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.
The historical events that occurred in the Congo, & in the surrounding Portuguese, French, & German colonies, is analogous to the historical events that occurred in the antebellum United States.
For any historical account to ignore the variously-named & long-lasting systems of race-based forced labor & its long-lasting impact & influences is to deem that accounting guilty of historical distortion, evasion, & harmful revisionism.
I can offer this: Slaves in the US were expensive. Treatment was harsh, but they were valued property.
Slaves in Africa were not even owned. They were forced to work by men they did not know and their women were held captive in order to force the slaves to work. They were shot for sport and worked to death and then left to die along the roads or rivers. On top of that, the slavery in Congo happened long after the Civil War had ended, and was kept secret long into the 20th century. Ironically, Sanford, FL (Trayvon Martin) was named in honor of a man who promoted what was happening in Congo. He was a US Ambassador to Belgium and had been completely fooled by the deception of King Leopold.
I can offer this: Slaves in the US were expensive. Treatment was harsh, but they were valued property.
Slaves in Africa were not even owned. They were forced to work by men they did not know and their women were held captive in order to force the slaves to work. They were shot for sport and worked to death and then left to die along the roads or rivers. On top of that, the slavery in Congo happened long after the Civil War had ended, and was kept secret long into the 20th century. Ironically, Sanford, FL (Trayvon Martin) was named in honor of a man who promoted what was happening in Congo. He was a US Ambassador to Belgium and had been completely fooled by the deception of King Leopold.
This is the History Forum; the parallel between the two events is the historical distortion, evasion, & revisionism surrounding & masking the events, i.e. 'History rhymes'.
Here in the US, the propaganda the Lost Cause adherents peddled ( & continue to peddle ) was/is not only benign myths, the lies distort history.
As Mr Loewen writes:
Quote:
The Confederates won with the pen (and the noose) what they could not win on the battlefield: the cause of white supremacy and the dominant understanding of what the war was all about. We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation that they spread, which has manifested in both our history books and our public monuments.
The author of King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa, Adam Hochschild's likens the historical distortion, evasion, & harmful revisionism about colonialism almost anywhere in Africa to the same in US:
Quote:
...What happened in the Congo—and the similar, tragically ignored bloodbath in surrounding Portuguese, French, and German colonies—was not genocide. ... However, his letter does not respond to a principal criticism I had of the exhibit, namely that it displayed virtually nothing about a major cause of this high death toll, the colony’s pervasive, long-lasting forced labor system.
For a museum exhibit about colonialism almost anywhere in Africa to ignore this is to be like one of those elegant restored plantation houses in the American South where the tour guides avoid mentioning slavery. ...
A culture and attitude to break free wasn't present enough among slaves to consolidate plans. The dominant emotions were fear and timidity. Plus, there was no real mechanism to communicate together between plantations and groups, to plan anything, even if they got to that point. Also, access to sufficient weapons and familiarity with using them was another matter.
John Brown tried to remedy some of that, but falsely assumed that large numbers were at the point of open rebellion.
They were vastly outnumbered in any case. It could never have happened IMO.
Some slaves did have access to a gun, perhaps not an arsenal. Some slaves were allowed to hunt and supplement their family's rations, and we know that the slave York, from the Journey of discovery carried a gun. Simon Grey also was allowed to carried gun in order to carry out his duties for his owner. After the Stono Rebellion plantation owners knew that if there were many weapons on the plantation slaves would steal them. Maroons and Black Seminoles were basically slaves who freed themselves.
There were the usual impoverished, losers on the battle field, & criminals but remember the plantation system was a 3 way street between metropolitan Europa, settler Americas & the Africa coast from Cacheu to Angola (as well as Mozambique) & slaves were being breed from at least the 18th century in the coastal ports of the later.
The dominant ideology then (& one must admit the current generation's fruit hasn't fallen too far from the tree) was "God is greed & greed is good".
They were vastly outnumbered in any case. It could never have happened IMO.
No they weren't. It was the Europeans who were outnumbered. I have a book of the 1890 census totals for Mississippi and "coloreds" dominated the region...which makes sense because it was their land. I believe this is why the 1890 census records were destroyed. It listed nationality and we would have proof of not only the Native Americans (who were not "near extinction") but evidence that would cause the conscientious researcher to probe why there were more blacks than whites in the South. The fact that there were more "blacks" in the South after the Civil War is not a secret. The (real) reason why there were more blacks is what some wish to remain hidden.
No they weren't. It was the Europeans who were outnumbered. I have a book of the 1890 census totals for Mississippi and "coloreds" dominated the region...which makes sense because it was their land. I believe this is why the 1890 census records were destroyed. It listed nationality and we would have proof of not only the Native Americans (who were not "near extinction") but evidence that would cause the conscientious researcher to probe why there were more blacks than whites in the South. The fact that there were more "blacks" in the South after the Civil War is not a secret. The (real) reason why there were more blacks is what some wish to remain hidden.
I didn’t realize that. They had no weapons though, no horses or transportation, no tents or other means of shelter, no food of their own etc. and the disadvantage of not knowing their area beyond the plantation.
There were the usual impoverished, losers on the battle field, & criminals but remember the plantation system was a 3 way street between metropolitan Europa, settler Americas & the Africa coast from Cacheu to Angola (as well as Mozambique) & slaves were being breed from at least the 18th century in the coastal ports of the later.
The dominant ideology then (& one must admit the current generation's fruit hasn't fallen too far from the tree) was "God is greed & greed is good".
The neo-colonial aristocratic, bourgoeis & overseer classes once were represented strongly by the slaver sidekicks from the man-children (and/or their descendants) but now with technology & globalist plantation identity politics (especially the media & academia propaganda wing) they are becoming increasingly obsolete, it remains to be seen if the domiciled settlers and the spawn between the former two will go the same route.
No they weren't. It was the Europeans who were outnumbered. I have a book of the 1890 census totals for Mississippi and "coloreds" dominated the region...which makes sense because it was their land. I believe this is why the 1890 census records were destroyed. It listed nationality and we would have proof of not only the Native Americans (who were not "near extinction") but evidence that would cause the conscientious researcher to probe why there were more blacks than whites in the South. The fact that there were more "blacks" in the South after the Civil War is not a secret. The (real) reason why there were more blacks is what some wish to remain hidden.
What purpose would destroying the 1890 census records have served? It is a documented historical fact, recognized by all at the time and since then by anyone the least bit knowledgeable about American history, that two states (South Carolina and Mississippi) had black majorities before the Civil War and for a long time afterward. About one quarter of the population of the slave states were slaves at the time of the Civil War.
No they weren't. It was the Europeans who were outnumbered. I have a book of the 1890 census totals for Mississippi and "coloreds" dominated the region...which makes sense because it was their land.
There were certainly sub-regions of states all throughout the South were blacks were in the majority. But statewide? Only in those two (three, after 1880) cases. And throughout the South as a whole? Certainly not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
I believe this is why the 1890 census records were destroyed. It listed nationality and we would have proof of not only the Native Americans (who were not "near extinction") but evidence that would cause the conscientious researcher to probe why there were more blacks than whites in the South. The fact that there were more "blacks" in the South after the Civil War is not a secret. The (real) reason why there were more blacks is what some wish to remain hidden.
First, there weren't "blacks" in the South after the Civil War. The 1870 and 1880 censuses (linked above) clearly show that, combined, the black majorities in the states where they existed (MS and SC in 1870, a total majority of less than 200,000; MS, SC, LA in 1880, a total majority of less than 450,000 were countered by the white majority in Texas alone (300,000+ in 1870; 800,000+ in 1880). And that doesn't even include the rest of the Southern states, all of which had white majorities.
Second... they destroyed the 1890 Census to hide the same thing that was shown by the 1880 and 1900 census (which both show the same thing)? That makes zero sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
I didn’t realize that. They had no weapons though, no horses or transportation, no tents or other means of shelter, no food of their own etc. and the disadvantage of not knowing their area beyond the plantation.
Quite true. They completely lacked the organization capacity that was critical in suppression any revolt. Numbers weren't enough, even in those places they existed. Weapons, communication, transportation - the white population held the whip, and not only metaphorically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deb100
What purpose would destroying the 1890 census records have served? It is a documented historical fact, recognized by all at the time and since then by anyone the least bit knowledgeable about American history, that two states (South Carolina and Mississippi) had black majorities before the Civil War and for a long time afterward. About one quarter of the population of the slave states were slaves at the time of the Civil War.
None at all. It's a claim not only without evidence, but one that makes no sense at all.
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.
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.
I believe this is why the 1890 census records were destroyed. It listed nationality and we would have proof of not only the Native Americans (who were not "near extinction") but evidence that would cause the conscientious researcher to probe why there were more blacks than whites in the South. The fact that there were more "blacks" in the South after the Civil War is not a secret. The (real) reason why there were more blacks is what some wish to remain hidden.
