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.
If slavery was such a tremendous benefit to the US, why do the former slave states have the worst economies? Why did the north trounce the south in the civil war? Why are people in the south disproportionately less wealthy than people in New England?
Slavery was a hindrance to the success of the US, not the reason for it.
The difference is that most other countries who benefited from slavery, used it in an expeditionary sense. They came to some "new" land, conquered it, enslaved the locals, and exploited them to extract minerals, to farm, to build plantations and so forth. Rarely were any large number of slaves brought back to the home-country.
So, Spain - which was the quintessential expeditionary colonial power its day - had very few Native American or African slaves working in Spain on Spanish estates, serving Spaniards. Those slaves were "over there", in distant colonies. American slaves meanwhile were "over here". If the American model were to go to Africa, capture people, enslave them, and then say ship them to land that became Australia or whatever, then that would be akin to the Spanish model.
American society developed with slaves in its midst. Slaves weren't some abstract entity toiling like Blade Runner's "Replicants" in an off-world colony. They, and eventually their descendants, were the neighbors and countrymen of the non-slaves. Their plight was immediately relevant and immediately visible.
This doesn't mean that American slavery was any better or any worse than that wrought by other nations. It was simply more visible and more consequential for how society developed.
Well, you have to take into account that no other nation emanates as much high-sounding liberal rhetoric as America. America considers itself the leader of the "free world." Yet it is a nation founded on conquest and slavery. This creates a deep neurosis in the minds of its people- being the world leader of upholding 'liberal' values, yet having a history of exterminating the Indians and enslaving Africans- a neurosis that will only get deeper until the American liberal empire collapses completely.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lets_go_hawks
If slavery was such a tremendous benefit to the US, why do the former slave states have the worst economies? Why did the north trounce the south in the civil war? Why are people in the south disproportionately less wealthy than people in New England?
Slavery was a hindrance to the success of the US, not the reason for it.
Let me quote Rhett Butler, because it's succinct.
"Has any one of you gentlemen ever thought that there's not a cannon factory south of the Mason-Dixon line? Or how few iron foundries there are in the south? Or woolen mills or cotton factories or tanneries? Have you thought that we do not have a single warship and that the Yankee Fleet could bottle up our harbors in a week, so that we could not sell our cotton abroad? . . . I have seen many things (in the north) that you all have not seen. The thousands of immigrants who'd be glad to fight for the yankees for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines - all the things we haven't got. Why, all we have in the south is cotton, and slaves and . . . arrogance".
Assuming you're being serious, just Google trans Atlantic slave trade for starters.
There were about 3.9 million slaves in the south in 1860. Including about 15,000 non-white slave owners.
Today, counting sex slaves etc, there are any estimated 30+ million worldwide.
But nobody gives a **** about the current slaves in the world.
I was serious.
I googled it.
And this is what I see so far;
"The major Atlantic slave trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch Empires, and the Danish. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders.[6]These slaves were managed by a factor, who was established on or near the coast to expedite the shipping of slaves to the New World."
Always talk about 400 years of European slavery and how countries like America were built on slave labor yet there are TONS of other countries that, well before Europeans vastly benefited from slavery for literally thousands of years. Why the hell don't they get any flack for it? Why aren't their descendants not made to feel extremely guilty for thousands of years of slavery their ancestors caused? They complain about white supremacy yet I guess times when there was Arab supremacy during Islam's golden age where they enslaved millions including Africans was totally fine?
The other countries don't have AOC, Omar, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Sharpton, Lemon, Blitzer, Morning Joe, Harris, Pocahontas, RINOS, Waters, Abrams, Goldberg, Behar, Hostis, Coumo, et al.
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.
