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 British had slaves beyond the US. There were African slaves in the English Caribbean. Spain had their African slaves in the Spanish Caribbean and South America mostly, while they also used enslaved Natives in Mexico (and there were a few African slaves in Mexico). Portugal had African slaves in Brazil.
It was a huge economic benefit to European nations ...
For millennia, Africa had more African slaves than all the American and European nations combined. Yet all these African slaves provided little economic benefit to Africa.
So it seems that something other than African slaves were responsible for the American and European nations' economic success.
15 percent, if your figures are accurate, are statistically significant.
African slavery in the US did not build say the steel industry. But it had economic contributions outside the South, major ones. The textile industry, shipping, and the banks in NYC.
In fact, those ships that transported cotton products to NYC and to Europe were built with money made to the process of using cotton.
The BBC itself speaks about the importance of cotton and other agriculture goods grown by slaves to the British economy.
Similarly the products grown by slaves (cotton, sugar, rice) were very important to the COLONIAL European powers. Spain, France, Portugal, Britain, and Holland.
The British had slaves beyond the US. There were African slaves in the English Caribbean. Spain had their African slaves in the Spanish Caribbean and South America mostly, while they also used enslaved Natives in Mexico (and there were a few African slaves in Mexico). Portugal had African slaves in Brazil.
It was a huge economic benefit to European nations, or else why would they do it? The Spanish went as far as to melt down the gold taken from the Aztecs and Incas (after they enslaved them) and shipped it back to Europe. It's on displays in cathedrals in Toledo.
While 15% is statistically significant, it is statistically and common-sensically far less than 85%, and it certainly does not remotely equal 100%. Things that you are mentioning are known to everybody, European colonial powers exploited non-Europeans as slaves for manual work, and that contributed to the European wealth. But, Europe existed long before all of this happened, and it simply isn't true that the non-European slaves somehow rescued Europe (which, per Seventh Floor, was in shambles :-) from certain death, or that they built the US (in the meaning of having the only, or the most important role in building the US. If you could argue that cotton had the same economic value as steel - which it obviously never did - the contribution of slave labor to building the US would have been 15% at the maximum. That is very, very, very very, very far from the statement that the US was built on free labor). Europe had technology to sail to the other continents, not the way around. Europe (and European migrants to other continents) had, or had subsequently developed, almost every other type of technology as well - and that is what enabled building their economies. They could have found manual labor anywhere (including at home in Europe), they just went for the cheapest. They surely did their share of theft (gold etc), but the modern economies were not built on Inca gold, they were built on invention and manufacturing.
Why do we white people always have to make things about race?
Race was brought into this thread chiefly by non-white posters. I personally (who am white) did not make things about race, but only reacted to a non-white poster's (and moderator's! :-) completely fake assertion that the US was built on free labor (which is presumably the Black slave labor, since no other labor in the US history was free).
While 15% is statistically significant, it is statistically and common-sensically far less than 85%, and it certainly does not remotely equal 100%. Things that you are mentioning are known to everybody, European colonial powers exploited non-Europeans as slaves for manual work, and that contributed to the European wealth. But, Europe existed long before all of this happened, and it simply isn't true that the non-European slaves somehow rescued Europe (which, per Seventh Floor, was in shambles :-) from certain death, or that they built the US (in the meaning of having the only, or the most important role in building the US. If you could argue that cotton had the same economic value as steel - which it obviously never did - the contribution of slave labor to building the US would have been 15% at the maximum. That is very, very, very very, very far from the statement that the US was built on free labor). Europe had technology to sail to the other continents, not the way around. Europe (and European migrants to other continents) had, or had subsequently developed, almost every other type of technology as well - and that is what enabled building their economies. They could have found manual labor anywhere (including at home in Europe), they just went for the cheapest. They surely did their share of theft (gold etc), but the modern economies were not built on Inca gold, they were built on invention and manufacturing.
That's true that modern economies were built on invention and manufacturing. The devices we're using to communicate with certainly had nothing to do with plantation labor.
I would not say that the US was built on free labor or that Europe is modern because of free labor. I would say the slave economy was statistically significant, and if your 15% is correct that is statistically significant.
In fact mechanisation from industrialisation REDUCED the need for agricultural labor worldwide, and I'd say that was a factor in ending slavery and even the civil rights movement. I'd say innovation helps end slavery or similar types of exploitation in multiple ways.
For millennia, Africa had more African slaves than all the American and European nations combined. Yet all these African slaves provided little economic benefit to Africa.
So it seems that something other than African slaves were responsible for the American and European nations' economic success.
This I do not deny. However to use one posters estimated 15% contribution, that's a statistically significant contribution.
There were a lot of factors in why Europeans were even able to set up the colonial empires in the first place. They did not happen until the Portuguese and then the Spanish developed better ships and navigation. Of course better weapons helped. The West moved forward as they began to separate church from state and as the government began to provide education. There are a lot of other reasons.
Ok, soooooo these animals stabbed her because of the cotton industry???
Oh yea and where do the Irish slaves fit in to all this?? Weren't they bred with the Africans to create mullatos? Thus easier to ID than just white Irish?
Last edited by grouse789; 12-27-2019 at 11:17 AM..
This I do not deny. However to use one posters estimated 15% contribution, that's a statistically significant contribution.
There were a lot of factors in why Europeans were even able to set up the colonial empires in the first place. They did not happen until the Portuguese and then the Spanish developed better ships and navigation. Of course better weapons helped. The West moved forward as they began to separate church from state and as the government began to provide education. There are a lot of other reasons.
Contribution of slave labor to the US economy was about 15% (in terms of number of workers) at the time when cotton was a visible part of that economy. If you took into account everything that went into building the US economy as we see it now, the role of slave labor would account for much less than 15% (two people, Henry Ford and Thomas A. Edison, would probably account for greater contribution to building of the US than the entire slave workforce together. As I already mentioned, had slaves not been available, poor white workforce costing the same (in wages) as the slaves (in purchase and maintenance) would have done the cottonpicking. All manual labor is interchangeable, Edison is not). Anyhow, it is also fake and pseudo-"scientific" to talk about statistical significance of a population's contribution to something when we are not doing any kind of statististical study designed according to the rules of measuring significance quantitatively. Yes, as far as I know the proportion of African Americans in the US population has generally been stable around 15% throughout the US history, which is a statistically significant number of people, but it does not argue that slave labor was "statistically significant" in building the US, and I it would be very hard to measure that kind of significance statistically.
Ok, soooooo these animals stabbed her because of the cotton industry???
I don't know how to double-quote, however, this and Boorgong's deadpan reply was sick but priceless :-). True, the discussion of economic significance of slavery in building the US bears no appreciable connection to the topic of the thread, but I didn't start that discussion - a moderator did...
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.
