people who owned slaves or that African kingdoms enslaved people as well and are the beginning of the chain they just say I am deflecting. I then try to say that I'm not denying slavery happened or that it was a brutal practice but I think it is a bad thing to act like the UK and America are the only countries to ever own slaves and ignore the work they did to free slaves (UK especially). Also interesting how they don't seem to care about modern day slaves all over the world because harping on slavery that ended a long time ago pays very well.
The one that always annoys me is that the "Cotton Skyscrapers" (the semi-official name for the whole "America built on slavery" thing) idea has been thoroughly disproven by actual data and historical fact. Just like in every other instance, slavery is/was a drag on the economy, and the US was an economic backwater while it was practiced. It wasnt until it had been abolished and the effects of the Civil War overcome that the US became the industrial juggernaut it was/is.
Like always, it is that they hate America and think they found a wedge issue. When instead, from personal experience, it is only serving to undo any good will many normies had toward Black people and unite Hispanics, Asians, and Whites in an idea of "Fuck the Blacks."
And I hate it, but at this point it is a lot of Black people themselves who are perpetuating it, so what do they expect me to do?
I agree with you, and I predicted this a long time ago that people are going to get tired of blacks (hate to say this since I'm black as well but I can't ignore the facts) and I think the whole "summer of love" really accelerated it. I get called a sellout for simply pointing out facts or asking these people why they don't move to a non-white paradise of their choosing. Crazy times my friend.
I had an argument with my dad about how slavery has been promoted as more brutal than it was. He started going on about how it would make slavery seem okay otherwise and hos it sounded like i was defending it. I shut him up by asking if he'd be fine as a slave if he were treated nice because I see slavery itself as a problem rather than the conditions or who did it or it was done to.
Yea I mean there are all kinds of stories of masters Fromm very cruel to very kind. My gg grandfather got a few acres of land after slavery from his former master. Granted he was the illegitimate son of the master so I guess that doesn’t count. I do remember in his book Booker T mentions that when the son of his former master got sick the former slaves gathered money to pay for his treatment.
But I feel the black people today who constantly talk about slavery must want to be oppressed
At this point with any Disney writer I would be surprised if they simply wanted to write a good story. I’m convinced being a worthless activist is required
I remember it being pretty decent. Your basic slice of life tween comedy only animated and starring a Black family. The dad was wacky, there was usually a lesson somewhere but it wasn’t super pozzed or anything. Imagine a G-rated Boondocks.
Disney show that's being ruined by "current year".
It had a few Tyler Perry-esque messages in there along the way, but not in a Lisa's soap box way from what I vaguely remember. The grandma was a hybrid of a child-friendly Madea and George's mom on the George Lopez show.
It had semi groan worthy moments, but that's to be expected from any show with Kwanzaa in it.
Its most egregious crime was it took the "father of the house is always wrong and you can do whatever cruelty you want to him" problem of most TV and turned it up to 130%. Like, beyond slapstick and cliches and into straight up evil levels of torment just for the giggles of his parasitic mother or daring to not kneel to his wife's every desire.
Okay, fine, they built the White House, but that is also shit.
Slavery was never (and is never) economically profitable to the whole of a society. It is only profitable by the subsidy from the government. Slaves are wildly more expensive than simply hiring cheap labor locally, but slaves are very useful as a political weapon to wield to give plantation owners significant power.
The economy of the US was built on pioneering economies that industrialized to become profitable trading destinations, both among themselves and abroad.
Had the south actually paid southerners to fucking farm, the south would probably have remained a massive economic engine well into the 20th century. We can see the power of "The Sun Belt" to this very day, but slavery actually prevented that; and then progressive politics continued to stifle it.
Here's the best way to beat these arguments when they ever come up. Remember that the Left's fundamental argument is that slavery and racism work. They just don't think that they like who used. In reality, neither actually do.
Slavery gives power in only one significant way, and that's political.
A long takedown of why slavery is always economically a poor plan is probably a bit inappropriate, but Thomas Sowell covers it fairly well in "Black Rednecks & White Liberals". I'll summarize it as: to the larger economy, it works quite similar to mass migration: regulated and imported people colonize areas, are made economically dependent on the slave owners (so that even being freed is a poor individual economic choice for them), but they also depress wages from the domestic population, and cut off entire industries to the general population. Worse, slaves are actually wildly expensive, not only to purchase, but to maintain. Slavery is inherently inferior to "capital investments", which make your systems more efficient by automating something (even without computers). Economically, slavery is a bad idea UNLESS you have the government step in to prop it up. The reason the government wants to step in is because slave-owners can effectively maintain absolute control over portions of the economy by keeping domestic workers and competition out of the market. This means that the government no longer has to accept the economy as it is, but can manipulate it through a handful of slave-owning aristocrats.
This benefits the slave-owners because it brings them tremendous political power & influence within the government, since they are effectively keystones in an economy. Slavery inherently pushes out small business farmers and competition, but the government protects the extreme expense of keeping and owning slaves. If we look back to American history, this is one of the reasons why abolitionists and anti-slavery activists actually thought the equivalent of a political revolution or war would be necessary. Slavery was extremely heavily regulated. It's one of the reasons slave owners weren't allowed by the state to free their slaves. Effectively, they would only tolerate slave owners transferring slaves over to other slave owners, so that the state could maintain it's control over the economy. This is why the American south was so slow to industrialize, and when slavery ended, it faced an economic collapse as literally none of the whites were prepared to pick cotton or farm yams. Share cropping was invented to basically try and keep a dead slave system going.
More than that, this problem of a plantation aristocracy having total control over the economies and governments of southern states was the literal basis of the 3/5ths compromise. The Left complains that the compromise meant that "blacks were only considered 3/5ths of a person", but the compromise explicitly doesn't mention race, because free blacks were still counted as "freemen", or simply: non-slaves.
In the constitutional conventions, the House of Representatives was always designed to create a legislative body based off of population NOT NUMBER OF CITIZENS (nobody really knew what a US Citizen even was yet). All the delegates understood that more population gave them more power. However, the New England states that opposed slavery understood that all the slave states had to do to increase their power in government was to just import population at will. The rest of the country wouldn't be okay with letting in literal hordes of foreigners, but the slave states could import hordes of slaves, and so long as they had them in their plantations' records (whether or not they were alive), they'd basically be able to give themselves infinite power, when they were already the central pillars of power in both the economy and government in southern states. So they proposed that slaves be NOT counted into the population.
The slave states through an absolute fit, and the constitutional convention nearly ended right there. The slave states were going to walk completely the fuck out because they knew that their strongest political advantage was being evaporated. The slave states demanded that literally every person in the country be counted, slaves, women, foreigners, infants, criminals, everyone. (They didn't realize how badly that strategy would go as the northern states were going to have a population boom). If the government is to be truly representative of all people, then it must include literally everyone. The anti-slavery states said it would be ridiculous to count slaves since they are explicitly deprived of any political rights, and are effectively just incarcerated foreigners. The government shouldn't be representing them at all. Worse, if slaves are property, why not count cattle, and sheep, and trees?
Nobody budged when an offer of counting them as 1/2 was made, but 3/5ths is slightly better than one half, and the anti-slavery states were never gonna get 0, but the slave states were never gonna get 1. So: 3/5ths compromise.
Let's look at how serious a political problem this would have been by the time of the civil war. The population of the northern states was somewhere around 20 million. The population of the southern states was 9 million... 4 million of that were slaves. If the anti-slavery states had gotten their way, slave state representatives would have had somewhere around 1/5th of the house. They had slightly more than that, thanks to the 3/5ths compromise. This is why Senate control was so fucking dire, and why the slave states sent militias into "Bleeding Kansas" to make Kansas a slave state.
I hope that kind of explains why slavery is politically useful to slave-owners.
Ah... thanks for this response. The last half of your first long paragraph was particularly illuminating. I've become so cold to the value of politics that I'd forgotten that there was a time where there really were differing opinions and outlooks on life.
I guess it's time to actually read some Sowell, rather than just casually listening to his Hoover Institute interviews, and thinking that he's just basically re-iterating a common sense that the world seems to have lost.
Funny how even to take their claims at face value (which I can't without laughing like the Joker), it naturally implies they can build all of the infrastructure and monuments around us and STILL lose easily to the 'white people' that they end up enslaved on mass....
Missing from this modern day mythology of black americans is temptation and corruption. Like a weasly white man offering usury to make life easier, or a black woman who begged her king to castrate his empire because she felt sad about something. It would be tolerable if it was a functional mythology.
Was the redhead supposed to rep the Irish? What about the Asian slaves and the other indentured people. The slaves may have helped to build aspects of the country, and yhey accidentally pointed out nobody notable has built much of anything relevant recently. Except the super soaker.
as a history buff, the insistence that blacks "built" the US is disgusting.
The industrial revolution built the US, which was started and primarily propagated in the north free states.
The US wasnt built by cash crops: cotton, tobacco, sugar cane. All those blacks did was continue the wealth of already wealthy second sons of wealthy Englishmen.
“New England ship owners” funny how they can’t say Jewish
With people like this I simply ask if they were a slave. I worked with a guy once who sounded like this and would just ignore his rantings. I then asked him one day what his secret was. He was confused and I said well for someone who is over 150 years old you look amazing
When you gonna tell him about the fact that the first slave owner in America was a black man?
Everytime I have pointed out that there were black people who owned slaves or that African kingdoms enslaved people as well and are the beginning of the chain they just say I am deflecting. I then try to say that I'm not denying slavery happened or that it was a brutal practice but I think it is a bad thing to act like the UK and America are the only countries to ever own slaves and ignore the work they did to free slaves (UK especially). Also interesting how they don't seem to care about modern day slaves all over the world because harping on slavery that ended a long time ago pays very well.
The one that always annoys me is that the "Cotton Skyscrapers" (the semi-official name for the whole "America built on slavery" thing) idea has been thoroughly disproven by actual data and historical fact. Just like in every other instance, slavery is/was a drag on the economy, and the US was an economic backwater while it was practiced. It wasnt until it had been abolished and the effects of the Civil War overcome that the US became the industrial juggernaut it was/is.
Like always, it is that they hate America and think they found a wedge issue. When instead, from personal experience, it is only serving to undo any good will many normies had toward Black people and unite Hispanics, Asians, and Whites in an idea of "Fuck the Blacks."
And I hate it, but at this point it is a lot of Black people themselves who are perpetuating it, so what do they expect me to do?
I agree with you, and I predicted this a long time ago that people are going to get tired of blacks (hate to say this since I'm black as well but I can't ignore the facts) and I think the whole "summer of love" really accelerated it. I get called a sellout for simply pointing out facts or asking these people why they don't move to a non-white paradise of their choosing. Crazy times my friend.
I'll 100% "sellout" aka keep my dignity and not act like retard
Same here. How my parents raised me
I had an argument with my dad about how slavery has been promoted as more brutal than it was. He started going on about how it would make slavery seem okay otherwise and hos it sounded like i was defending it. I shut him up by asking if he'd be fine as a slave if he were treated nice because I see slavery itself as a problem rather than the conditions or who did it or it was done to.
Yea I mean there are all kinds of stories of masters Fromm very cruel to very kind. My gg grandfather got a few acres of land after slavery from his former master. Granted he was the illegitimate son of the master so I guess that doesn’t count. I do remember in his book Booker T mentions that when the son of his former master got sick the former slaves gathered money to pay for his treatment.
But I feel the black people today who constantly talk about slavery must want to be oppressed
They're not even New England or Jewish. They are Portuguese.
Black people are holding back human advancement by being so self destructive.
"We built America. We're the ones who really built the pyramids. We invented math."
Even if all of those lies were true, so fucking what?? Look at you now. Your communities are terrible in virtually every way.
and that is the major issue with the "we wuz kangs" proclamations.
Ahem, I think you mean
"Dey think doze niggas wuz kangz n shit, now deez niggas aint shit".
Cool, When are they gonna build Africa?
Uhm maybe you haven't heard of a little place called Wakanda?
Feels like I've been hearing about Wakanda forever at this point.
I forgot about the Rhino farms.
At this point with any Disney writer I would be surprised if they simply wanted to write a good story. I’m convinced being a worthless activist is required
WE
WUZ
KANGS
'N SHIET
I remember it being pretty decent. Your basic slice of life tween comedy only animated and starring a Black family. The dad was wacky, there was usually a lesson somewhere but it wasn’t super pozzed or anything. Imagine a G-rated Boondocks.
Yeah my specific memories of the show are very limited but I remember it being decent for what it was.
Disney show that's being ruined by "current year".
It had a few Tyler Perry-esque messages in there along the way, but not in a Lisa's soap box way from what I vaguely remember. The grandma was a hybrid of a child-friendly Madea and George's mom on the George Lopez show.
It had semi groan worthy moments, but that's to be expected from any show with Kwanzaa in it.
Its most egregious crime was it took the "father of the house is always wrong and you can do whatever cruelty you want to him" problem of most TV and turned it up to 130%. Like, beyond slapstick and cliches and into straight up evil levels of torment just for the giggles of his parasitic mother or daring to not kneel to his wife's every desire.
Slaves didn't build shit.
Okay, fine, they built the White House, but that is also shit.
Slavery was never (and is never) economically profitable to the whole of a society. It is only profitable by the subsidy from the government. Slaves are wildly more expensive than simply hiring cheap labor locally, but slaves are very useful as a political weapon to wield to give plantation owners significant power.
The economy of the US was built on pioneering economies that industrialized to become profitable trading destinations, both among themselves and abroad.
Had the south actually paid southerners to fucking farm, the south would probably have remained a massive economic engine well into the 20th century. We can see the power of "The Sun Belt" to this very day, but slavery actually prevented that; and then progressive politics continued to stifle it.
Here's the best way to beat these arguments when they ever come up. Remember that the Left's fundamental argument is that slavery and racism work. They just don't think that they like who used. In reality, neither actually do.
What do you mean by:
I honestly just don't understand.
Sorry for the delayed reply back.
Slavery gives power in only one significant way, and that's political.
A long takedown of why slavery is always economically a poor plan is probably a bit inappropriate, but Thomas Sowell covers it fairly well in "Black Rednecks & White Liberals". I'll summarize it as: to the larger economy, it works quite similar to mass migration: regulated and imported people colonize areas, are made economically dependent on the slave owners (so that even being freed is a poor individual economic choice for them), but they also depress wages from the domestic population, and cut off entire industries to the general population. Worse, slaves are actually wildly expensive, not only to purchase, but to maintain. Slavery is inherently inferior to "capital investments", which make your systems more efficient by automating something (even without computers). Economically, slavery is a bad idea UNLESS you have the government step in to prop it up. The reason the government wants to step in is because slave-owners can effectively maintain absolute control over portions of the economy by keeping domestic workers and competition out of the market. This means that the government no longer has to accept the economy as it is, but can manipulate it through a handful of slave-owning aristocrats.
This benefits the slave-owners because it brings them tremendous political power & influence within the government, since they are effectively keystones in an economy. Slavery inherently pushes out small business farmers and competition, but the government protects the extreme expense of keeping and owning slaves. If we look back to American history, this is one of the reasons why abolitionists and anti-slavery activists actually thought the equivalent of a political revolution or war would be necessary. Slavery was extremely heavily regulated. It's one of the reasons slave owners weren't allowed by the state to free their slaves. Effectively, they would only tolerate slave owners transferring slaves over to other slave owners, so that the state could maintain it's control over the economy. This is why the American south was so slow to industrialize, and when slavery ended, it faced an economic collapse as literally none of the whites were prepared to pick cotton or farm yams. Share cropping was invented to basically try and keep a dead slave system going.
More than that, this problem of a plantation aristocracy having total control over the economies and governments of southern states was the literal basis of the 3/5ths compromise. The Left complains that the compromise meant that "blacks were only considered 3/5ths of a person", but the compromise explicitly doesn't mention race, because free blacks were still counted as "freemen", or simply: non-slaves.
In the constitutional conventions, the House of Representatives was always designed to create a legislative body based off of population NOT NUMBER OF CITIZENS (nobody really knew what a US Citizen even was yet). All the delegates understood that more population gave them more power. However, the New England states that opposed slavery understood that all the slave states had to do to increase their power in government was to just import population at will. The rest of the country wouldn't be okay with letting in literal hordes of foreigners, but the slave states could import hordes of slaves, and so long as they had them in their plantations' records (whether or not they were alive), they'd basically be able to give themselves infinite power, when they were already the central pillars of power in both the economy and government in southern states. So they proposed that slaves be NOT counted into the population.
The slave states through an absolute fit, and the constitutional convention nearly ended right there. The slave states were going to walk completely the fuck out because they knew that their strongest political advantage was being evaporated. The slave states demanded that literally every person in the country be counted, slaves, women, foreigners, infants, criminals, everyone. (They didn't realize how badly that strategy would go as the northern states were going to have a population boom). If the government is to be truly representative of all people, then it must include literally everyone. The anti-slavery states said it would be ridiculous to count slaves since they are explicitly deprived of any political rights, and are effectively just incarcerated foreigners. The government shouldn't be representing them at all. Worse, if slaves are property, why not count cattle, and sheep, and trees?
Nobody budged when an offer of counting them as 1/2 was made, but 3/5ths is slightly better than one half, and the anti-slavery states were never gonna get 0, but the slave states were never gonna get 1. So: 3/5ths compromise.
Let's look at how serious a political problem this would have been by the time of the civil war. The population of the northern states was somewhere around 20 million. The population of the southern states was 9 million... 4 million of that were slaves. If the anti-slavery states had gotten their way, slave state representatives would have had somewhere around 1/5th of the house. They had slightly more than that, thanks to the 3/5ths compromise. This is why Senate control was so fucking dire, and why the slave states sent militias into "Bleeding Kansas" to make Kansas a slave state.
I hope that kind of explains why slavery is politically useful to slave-owners.
Ah... thanks for this response. The last half of your first long paragraph was particularly illuminating. I've become so cold to the value of politics that I'd forgotten that there was a time where there really were differing opinions and outlooks on life.
I guess it's time to actually read some Sowell, rather than just casually listening to his Hoover Institute interviews, and thinking that he's just basically re-iterating a common sense that the world seems to have lost.
"You talking about Liberia, right?" is a good response.
Funny how even to take their claims at face value (which I can't without laughing like the Joker), it naturally implies they can build all of the infrastructure and monuments around us and STILL lose easily to the 'white people' that they end up enslaved on mass....
Missing from this modern day mythology of black americans is temptation and corruption. Like a weasly white man offering usury to make life easier, or a black woman who begged her king to castrate his empire because she felt sad about something. It would be tolerable if it was a functional mythology.
Was the redhead supposed to rep the Irish? What about the Asian slaves and the other indentured people. The slaves may have helped to build aspects of the country, and yhey accidentally pointed out nobody notable has built much of anything relevant recently. Except the super soaker.
cotton skyscrapers
as a history buff, the insistence that blacks "built" the US is disgusting.
The industrial revolution built the US, which was started and primarily propagated in the north free states.
The US wasnt built by cash crops: cotton, tobacco, sugar cane. All those blacks did was continue the wealth of already wealthy second sons of wealthy Englishmen.
I'm waiting for the one from black people who knew shit in the 90s: Niggas claim shit they don't own because nothing's dumber than a nigga.