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.
So if the world runs out of oil, and other petro resources in next 50-100 years will slavery and animal labor come back as main form of way to get things done. If that happens who becomes a slave in that society? Is that a possibility, or will we discover fusion power in time to give us enough electricity to power everything we need? Who would be the slaves in a future withouth mechanical machines to do our work? Would there just be a class of poor that have to do all the labor, and a rich class in a world without enough energy resources. We may just be living during a in between period of the ages of mankind.
That's kind of an interesting point. We (The People of The World), do need a way to get things done. Energy.
In 1913 -100 years ago - the world was busy shifting from coal to oil. All of Britain's ships were being converted and there was great talk of this new 'diesel' locomotive that could somehow run on oil. In fact, one of the factors in forming WW I was the swapping of arms for oil by Germany, who supplied arms to Mexico, who then agreed to sell oil to Germany but not Britain. (Sneaky, Huh?)
Today it is natural gas. LNG - Liquified Natural Gas - is being shipped in huge quantities everywhere in the world, and there is talk of this new kind of locomotive that can.......(you guessed it).
The world goes round and round. 100 years from now there will be yet another way to get things done. But I don't think people and animals will ever be back in favor.
Ok, bright one, Lets put it in a real basic term........Take away ALL of the contributions that were made by Black Americans to this country and put them in Africa. If slavery never existed Africa proably would not be the same Africa that you see today. Everything from the many uses of the peanut to the traffic light would not have be discovered that the time that it was. I don't doubt that it would have been discovered ...eventually, but it would have originated in some part of Africa. You make it sound like Euros did blacks a favor by enslaving them! what A crock!
As far as compensation, what not? everyone else who have suffered far less was awarded it. Chinese, Native Americans, Jews ect. The only problem that I have is that all blacks were not decendents of slavery and trying to prove that they are would be too costly.
Really if you want to get technical most of Africa's ills came from nationalities outside of it. Portuguese, Spainards, British ect all contributed to the kaos that is Africa today
Arabs were oppressing and enslaving black Africans and colonizing and conquesting the African continent since ancient times. There was also the brutal Arab slave trade which world along side the European slave trade. We can't forget about the oppression the Arabs brought, not trying to excuse what the Europeans did but it's the Muslims and Arabs that probably did more and continue to do more damage to Africans and the African diaspora across the globe.
The Clotilde is a good story but did I misread it;
The story on wikipedia makes no mention of the slaves escaping??
also it makes note that the story could be fictional; Whether the Clotilda story is true, and to what extent it is based on any real occurrence, may never be known. That is why the Wanderer is still considered the last documented slave ship to reach America.
Well the descendants of the slaves that came on the Clothilde still exist and practice many aspects of their spiritual, material, and other traditional cultures.
Arabs were oppressing and enslaving black Africans and colonizing and conquesting the African continent since ancient times. There was also the brutal Arab slave trade which world along side the European slave trade. We can't forget about the oppression the Arabs brought, not trying to excuse what the Europeans did but it's the Muslims and Arabs that probably did more and continue to do more damage to Africans and the African diaspora across the globe.
This is very true. Have you noticed that the religons of so-called peace have been the main ones that has promoted and profitted the most from the slave trade?
I'm aware of the Arab hand in the past and present slave trade, but the situation in America with the decendents of slaves has a generational effects on American blacks today.
This is very true. Have you noticed that the religons of so-called peace have been the main ones that has promoted and profitted the most from the slave trade?
I'm aware of the Arab hand in the past and present slave trade, but the situation in America with the decendents of slaves has a generational effects on American blacks today.
I think Jim Crow has had more of an effect on Americans of African descent today rather than slavery. Slavery was NOT racial. People of all races were victims of and perpetrators of slavery or had some hand in it. Slavery may have lead to or helped to promulgate the racism of the future, but slavery was not racial. Jim Crow was straight up institutional and racist as ****ing hell. One drop rule also splintered and did a lot of damage between 1930 and 1967 sadly. That did a lot of damage as well.
What makes some of you think that the blacks were happy being slaves? The population of blacks was constantly rising and in many reports it has that there were more slaves than whites and uprising were becoming more common. Actually I believe if it was not for the timing of the civil war between the freed blacks, revolting slaves and the native americans there would have been a chance that the whites in the south would have been eradicated anyway.
What makes some of you think that the blacks were happy being slaves? The population of blacks was constantly rising and in many reports it has that there were more slaves than whites and uprising were becoming more common. Actually I believe if it was not for the timing of the civil war between the freed blacks, revolting slaves and the native americans there would have been a chance that the whites in the south would have been eradicated anyway.
Well, Haiti turned out well didn't it? Why does a system of labor justify genocide? Whites in Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, and the Appalachians were just fine. There weren't enough slaves to do much of anything in those states. BTW, Cherokees fought for the south in the Civil War.
Was'nt Haiti under French rule? Jamaica was under British rule if you want use them as well.
I'm saying the South would be similar to a large-scale Haiti ($13B GDP), if that had happened. Napoleon almost came and took Haiti back. It has had 200 years in Caribbean paradise, and still struggles economically. I would just like to know why. Jamaica ($25B GDP) has done a little better for itself.
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.
