> british colonies declare independence from crown
>"all men have inaliable right to liberty"
>written by slave owners
How would the last 2.5 centuries be different if the founding fathers had decided to free all nigs just to be that much more legit?
probably a lot better deal for the African community but without slavery a lot of them might also be back in Africa and much of the African American population today might not even be born
There would be far far fewer nignogs in America today.
Anything the slave ancestors achieved in America would not happened.
The nignogs would probably have ended up as slaves to the ottomans or rival tribes anyway. Their lives were better because of slavery in America.
This post triggered me with it's low level of intellectualism. Please seriously consider suicide, xe otherkin transgender whale. Who am I kidding? You probably already did but didn't go through with it.
Slavery didn't go away it just went underground
Up till 2010 it was still legal to own slaves in parts of Africa and the middle east
There probably would have been no United States as you know it today. The English, or French, or Spanish might have conquered the colonies and squelched the rebellion. This continent would be a lot different.
>July 9, 1640-Punishment for Runaway Servants
>[On July 9, 1640, members of the General Court decided the punishment for three servants-a Dutchman, a Scotsman, and an African-who ran away from their master as a group. The proceedings reveal an example of interracial cooperation among servants at a time when the colony's leaders were starting to create legal differences between Europeans and Africans. John Punch became the first African to be a slave for life by law in Virginia.]
Yeah, and it's still going on especially in places like Africa and the Middle East so where's your outrage?
But people shit on America like it invented slavery
My problem is that the whole "black people had slaves 2" thing that gets brought up every fucking time is that its usually brought up to no specific end, just some dumb "food for thought" bullshit that doesn't contribute to the conversation.
Would the fusion of african and european musical concepts have resulted in anything nearly similar to blues/jazz/rock/etc without coinciding with the electrical age? Would it have happened at all?
Nice rhetorical question, dip. Yeah the prison system very heavily resembles slavery and at some point in time we'll look back on it and be like "ohhh my god, ridiculous we did that, good thing we're so much better" even though it will manifest itself in a similar form thats only marginally better. But you're still not the great mind you think you are for posting an post with a non specific argument about how "slavery existed before america so why don't u just think about that!"
That's a nice question to imagine. I think the southern slave owners would have found ways to keep the blacks working. But there would be less blacks considering the slave trade would be ended fifteen years earlier.
But still, the cotton boom of the early 19th century was inevitable considering Britain and France needed it to industrialize. If, as classical liberals claim, free labors is always superior to slave labor, then black lives would have been better during the cotton boom. They might have unionized or some shit to get better pay on cotton. This might have prevented capital accumulation on the part of slave owners though, making them a less effective lobbying force in Washington, and also preventing them from improving their plantations to as great a degree as they could have. In other words, the south might have been poorer as countries such as brazil, egypt and eventually algeria would have been able to provide cotton for way cheaper on account of their cheap labor.
In addition, blacks might have been less discriminated had they been released earlier. Many of the iterations on white superiority came during the early half of the 19th century from white planters trying to justify the rule of slaves religiously, ideologically and politically. The slave culture became super engraved during this era, so had blacks been free to begin with there would definitely have been the magnification of prejudice and the black community might have been a little better off. This is all speculation of course :)
>"all men have inaliable right to liberty"
That meant a very specific class of men. It meant rich, landowning men since the only men that had the right to vote at that time owned a certain amount of it. I'm fairly certain that black men could vote if they had the land to back it up, but this was a rare instance. I find it interesting that black men existed that owned their own slaves and took no moral highground, while others took to the abolition movement once they were freed.
Slavery wasn't just the white man going in and taking slaves. A lot of black men took slaves and sold them to the Europeans as slaves and were influential in rounding them up. Without those traitors I doubt the Europeans would have bothered enslaving as many as they did because it would have been a lot of effort.
OP here, was thinking the emancipation but like 100 years earlier, although i don't think there was as much of a bigoted atittude toward darkies in the 18th century as there was in the 19th so jim crow laws and shit might not have been so severe.
But maybe full on equal civil rights would be more appropriate given the theme of the prompt
I understand context is important, but it is understood that a few of those rich white guys held some disdain for slavery. I'm just saying, what if instead of being exclusive cunts about their freedom fighting they instead set a completely new precedent in modern history by going full force to match the grandiose rhetoroc
Not the one you're responding to, but I think that often times slavery is taught to people like it is some black and white (pun intended!) issue where it was only the white man against the black man, when it was so much more complicated than that. A lot of very religious people were against slavery on religious grounds, and many abolitionists in the 19th century had sermons to denounce slavery in America. The underground railroad existed and whites helped since they felt that it was their moral obligation as Christians to help them out, and let them be free in the North. I think I'm going on a little bit too much, but the point I'm trying to get here is that it's a complicated issue and there were a lot of good people fighting against it.
Well I'm not him but here's the US constitution
>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
>except as punishment for a crime
Slave labor as used in the US through prisons is legal and happens.
Your reading it as emotional because it allows you to hide from the fact that I was just being insulting, no of course its that you hit a nerve and not that i'm just having fun at your expense. Any way the American judicial system has harsh drug laws, drugs, being an addictive substance, sees a lot of repeat offenders. Regardless of the possible good intention in creating these laws, the result was overcrowding in prisons which the government could no longer afford to run. Fast forward to these prisons being sold to private corporations who now profit on these frequently incarcerated overcrowded prison which they can exploit for free labor. With these profits the corporations that own these prisons can then lobby to keep this strict laws in place and even call for harsher laws.
So are you saying just because other people had/have slaves it exempts the blacks that did/still do own slaves?
>its okay when we do it?
>muh fallacy of relative privation
If your gonna talk about slavery it should be expected when its brought up that blacks had/have slaves
They were inspired by Enlightenment thought and wrote their laws, and thoughts out accordingly. The founding fathers were very regressive if they didn't consider abolition as a key issue since it was a huge issue in the British empire. Slavery got outlawed in 1804 (approximately) in the British empire which is only around 20 years after America was formed. Perhaps they thought the south wouldn't go along with the union, but that's only speculation on my part.
Where in any of that did I say that. Buy are YOU sir, saying that we should make murder legal!? And that pedophilia should not only be decriminalized, but required by LAW!? Wow all these things you said sure make you a desirable target for argument by which I can my my self seem smart.
>i don't think there was as much of a bigoted atittude toward darkies in the 18th century as there was in the 19th
Are you fucking squidding me? Most Americans until the 20th century viewed blacks as being violent, primitive subhumans who were only a few hairs away from being literal apes. The yuros, the arabs, even the goddamn chinks; virtually everyone that ever came into contact with Africa before a few decades ago openly held these views and most still do even if they can't say so.
> prisons being sold to private corporations
That's what I don't get about America. If they sell their prisons to private corporations that have lobbying power in congress, of course there's going to be horrible corruption on a massive scale. I do think that equating it to slavery is a bit much. How about indentured servitude?
Not the person you're replying to but...
>Most Americans until the 20th century viewed blacks as being violent, primitive subhumans who were only a few hairs away from being literal apes.
That is untrue. The eugenics movement began in the late 19th century and early 20th century which esposed this philosophy that blacks are genetically inferior to whites on the basis of evolution.
But didn't the southern fried style of nigger hate only pop up after african slavery had been around in the US for a bit? The other stuff is just kind of close to everybody's closeted opinions on race even today
Nice strawman to avoid the question anon
>putting words in my mouth
>Buy are YOU sir, saying that we should make murder legal!
lol look at you go
When did I say that?
I brought up that Slavery is still going on and that Americans weren't the only ones to practice it
You get mad when i say that blacks have slaves and go on a emotional rant
take a breath and calm down
when you get off your period come back to this thread
The American Revolution wasn't a progressive event, champ. If anything, it was slightly reactionary and if the intellectuals of the day hadn't been fellatiating Roman Republic so hard we may well have had King George I instead of George Washington. It was the French who went full regard with "muh rights" in their own disgusting bloodbath of a revolution.
>Indentured servitude is willing, at least at the start.
That's true enough but if people were poor enough it seemed like the only option where they would have a hopeful future, despite the fact that they almost never saw a way out of it. The question comes in is that a choice, or is that the best choice out of all the bad options that the poor have?
I think that the drug wars do reek of corruption and is mostly a war on the lower classes, many of whom happen to be black because of the lack of opportunities throughout history. Sure, there are some that make it out but it's tough to if you grow up like that. It's a fucked up situation no matter what way you look at it.
Just gonna ignore your own post and play innocent eh?>>59319
>Buy are YOU sir, saying that we should make murder legal!? And that pedophilia should not only be decriminalized, but required by LAW!? Wow all these things you said sure make you a desirable target for argument by which I can my my self seem smart.
Seems you are emotionally unstable lol
Ignore the /pol/tards m8. They're trying to invade this new board and make it their own which is why moot didn't want to make it to begin with. mootwo is a braver sort...perhaps he has Japanese gusto?
Hey guys, you realize this thread is basically just full of a couple of butthurt /pol/sters successfully derailing the thread right? Please keep an eye on the poster/post ration to avoid the deterioration of this board until we get IDs.
Then the revolutionaries lose the support of the southern plantation owners who only opposed the crown due to the mood in Britain turning heavily towards abolitionism; otherwise they would've been heavily loyalist.
Revolutionaries probably lose.
doesn't mean people thought blacks were EQUAL before then
Or wanted anything to do with them.
This sort of civil rights shit only happened because the high levels of government were filled with treasonous communists.
And did you know that any opposing idea is literally censorship of the highest caliber?
Even if it doesn't pertain directly to my original post you're still coming off like a big faggot for doing these
>greentext memes every single post.
You could just acknowledge that it's a shitty system that does look a lot like slavery but i guess that would be too reddit for your elite chinese cartoon forum sensibilities
There were a fair amount of abolitionists at the constitutional conventions
That was justification, not the sentiment.
The flavor changes, but my point is that the fact remains that blacks have been considered violent subhumans by all and sundry for centuries. There doesn't to be vitriol present for someone to have a negative opinion about blacks; most of the time the impression of them has been that they're strong but have minds of retarded children and are prone to violence and indolence.
Will do brave sir!
I don't want to turn this board into another /pol/ circlejerk. I would love to have intellectual discussions about subjects that I find fascinating and can't talk about too much in my life.
Are you retarded? Africa is the only continent where the wheel was not invented and that way way before the white man ever set foot there.
Colonialism saved that continent. If it weren't for them they wouldve still been running around naked and killing each other with spears
>The founding fathers were very regressive if they didn't consider abolition as a key issue since it was a huge issue in the British empire. Slavery got outlawed in 1804 (approximately) in the British empire which is only around 20 years after America was formed. Perhaps they thought the south wouldn't go along with the union, but that's only speculation on my part.
Some of them did. The constitutional convention's most contentious arguments were over slavery, and the threat was precisely what you speculated. The southern delegates were clear that if slavery was not protected, their states would not ratify the constitution.
>The flavor changes, but my point is that the fact remains that blacks have been considered violent subhumans by all and sundry for centuries
That depended on time and place.
Writers such as Ibn Battuta and Mungo Park had good things to say about blacks.
Yes, because opposing racial segregation and violent discrimination means that they were treasonous communists, during the Cold War where they were against communists. I definitely believe you /pol/tard, tell me more about your raging opinions.
>Don't do the crime if you can't do the time
I love it when people make arguments using folksy saying, it makes me think of a big tubby trucker who snaps his suspenders as his finishes his truck stop wendy's doublestack with a loud sigh-yeeeuuup hybrid. "time to shit post" says this man!
As did plenty of whites, from missionaries in the cape to slave owners in the US. That doesn't preclude thinking that they're stupid and/or violent, much like how people think of retarded people.
Interesting, thanks anon. Do you have any recommendations of primary/ secondary sources I should read to get more well-versed on the subject? It's been awhile since I thought about American history and this subject is really interesting.
Oh sorry, my bad. Its another one of these threads.
>got myself caught.
The topic is America. Slaves in America. American development. Not African.
"what would the US be like if we freed the slaves during the revolution"
"stfu colonialism saved africa"
"ahhh yes, emotions are truly the crutch hobbling wisdom" thinks the trucker as he wrestles with the challenge that lays ahead. "I'm about to diarrea myself, but I will not reach relief for another 2 hours, as I am miles from my next respite!" The trucker looks at his jumbo soda cup with solemn displeasure at the knowledge of what must be done.
Lelno. They were expensive to buy and required decades of room and board. They were cheaper than using free men to do the same work, but not nearly as cheap as popular perception. If they were really that inexpensive then we'd still be using them and damn the morals.
Its funny how quickly this board went to shit. There is another side to 4chan that isnt completely dependent on chanspeak and memespewing to make a point. /sci/ /biz/ /out/ /ck/ and /trv/ all come to mind.
and no, ive never been to reddit you predictable, insufferable cunts.
> because opposing racial segregation and violent discrimination means that they were treasonous communists
Because racial segregation is some sort of horrific atrocity? And not an essential part of maintaining civilization/living standards?
What "violent discrimination" are you even talking about?
What makes them treasonous communists, is when they empower the black, grant special privileges to the black, while turning a blind eye to all the harm their "progress" does.
We can see what their ideas have inevitably led to in the modern day as well.
It's actually really saddening when I start thinking about the people posting on this site with me. What kind of person thinks this shit is funny? They cannot be over 20. I refuse to believe that.
I do enjoy trolling and shitposting. It's what keeps this site aggressive, but once you base your entire posting style around it it's just fucking pathetic.
I guess that's what happens when you get bored with /b/ but have no interests aside from that board.
Have I got a site for you frogbro! Did you get that one there?
>We hold these truths to be self evident
>That all men are created equal
has there ever been a more ridiculous statement in a political document?
>all men are created equal
>this is apparently a self evident truth
>In the course of evolution nature has gone to endless trouble to see that every individual is unlike every other individual.… Physically and mentally, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man’s biological nature.
sorry to break the news to you, but your not the first FBF I've annoyed.
guess you're not a special snowflake after all.
Dont worry, maybe someday if you work hard at shitposting like pee pee you can be adopted as a "normieeeeeee" too.
memespewing, greentexting retard
You're one of those stupid Americans that doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism, aren't you? Calling people you don't like communists is Ann Coulter tier argumentation.
Where do you think african americans came from. Their evolution and therefore genetic traits were formed over centuries of african exposure, the way they behave today is linked to their origin.
There were slaves in the British Empire well past 1804. They hadn't even banned the slave trade by that point (Congress actually put the slave trade ban into law about three weeks before Parliament).
American superpower status was built on its massive population, industrial base and geographic isolation. Not slaves. If anything, slavery (and the agrarian economic institution it was a part of) held back the country for decades until the tension manifested in the Civil War.