U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:11 PM
 
13,073 posts, read 5,441,059 times
Reputation: 8060

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by deb100 View Post
And if they extend to the early eighteenth century in the north in all probability they include ancestors who participated in or profited from the international slave trade. And Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of the preeminent international slave traffickers of their age.
The Vikings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2015, 01:39 PM
 
13,073 posts, read 5,441,059 times
Reputation: 8060
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Yes, it is.

1860 Census Results
http://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-A...der_1416596976

Owning *lots of* slaves was beyond the means of most people. But the United States was less unequal in the mid-19th century than it is today. Owning a small number of slaves was clearly within the means of a major portion of the population.

I agree with you that people that did not own slaves benefited financially from slavery, absolutely. Not just New York financiers, but northern manufacturing companies that relied on southern raw materials, as well.



Your post said, "Most people were not rich enough to own slaves, ergo most people are not descendants of slave owners. Ironically, many black people descended from slaves are also descended from slave owners." I don't think there is anything ironic about the descent of black people from slave-owners who had forced sexual relationships with slaves.



You are distorting Dr. Gates' article on the subject.

Black Slave Owners: Did They Exist? - The Root

And see this: 1860 Census Results



So it is not ironic. Tragic, complicated, and brutal would be better descriptions.



1860 Census Results

Remove the free states from the equation. You get 393,975 slave-owning families out of 1,515,605 total families--or 26% ownership. Looking just at the South, you get 333,399 slave-owning families out of 1,117,507 families, or 29.8% ownership (I'm taking Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia as "the South").

As you can see, 26% of free Virginia families owned slaves (in 1860). The 1750s had very different statistics than the 1860s. Slavery was booming in the mid 19th century. In 1790, there were just under 700,000 slaves in the United States. By 1860, there were nearly 4 million. In 1820, there were about 1.5 million.
I should have chosen my words better, but you're just a tad too angry over a little innocuous comment about something that happened a long time ago. If I go back far enough I would find that maybe some of my ancestors were slave owners (I doubt it, but it's possible). If I go even further, I could find that my own ancestors were serfs/slaves and some of my own ancestors were the products of rape by their masters. I don't get angry about it. The past is gone and there's nothing I can do about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 03:18 PM
 
590 posts, read 434,368 times
Reputation: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52 View Post
Can you give source for that ratio please?

One side of my family was centered in Halifax County, Virginia in the 1750s. According to Census records, only 1 man, a Doctor (surname) Jacobs, owned slaves in the whole county. The county was much larger than it appears on a map today. He had a man, woman and a child as slaves on that census.

Poor people back then mostly farmed. Very few owned more than 48 acres. Their workforce was their children. It was not uncommon for them to have 12 or more of them, being that their was no reliable birth control - but why would they want a reliable form of birth control anyway? Children had value to families back then.
You really should do more research before posting. In the first census, in 1790, there were more than twice as many slaves as free people in Halifax County, and during the Revolution the county balked at providing troops because they feared slave uprisings at home. At the time of the Civil War Halifax County had more slaves than any other county in Virginia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
30,700 posts, read 9,178,500 times
Reputation: 29211
Notwithstanding PBS's integriry lapse, this is yet another example of how these Hollyweird people think they reall are different from (and superior to) everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 04:20 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 1,709,251 times
Reputation: 2220
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
I should have chosen my words better, but you're just a tad too angry over a little innocuous comment about something that happened a long time ago. If I go back far enough I would find that maybe some of my ancestors were slave owners (I doubt it, but it's possible). If I go even further, I could find that my own ancestors were serfs/slaves and some of my own ancestors were the products of rape by their masters. I don't get angry about it. The past is gone and there's nothing I can do about it.
I am not angry. The comment was flippant, and I thought a dose of reality was appropriate, as many readers may not know the source of slave-owning parentage for most black descendants of US slaves. Your other post indicated that your family is "not all from the South." Assuming that some are (and that you are white), it's probably a good bet that you do have slave-owning ancestors.

While the past is in the past, there is no reason to ignore and distort it. When you do, you appear to be engaging in a political act--namely whitewashing past misconduct. If you are intending to do that, then be honest about it. If you are not, then take a little more care to be accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
869 posts, read 1,597,841 times
Reputation: 1469
What did this guy do that was all that terrible that people have to come down on him so hard for? So he doesn't want us to know he family owned slaves. I get it. It was a terrible thing and some may take it wrong. No big deal. I didn't lose any respect for him or refer to him as a retard liberal or whatever slight. People need to stop overreacting on this. He didn't harm anyone or break a law. Adrien Peterson got better treatment than this and he abused a child for crying out loud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 04:22 PM
Status: "happy again, no longer catless! t...." (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,431 posts, read 16,743,296 times
Reputation: 16460
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConeyGirl52 View Post
I have yet to see a black person show any 'guilt' at all over the topic. Have you?

One would think they didnt play any role at all in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade to listen to them talk, when history shows that a black slave owner took indentured servitude from a set amount of years for both blacks and whites alike, to a permanent status situation for the black indentured servant.

The article I quoted above is from "The Root"

Did Black People Own Slaves? By Henry Lewis Gates Jr.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research at Harvard University. He is also the editor-in-chief of The Root.

Reality is anyone that could afford a slave owned one. But, given the price, most people of any race could not afford them. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was the Big Business of its day, and just like our modern day Stock Market, anyone that had no moral misgivings about such a thing particpated.

We will all have a better situation in the US when everyone faces the truth, and doesnt just bend the truth to serve a particular agenda, imho.

It would also be nice if we didnt have to depend on revisionist history as a basis of 'fact' in public schools. It would be better for everyone if students were simply taught facts. Even in Public Colleges you will get the professor who looks at his black students and says to the class, "You are all descended from Slaves", when he hasnt seen their pedigree and really doesnt know.

I would say that that is the biggest disservice any teacher could do to child or young adult, or even the entire country. The bulk of the US is middle class or below in income, and the top 3% only benefit politcally by keeping us all divided and conquered.

Why help them keep us all down? *shrugs*
Quite true. Slavery of blacks as it became to be organized grew out of the practice of shipping 'excess population' from the slums and overpopulated rural areas of Britan, along with the losers of rebellions, all under an indenture. It was in reality a 'temperary' state of slavery. Well over half never got to the golden moment of freedom. This included many small children who were sent to pick and process tabacco. They almost all died within a year.

It was the way the Brits solved their excess population of displaced rural population which had centered in cities and in villages where there was no longer any 'need' for them.

The first africans came in 1619 to Jamestown, and were bought from a European dealer, but under the same seven year indenture as anyone else. One was Anthony Johnson. He and the others were treated no different than any other indentured person. But he survived it and went on to become a notable land holder. He had a sizable acrage and a large number of both european and african bond servants and as with other estates, a frequent problem was runaways. When three of his ran, two englishmen and one african, the ultimate punishment from the court they faced was making the african a servant for his natural life. The englishmen were given extended bonds, transfering their ownership to the state for more years when the bond for the owner was done. But the african, John Punch, was made a servant for life. Anthony Johnson sold them upon capture as he didn't want to deal with those who had run away.

In part this came as a divide and conquer strategy, as rebellion from the poor and former servants had nearly taken out a governer, making it brutal enough to white servants that they might reconsider running, but with the intention of splitting the mix of black and white rebellion with the lifetime sentence.

I'd say that not only many of us who have ancestors who go back that far could have had slave holders in the family, but most who go back to the 1500 to 1700's likely have more than a few 'servants' in there too.

My five x great grandfather came as a convict under indenture on the first organized shipment of convicts from the old bailey in 1719. The companies who transported the convicts also ran the slave trade and used the same ships and shipping methods. The revolution finally ended the convict trade as convicts so often came with gaoul fever and the newly born US didn't want to take a chance, not that they had any objection to the cheap labor.

Thus our revolution caused the settlement of Australia to begin.

Since the beginning when the first 'slaves' were the losers of wars with Britan and people displaced and poor, rounded up because they were in 'excess', all of them european, those with property had seen those who only had labor to contribute as more animal than human and treated them the same. Color didn't have significant impact for over a century, and even then it was really about power and money and influence and the successful division of the poor and owned.

Maybe if we studied the whole subject, from the way it evolved and how poverty and losing a war was the beginning, not the vending of africans, we could learn how to grow past the same old strategy which worked way back then too.

A book I'd reccomend is White Cargo - The forgotten History of Britan's White Slaves in America by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh.

http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Fo...ves+in+america
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 04:33 PM
 
13,073 posts, read 5,441,059 times
Reputation: 8060
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
I am not angry. The comment was flippant, and I thought a dose of reality was appropriate, as many readers may not know the source of slave-owning parentage for most black descendants of US slaves. Your other post indicated that your family is "not all from the South." Assuming that some are (and that you are white), it's probably a good bet that you do have slave-owning ancestors.

While the past is in the past, there is no reason to ignore and distort it. When you do, you appear to be engaging in a political act--namely whitewashing past misconduct. If you are intending to do that, then be honest about it. If you are not, then take a little more care to be accurate.
I was replying to a post, I don't care much about what people did 200 years ago, and I'm not whitewashing anything. One thing I do know for sure is that before slavery was abolished in the 19th Century, it was a common practice in all corners of the earth, in nearly every society. There was a bloody civil war fought over it, and it nearly destroyed the country. The Jim Crow era is a worse sin since that happened more recently. Yet another thing I did not participate in as it occurred before I was born.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 05:53 PM
 
1,077 posts, read 651,432 times
Reputation: 1636
Ben Affleck Reveals Name Of Slave Owner Relative Is Benjamin Cole

Ben Affleck has revealed the name of his slave owner ancestor after it emerged he had requested that piece of his family history be removed from the PBS’ show “Finding Your Roots.” On Wednesday, Affleck tweeted, “Lots of people have been asking who the guy was,” before adding, “His name was Benjamin Cole — lived in Georgia on my Mom’s side about six generations back.”

On Tuesday, Affleck apologized when news broke that he had asked “Finding Your Roots” host and executive producer Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to not include information about his slave owning relative in the program. “I didn’t want any television show about my family to include a guy who owned slaves,” the actor explained on Facebook. “I was embarrassed. The very thought left a bad taste in my mouth.”


Ben Affleck Reveals Name Of Slave Owner Relative Is Benjamin Cole


Kudos to you Ben. You let it out before someone else did. I give you credit.

You are not responsible for what your ancestor did.

I don't blame you for having that bad taste in your mouth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 06:18 PM
 
7,176 posts, read 2,923,515 times
Reputation: 9873
It's not the slave owning of past relatives that bothers me its PBS. They rolled over and let him have his way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top