10 Common Slavery Myths
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- Comments are disabled because of the sheer amount of bigotry. This channel does not allow such behavior. There's a comments response video, but spreading hate there or anywhere on this channel will results in a ban.
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding the institution of slavery, especially here in the United States. These myths often serve pernicious political purposes that can be highly detrimental to a proper conception of history. So here are 10 of those myths debunked in no particular order.
For general reference and mistakes:
-I'm tired of all the racism in the comments, so they are now disabled - if you have a comment, here is a comment response video. Watch that before commenting (because you're probably just another racist, and here's why): • Comments on "10 Common...
1 - one example of white slavery I could have mentioned were the Amerindian slavers of Tans-Mississippi West, who would raid Spanish/Mexican colonies and visa/versa - but that is way too complicated for this myth.
2 - 3:20 - my bad, 1922 was the fall of the Ottoman Empire, 1918 was the end of WWI
5 - 7:10 - "any power not expressed" (the not is kind of difficult to hear)
7 - 8:30 - typo, Marx was born in 1818 not 1918, LOL
------------------------------------------------------------
references:
Good general books:
Berlin, Ira. Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. amzn.to/2tYB3ef
Davis, David. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006. amzn.to/2KRoJpM
Oshinsky, David. Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997. amzn.to/2udhA8Q
Davis, Natalie. Slaves on Screen: Film and Historical Vision. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. amzn.to/2udiKkU
Directly about these myths:
www.slate.com/articles/news_an...
www.history.com/news/history-l...
www.gilderlehrman.org/history...
www.snopes.com/facts-about-sla...
www.thejournal.ie/readme/irish...
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us...
www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-1...
apnews.com/920e1c738df04555bc...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_s...
www.historyireland.com/volume-...
www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2...
Michael Barkun, "Millennialism, Conspiracy, and Stigmatized Knowledge" A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (CA: University of California Press, 2003). p. 34-36.
www.irishtimes.com/culture/don...
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
contribute to my Patreon:
/ cynicalhistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
/ cynicalcypher88
/ cynical_history
------------------------------------------------------------
List of myths:
1. White slaves in America
2. America invented slavery
3. The first slave owner in America was black
4. The Union fought the civil war to end slavery
5. The South seceded over “state’s rights”
6. Few southerners owned slaves
7. Factory workers were like slaves
8. Black soldiers fought for the Confederacy
9. Africans were captured by Europeans
10. White people ended slavery
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #history #slavery #SlaveMyths #IrishSlavery #LostCause #EmancipationProclaimation #slave #slaves
![Latto - Sunday Service (feat. Megan Thee Stallion & Flo Milli) [Remix] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9gL0F1xIt2I/mqdefault.jpg)
When mentioning being nice to slaves and love being ways to quell slave rebellion, he neglected to mention the best psychological tool that the slave owners had against slave rebellion: Christianity. As long as slaves believe in heaven and hell they're going to be more willing to accept hardship in exchange for heaven and fear rebelling over fear of ending up in hell.
Treestump & Thunderarch It wasn't christianity my ancestors were not allowed to practice. It was their own culture which is not religious at all. Christianity was use against them so that they would forget how to practice their own culture which was and is still more powerful than anything you can imagine or dream. Their are many movies about my ppl in Hollywood except they use fun characters like wonder woman or ppl like the ones in Apocolyto. They're telling the truth. But just not the entire truth. And they've always used non "black" ppl to depict who the slaves "my ancestors" really were. And who we are today. We have a long time to go at this rate of discovering the Jewels of America and those who are scattered. But no, christianity was no threat. It was my ancestors culture that was the true threat. The books that they were told not to try to read was really the documents and writings they took away from them when they took the ppl. They took their names, their tribe identity, and so. That's why the descendants scattered cling to other outside cultures and make a fool of they self. They don't have their own. It was beat out of all the ppl before us and never past down. But it had nothing to do with that christian junk. Christianity was made up to give to the ppl before us to pass down instead of the TRUTH.
Excellent point, Christianity is poison.
Amen
Same for all religions. Brahmins use reincarnation to oppress the poor.
Religion has always been a tool for control.
I really despise people that take documents and the content out of contacts to suit their narrative.
you mean "context"?
@@benjamincurwoodno he meant people who get their content off of their contacts.
While physical slavery has diminished greatly over the centuries, the slavery of the human mind has increased so rapidly that people don't even realize what is being done to them every single day.
This was very enlightening. I didn't know there were people that actually believed some of these myths, makes me wonder if any of them actually paid attention in History class. Still I was not aware of most of the details you went over. I'm always happy to learn more about things I have only vague knowledge about. So thank you for the lesson ^_^
I get that white people weren't the first abolitionists, but wasn't England unique in allocating resources to specifically fight slavery? I'm thinking of the West African Squadron en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
That's true but that doesn't negate the fact that they sent a fleet to combat slavery.
They were indeed forceful when they got around to it, but that was well after Haiti had already gained its independence. Afterall, the US joined that squadron while it maintained slavery. I'll actually talk about the African Slave Patrol in a couple weeks.
The British public were largely ignorant of the way slaves were treated and when working class people found out they most often sided with the slaves - such as the Society for the Relief of the Black Poor & the repatriation to Sierra Leone (along with numerous white wives). Much of the acceptance of slavery was based upon their being "heathens" but as more became Christians the abolition movement grew.Not only did Britain send a fleet to Africa it also overthrew African states whose economy had been based on slavery & which collapsed as the slave trade ended, which was a major driver for British colonial expansion.Most white & Irish slaves (clan chiefs would also sell their clansmen into slavery for profit) were sent to Barbados not continental America, where they were known as "redlegs".
SOS DD "Adopted by"? It was a derogatory term used by southern democrats to describe whites laboring alongside their black counterparts prior to and following abolition. It's used again today by the same democrats to ascribe southern whites as racists. The irony is likely above you. However, shame on you.
+ George Jungle The Southern Democrats integrated themselves into the republican party after Civil Rights Act. They have virtually little in common with todays party, most of them have died of old age.
Abandon hope all ye who approach the comment section...
For the record this was not a statement of position. Instead it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to how regardless of whether of not the video contained factual errors this is an emotional charged topic for both sides of the political spectrum which tends to make the already caustic you tube comments downright nasty.
translation: I'm a racist imbecile
The Glorious Winged Hussar 😂😂
Translation: People who use the word "cuckold" as a political insult are mental 10-year-olds, and a bunch of them will show up in the comments here.
Christopher Harper Digicash Indeed
Very good info. Reading through the comments, lots of sensitive folks.
What an interesting video! I like that it is well balanced, tackling myths from different parts of the political spectrum.
As an undergrad I did a single semester module on the Peculiar Institution - I found it a fascinating subject. Far more complex I anticipated
Hey, so um, I'm about to get real unpopular real quick. So on Indentured Servitude, it's much more, um, complex in that the "Criminals" were convicted of being the wrong ethnicity, the two examples of course being the Irish Clearances and the Suppression of the Jacobites, in the case of the Jacobites you can of course call them traitors but it was the case that many Scots who had had nothing to do with it were caught up in the sweep, in both cases you were forced to either sign the documents or be executed, I want to be very clear on this just how "Voluntary" these indentures were is super contentious, and given the points in time were the majority of them occured it is much more likely that they were coerced then not.
Once brought to the Americas there was often little in the way of Centralized Authority to monitor that the Indentures were being treated within the confines of the law, and in the case of the Irish and the Jacobites racist attitudes and hatred of the "Traitors" would likely have lead to a certain reluctance on the part of many people in authority to abide by the laws rather than turn a blind eye.
Then of course we get to the fact that depending where the plantation was the indentured could very well be stuck for life, as if they were far enough from any other settlement being "Freed" meant at best a very long walk with no food and water, so a sort of chain of contracts would occur with the indenture having to sign a new one each time or face starvation.
Part of the problem is we have little evidence on either side and in the case of criminal acts shouldn't really expect much, especially if athouritys were turning a blind eye, so this all quickly leads down the rabbit hole of conjecture.
After doing as much reserch as I could into this my Personal Oppion is that De Jure there were no white slaves but De Facto there was.
I await the inevitable screaming matches that occur whenever I give my opinion on this one,
-Timon
No one is claiming that being an indentured servant was a walk in the park. The point is, that period of indenture, whether voluntary, coerced or enforced, was limited. Yes many people no doubt died before there time was up. Some may have faced freedom with nothing. Yes some people were denied release at the end of their time - this may have been because they had committed a crime while indentured and their ‘sentence’ was - fairly or unfairly - increased. Whatever the reason, the extending of the contract could be challenged in court, they had rights. Slaves cannot challenge their slavery, it is for life, they have no rights and, crucially, it is/was a status passed to their children. No doubt some indentured servants were treated badly, but that was not the norm. In Britain in the 18th and early to mid 19th century some orphans and pauper children were sent to factories and mills, they had to work long hours and were not permitted to leave, they got no pay and they had no choice, so I guess, for a while, they were ‘slaves’, it was a system that was open to and was abused, but if they lived and their period of ‘apprenticeship’ (commonly 10 years) was completed, they could leave or stay on as a paid worker. Being an indentured servant or pauper apprentice meant you were in a crappy situation that could last for years, but it is was still not true slavery.
Timon Ferguson sounds like you change the meaning of a slave to include having no legal rights and such. a slave is one who is the legal property of another. If you had a contract, they were slaves. Maybe not for life, but then would you say that those slave who were freed weren't slaves in the past? A slave is a slave. one could be treated worse or better, be forced into it or "volunteer".
So I guess you oppose the use of the term "sex slavery," since it isn't necessarily a permanent state. Right?
Timon Ferguson thank you for saying what should be said.
Timon Ferguson amen brother
Indentured servants were subject to having their contract extended without their agreement, and were often inherited by new masters when their old one died, thus completely renewing their contract for its original length. Working indefinately without consent is slavery.
While this doesn't negate the injustice of African slavery, African slavery doesn't negate the suffering of people working in bondage as indentured servants either. That would be like saying it's okay to abuse a child as long as there have been others who were abused worse.
One injustice does not have fall in the exact category of another.
Slaves *were* different from indentured servants legally.
The mark of slavery did pass from person throughout his line and were classified as not human.
Great Video! It was very informative. I hope the people going around repeating these alternative facts view this video!
Thank you. That was a great history lesson and you covered a lot of ground in just 14 minutes.
#10 You seem to have intentionally forgot about about Britain's 60 year Crusade to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade via the West Africa Squadron. This is probably what people are talking about.
also don't claim to only focus on slavery in America, and then when it comes time to talk about abolitionism- suddenly switch gears to talk about Ancient China. You're being intentionally dishonest.
And half of the time Africa is mentioned. so dishonest
Um he didn't. He said he'd be *mostly* be referring to America because that's where the majority of these myths permunate from but didn't explicitly or implicitly say he'd exclude discussing anyone else.
They indeed tried, as did the US - but the African Slave Trade Patrol was almost entirely ineffective. That does not speak to the issue at hand with #10 though. This claim fails to account for the people who were actively fighting slavery for centuries (ie the slaves themselves), just to give the credit to the people who were ultimately responsible for maintaining the legality of the institution in the first place. Such a claim is like giving credit for the civil rights movement to the US congress.
Here are the Two issues with #10.
#1. You said you were going to talk specifically about America. Therefore it doesn't matter what China did, or anyone else.
#2. In America the White Male held the Power, the White Male was the only one with the AUTHORITY to stop Slavery. No matter how many Slave Rebellions, the only way the Slaves (of ANY and ALL Races) could stop American Slavery was by killing those in charge until the Government folded. This did not occur.
So it is very true that IN AMERICA Whites ended Slavery. Because, as we are constantly reminded, it was ONLY Whites that held the Institutional Power.
You want to argue that because it was also Whites who CREATED Slavery (specifically IN AMERICA as a Law with protections under a Legal System allowed by a Government) that they can not be credited for ending it... but this is faulty logic.
If Whites as a whole were intent on keep Slavery in America, the ONLY way it would have ended without Whites ending it would have been an entire overthrow of the Government that supported the practice.
At the end of the day, as sleazy as you feel it sounds... yeah, Whites (SPECIFICALLY in America) did 'end Slavery'. They were the only ones with the POWER to do so.
This does NOT discredit the many Slaves that fought and raised hell until a small group of Whites heard them. In fact, it raises what those that sacrificed did to an even HIGHER level... because they were some how able to compel enough of the very group that held power over them to release that power and risk their status in that effort.
They who had nothing were able to convince those with everything to lose... to risk it all to aid them. I mean, it doesn't get much more impressive than that.
One thing to note about the cirst myth is that there was reportedly a lot of "mishandling" of indentured servants' contracts, resulting in them being trapped in service for, well, as long as the one holding the contract saw fit. Also, for some reason the timespan of 18 years is stuck in my head as related to the origin of the term 'redneck'.
I just can’t grasp the concept, no matter what date and time, anyone, ever thought it was ok to own another person...
What's the classical song that was played at 5:14? It's bugging the hell me, can't remember.
It's from a set of songs by Martin Klem. Their all called "Peaceful Piano(s)," but there's 29 of them. Don't remember which one of those it is.
The cynical historian it's ok mate it popped into my head. it's Pachelbel's Canon. Thanks anyway.
the word slave came from the first slave was Slav Slavic who were white so when you here the phrase Slave does not just mean black slave.
Margaret Gallacher used in the 9th century by the French towards the Slavs
Margaret Gallacher GO FUCK YOU SELF ITS NOT HOW WORD SLAVE WAS INVENTEN PROPAGANDA HATER ON SLAVS
Tru Hawai'i and thats why black people are stupid
Tru Hawai'i actually we think you're disgusting
+Suzana Kocic +Brandi Tate at least you two are openly racist fucks.
Thanks for debunking the myth: Indentured servitude was NOT the same thing as slavery. People entered into the contracts willingly (although there are stories of people being duped or Shanghaied), it was a means of learning a trade and getting passage to America.
I have heard that even some American Indians entered indentured servitude contracts.
Excellent - really enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the good list of literature on the topic, and the solid research. The fact that none of the critical commentators can list a single serious research to back their criticism speaks volumes.
I'm not offended at all, actually cynical historian you are a really good fact checker. Thank you for posting your videos. Your videos are interesting to watch :)
😂all these people fighting in the comments
now you see how a war could start over it. And it has been dead over 150 years.
I already knew at least half of this stuff but it was nice to hear your narration anyway :)
As descendant of those who started the Atlantic slave trade, yes, Africans had African slaves as a consequence of wars, but only after Europeans created the demand were wars started with the main objective of creating more slaves.
Overall, your video was really good, and you brought up some often overlooked information. However, I have a few thoughts/suggestions:
1. Lay off the Trump bashing. I don't like the guy either, but it's not relevant to the subject being discussed. It also comes across as petty, makes your video appear biased, and immediately alienates many people who legitimately need information like this.
2. I disagree with your tenth point, at least from a semantic point of view. Of course white people didn't end ALL slavery in existence, but they did end it in places where they had the power to do so. If you take another look at your 'Modern Incidence of Slavery" map, you'll notice a pattern if you look for the places where slavery no longer exists. In addition, when most people say that 'white people ended slavery", they mean "ended" as in "any sort of meaningful way" Sure, technically the chinese were the first to end slavery, but that was for only a few years, and slavery continued on and off there for over 2000 years after the fact. Fueled heavily by the Enlightenment, Western European countries were the first to abolish slavery in any real permenant sense (AKA in a meaningful way). Abolition on this scale, and for this long of a time period, is unprecedented in history. Thus, "white people" generally get most of the credit in terms of ending slavery in the modern world.
3. This point actually ties into my second point, as it regards something you brought up during your 10th "myth". There, you made the point: "For how wonderful it is that the captors freed the captives. How nice of them, to decide on thier own volition, to stop oppressing people." Here, i think you are completely missing the point, and by extension, making a mockery of all the struggle and bloodshed that made abolition of slavery possible in the Western world. You speak of these people in terms of a monolithic group that created a situation. Most of these people were individuals that were born into a system that they had no hand in creating. They could've maintained the status quo, as many generations of people had before them, and freely profited from the ownership of human beings just the same. However, many of these people not only chose to to give it up, but actually fight against the intitution of slavery itself. These people CHOSE to do the right thing, and in doing so helped to eradicate one of humanity's greatest evils from the western world. You can't judge someone for the hand they are dealt, but rather how they play the hand.
This comment deserves more attention, as it's probably the best and fairest critique of this video I've seen.
Just wondering: how is playing a clip of someone saying "China" over and over again bashing exactly?
@Chris McWilliams You seem to have missed the crybaby Trump at 0:47 who is "offended by these facts". The clear implication here is that if you disagree with The Cynical Historian's "facts", then you are a whiny truth-denier just like Trump. This point was purely rhetorical, and added nothing to his "myth" arguments. As I said before, I don't even like Trump, but even I rolled my eyes at that part of the video. I'm not saying that the Cynical Historian can't have an opinion, but the primary purpose of a history video like this should be to educate, not getting involved in the petty discourse of modern politics. There is a price to pay for showing such unnecessary political bias in what should be a politically neutral topic, and that price in this case is a fairly decent portion of viewers completely disregarding the video, as well as any actual "facts" it might provide.
I guess I did, there were parts where I drifted a bit. It was kind of late here and I was tired so maybe I didn't take in everything.
Both the Pro and Anti-Trump types need to do two things: (1) They need to stop injecting their position into every single video and comment section on youtube (that goes for people who make the videos, outside of actual political videos as well as viewers) and (2) learn to accept that there are people who feel the opposite of how they do and, yes, believe it or not, people who not on either side.
I'm not a fan of Trump as a person, never have been, and I don't agree with everything he's done or said but I don't think either side really needs to keep going on and on about it. You can barely find a video on here, no matter what it's about where the comments don't have one person making a pro or anti-Trump statement.
Yeah, the anti-Trump types are sore losers but it seems a lot of the Pro Trump types are sore winners too.
Great post and btw... GO PACK! :D
The photo of a black man with whip marks is misleading. That event occured in the Belgian Congo, and the farmer who whipped the black man, not a slave but a worker, was prosecuted and punished by the law. Representing it as an American Slave is purposefully misleading.
Tim Shepard Lies are justified in the name of social justice.
Yeah who cares if that didn't happen here those evil American are probably the kind of people that would have done it anyway so it's not really like he is blatantly lying to further a narrative.
And I didn't even know this. Any more deceptions I need to know about?
Yep, he's using that photo to deceive you into believing that slavers actually whipped their slaves, which is like totally fal...
Wait.
*Edit:* As others have pointed out, the man in the photo was in fact a former slave, who ran away from his plantation in Louisiana and joined the Union Army. Op is just full of shit, much like the 130 people who already liked his comment.
Slaves were expensive lifelong investments. Whippings were very rare because an injured slave cannot work, yet still needs to be fed.
Lol you know this video gets hated on when top comment can’t get over 100 likes.
How could you say something so controversial but yet so correct.
When did you reenable the comments
Instead of mass incarceration they should make inmates indentured servants
20 years of indentured servitude,not a life sentence,no big deal,in a time when life expectancy was 35.
I wonder at what age your servitude could be made legal?
+Kudjoe Adkins-Battle I don't have kids.I hate them.
Clint Davis life expectancy was 35 due to high mortality rate among children and infants.
Your comment shows your bias, he never said it was "no big deal" he said its simply and factually not the same thing.
You truly did your research of this subject - 10 common slavery myths. Thanks for the truthful facts.
good video alot of people know nothing about history and just go along with what someone else says with out checking facts keep it up man
11.48 .... slavery devastated west africa and it has yet to recover.... What do you base this on? If slave trade had been in place for centuries before europeans arrival, what special irrecoverable impact was there on west africa by the european traders?slavery was practiced by indigenous cultures in the americas prior to european arrival. This is never talked about.
Another uncomfortable thing never mentioned in identity politics, how many people of (any) colour are themselves decendents of slave owners?
Smegead so the West Africans were greedy and wanted European goods. Rather than trade in Ivory or Gold they chose to trade in People. It was their choice. How does this make the Europeans more culpable than the Africans?
nthnpark0 why make it a point to mention slavery as indigenous to african (or indeed human) culture... because there is a radical perception that is propagated that it was started by or exclusive to whites, this is implied in Roots... with whites raiding inland to collect slaves rather than going to thriving markets. (this did happen in Australia Check out "blackbirding" the practice of raiding islands for essentialy slaves).
Often, slaves were bad guys, who attacked unsuspecting tribes. Killing, and raping their children, etc.
SO, they sold those bastards into slavery. I'd sell a child molester into slavery. I'd sell someone who broke into my home, expecting to make my wife his sex slave into slavery. No question. Wouldn't care. It'd be a nice pay day.
That scene in Roots with the nets. UNREAL. Kidnapping slaves would of resulted in a WAR. Remember that war? OH WAIT, didn't happen, cause slaves were bought from other Africans. Usually by the tribe that conquered said slaves.
The answer is simple. CRIMINALS. Yeah, tribes had them. Often times, slaves were bad guys who tried to conquer a neighboring tribe and failed. They got sold. Then, sometimes they won. They sold off much of the tribe they invaded, and enjoyed their land. Native Americans practiced slavery. They enslaved many white children. Even raping the white children, who DARED be civilized on the land, a tribe stole by killing another tribe.
Profit isn't the only motivation for slavery. Revenge is a pretty good one too.
+nthnpark0 The tribes wanted guns, selling slaves got the most bang for the buck, so they chose to deal in people rather than gold and ivory. Sure, there was a Gold Coast and Ivory Coast which is why I chose to use those two items as other currencies, but that didn't keep the Africans from enslaving other Africans and selling them. But again, you gloss over the fact that the Africans had no moral qualms at all about selling their brethren to others to get what they wanted.
You're right, guns were initially sold to Native Americans that had first contact with Caucasians. Other Native American tribes saw how effective guns were and wanted some too. Yep, the powers-that-be played off one tribe against another for their own interests - how is this any different from any more technologically advanced culture taking advantage of "savages"? The Romans and Greeks did it, the Egyptians did it (yes, to Negroid Africans), the various slave traders in African (Arabic/Muslim, European, choose your "villain"), Chinese did it, etc. While this isn't considered "nice" it is a oft-used political ploy.
But let's be honest - the Europeans in this case took advantage of human nature. Just because the African tribes who sold other Africans got a shiny plaything for their efforts doesn't make them innocent. It makes them just as greedy, avaricious, petty and human as the rest of us. They weren't some noble savages who stood up for their beliefs, they were kidnappers at heart who felt no remorse for what they did. You can't crowbar halos on their heads, their horns got in the way just like everyone else.
The Africans treated their neighbors as a product, a commodity, and sold them to the highest bidder. They were just as guilty as anyone else who participated in this business venture and trying to say their sin was less is completely self-serving.
I was really skeptical at first because I saw you in my recommended and honestly thought you were going to be one of those racist people that said pretty much almost everything you've disproved in this video and I usually identify as an independent and your video was very well-made well-researched thank you for linking your sources because nobody ever links their sources and your sources came from credible reputable news organizations and not places like the Federalist or whatever the equivalent would be to someone who is liberal. I knew the majority of these because I really love history and studying history and watching documentaries and the intricacies of history and also disproving common knowledge that we believe but ends up being incorrect but actually learned a couple things from your video and that is what I always try to find in a good RUclipsr learning new things better factual so very good job and you definitely got a new subscriber
In my area iron mining was a big thing in the middle of the 19th century. The miners lived in Iron company housing and were paid in company script, which was only good in the company store. A story was related to me about a old fellows father who worked in the mines and was injured. He was carried to his house and laid on the kitchen table for the family to deal with. Granted they weren't slaves but only a notch or two above the slaves.
I'm glad you took a balanced approach to this politicized issue
Well-done and great job being thorough. I will revisit here with popcorn to view the hate comments. Have you read Edmund Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom?
haven't read that one
I think it echoes many of your points in the video
I agree. I love the scholarship that goes into all the videos and truly appreciate it when the sources are made available. As to the hate comments, I just cannot stand the overall stupidity; its too infuriating to enjoy at times.
you do have to have a high tolerance to brave these choppy waters, but there is also some really amazing conversations already taking place in this comments section. Actually I haven't seen as much bad stuff as I would've expected, but it's only been a few hours
This video is blowing up!
He said "many MASTERS were kind to their slaves" Is he fuckin serious😂😂😂
Dwayne Corry it's a question of sevenrity. Some treated their slaves incredibly poorly, others recognized them as an investment and those slaves led lives of (relative) comfort. None would have let them go willingly (though there were instances of slave owners manumiting their entire plantation's population upon their death) and the Master - Slave dynamic could never be called truly equal or fair, it stands to reason some were treated better than others.
IamZren89 You are twisting history around. Most slaves who wanted to stay with their owners,did so because they provide safety, food and shelter and were protected from being attacked and killed. Very,few stayed because of "good conditions " or that they "liked" they liked their owners . Especially when the civil war broke out.
Read Mark Twains biography. His family had one when he was a boy that was pretty much a loved member of his family. After the war when he became a very wealthy man he had various servants on the payroll. The blacks were the highest paid.
Of course many Masters were kind to the slaves. It would be stupid to mistreat the slaves. Mistreatment fostered revolts and revolts ended with dead slaves. That would be a financial loss. Some loved their slaves, that is why the average African American is no longer dark black. Many slaves were freed when they past their working prime. Many slaves were allowed to earn money so they may purchase their freedom. Slaves sired by master were kept on the plantation, after all they were family. In hind sight it is easy to forget the dynamics of the society that existed. Slaves often took pride in the plantations they lived on and in their owners. This is not a popular bit of history, but true none the less. After the war, when the slaves were allowed to have a last name, they often took their owners name. It was a different place and a different time...
Of course they were!
To the HOUSE slaves!
Field slaves were a whole different thing, a distinction the slave masters deliberately enforced to encourage division among the slaves as a whole and undermine any chance of them uniting in revolt.
It's the little things that get me, such as that newspaper ad from 1768, taken out for the return of the Irish servant gal, Martha Carr. "She is thought to have gone off with a couple of sailors, deserted from the ship Randolph, lying at Chester town, Kent County." Sounds like the beginning of a very interesting story. Pity we'll never know what happened.
One of the better myth buster videos. Great video👍
I'm calling fact check on this. I have a friend who's job it is to track old government records. He's shown me actual government census records that disprove 2 things on this list. - The one being that over 40% of the slaves in the recorded area were white (indentured servants, that were denied release when their terms were up). - A lot of what he is saying here is based on what an individual calls for fact for themselves, for example even now you can have something happen and have a different story by each person that was there on what happened. (Even with video).
Any sources for that, Robert? I'm guessing that English is your second language. Does your friend live in the U.S.?
Yes. go to any of the historical records departments in any city that hag slavery. Unless some group has divided to destroy them. In most situations they will be in the basement of the oldest local museum. As far as my language goes. I'm a fourth generation U.S. citizen. I do have issues with communications because I'm gifted in other areas and was offered a full ride college scholarship at 10. Gifted people usually in turn struggle in other areas. ..if you don't agree with me that's fine. Go to the records departments or the one in Washington D.C and look for yourself. The one I saw consisted of about 40% black slaves, around 40% white slaves. (mostly indentured servants as it states that were not released after serving their time and the rest were Asian (Check railroad history,) Hispanic, Mid Eastern etc. I actually did have a scam of the record but the drive I stored it on failed..... ... like I said. if you think I'm lying go check out the records yourself. Actually some may be available online.
if you are questioning typos. Don't mistake bad phone corrections for lack of intelligence.
It's a little bit more than typos, Robert, but I'm far from believing that grammatical errors = low intelligence. However, they lead me to believe that you were speaking of records you had not seen yourself, given that you seemed to not be completely familiar with North American English.
As far as the rest goes: to me, it seems you are saying the same thing in your second statement as your first -- there are records, go look at them -- but not specifying what records, of when and where. Though as a matter of fact, neither I nor CH are denying there were large numbers of indentured servants at times, but that their conditions were different than slaves. What are you correcting? I probably didn't read your first post correctly -- it happens.
Flora Posteschild www.census.gov.
And a Master could extend the.. Contract as they wished.. A Black Indentured Servant owner sued just for that.. Thus becoming the first slave owner..
More precisely, The Man Who made Indentured Service Slavery.
Except he wasn't the first slave owner as slaves had been held in his colony for 20 years before his instance.
WRONG!!! John Punch was the first SLAVE ever deemed by LAW decades before the Johnson court case...even though their were Black Slaves in the US before John. Just so you know the Doctrine of exclusion was passed while Anthony was alive which laid the foundation for Modern day racism, and once he died all his property/land and items were confiscated by the US Govt for under the Doctrine of Exclusion no Black man could have the same wealth attainment as a White man
fanOmry the guy in the video is full of crap and a pc liar
XZDrake ... Yes.. I Know that.. He's just the one who *Turned All Indentured Servants- - Into SLAVES*.
that Makes him *Close, Enough*
Very true. and he did own several slaves and he was black. This is a only a half truth presented covered with emotional logic.
Thanks for the video. It set a couple of things straight for me.
Great job! Thank you for informing those who don't know about these truths. I think I'm going to read the comments.
you are a slave if you are in prison...
howard minkler one line moor ron
John Harris lol
Howard Minkler then don't go to prison...
Your an idiot
Jordan TRusso fuck your opinion
This is a very biased perspective of history. You failed to acknowledge the root of these "myths" claims, all the while citing information that you know is misleading. I can point it all out, if need be.
1. Indentured servitude was a form of slavery, so that is the entire point of the argument.
2. You generally got this one right. We don't know when slavery was invented, but it was a common practice in Africa that Europeans came and saw and furthered for their own means, in a worse way.
3. I think you are confusing the process of owning a slave, with the first court ordered/legally enforced slave. That is the significance of this case, and yes, if we were using prisoners for labor, while giving them a life sentence, they would be slaves. Slavery is forced labor. If anything, lifelong indentured servitude would be far worse than Roman slavery, so I fail to see how the difference in language is relevant to you. In practice, they are one in the same, even if it is a milder form of slavery.
4. The Union did not, ever, fight to end slavery. You seemed to try to dance around the issue of the Union being anti-slavery towards the end of the war with the Emancipation Proclamation. This is a common historical fallacy, as we all know that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves and was much more of a political document than a legal one. It was used to keep anti-slavery Britain from helping the Confederacy, while garnering the support of Northern abolitionists that were too stupid to understand the Emancipation Proclamation legally did nothing.
5. Generally, this is not a myth, but more of a fact. You mention that slavery was a key defining reason for the South seceding, while failing to recognize that this was because they were afraid the Federal government would regulate it. The main problem was slavery, but to take it one level higher, it was government involvement. The Southern states believed slavery to be an issue of the 10th amendment, because it was not governed by the Constitution and Northern states viewed it differently. As long as the federal government was not going to come down on the states and legislate on things outside of the Constitution, such as slavery, the South would have never seceded. Combine that, with the economic atmosphere of the rich North vs the poor South, and you have the perfect cocktail for a war.
6. I'm not sure where you got the 36%, probably from figures in the deep South, but then you'd have to know that would be skewed vs the total South. The true figure is about 30.8% of the entire Souths FAMILIES owned slaves in the South. Once again, that is the number of FAMILIES that owned slaves at the time, when you cited it as the number of Southerners and since kids can't be held responsible for owning slaves I find this fairly misleading. The true figure is that about 6% of all Southerners owned slaves. You claim that almost all other Southerners were connected, in some way, to slavery, but I would firmly disagree with this. While it is true most people in the South that lived in cities were generally connected to slavery in some way, the truth is that the bulk of the Southern population lived outside of the city. In actuality, a large number, if not the majority, of all Southerners come from poor farmers that lived off of sustenance farming, while a small number of wealthy owned an abundance of slaves in plantations.
7. While it should be important to not diminish the ludicrous and insane working conditions of factory workers in America, I would have to agree it still is not that similar or on the same level as African slavery in America. You were pretty much on point with this one.
8. Black soldiers did fight for the Confederacy. This isn't a myth, nor is it controversial. I don't really think it's that crazy to believe that slaves, who were offered their freedom, would fight for the South. I would also suggest that it is possible that a very small number of slaves liked their owners and were treated well and were willing to fight for the Confederacy. It is impossible to say something with absolute certainty, when given a sample size this large and I am positive I can prove some blacks chose to fight for the Confederacy (not that that proves anything).
9. True, I'm sure some were captured by Europeans, but this was generally not the case.
10. White people did end slavery, but of course, they were the only ones that could. I'm not really sure how this pertains to anything, but it would be foolish to deny that they ended slavery. I wouldn't say the statement alone is malicious, as you suggest, but depending on the point trying to be made, it very well could be. It does seem like a very odd and random fact and I don't think it makes any kind of moral point. You don't get brownie points for stopping being bad.
+Gary Daniel 100%. Most businessmen in the North loathed the idea of ending slavery, as then they would lose their cheap commodities. The entire economy of the North was based on processing the cheap and plentiful commodities produced by the South. That's half the reason that Lincoln was so opposed in the North, during the Civil War, because he was costing people a lot of money, when they South seceded and their factories had no materials, like cotton, to process. Lincoln was actually a very despised president in the North, during the Civil War. Not only that, but it's not like this problem went away. With the introduction of share-cropping after the Civil War, the North once again had to rely on Southern cash crops for its manufacturing, and this is likely the reason that they allowed many racist laws on the books in the South and looked the other way, when racism was still enforced through forced "apprenticeship" in "sharecropping" plantations. The Civil War was fought over money and power, and the North won on both accounts of that. However, the people that lost were slaves and Southerners. Both of which, did not see any improvements from the Civil War. While blacks were legally free, most were still enslaved through crazy laws that were not legal, but would not be struck down until the invention of agricultural machinery to replace them, because of the absolute greed of the Northern economic engine. Now, I'm not saying the South was any better, but that's irrelevant, since they didn't have the power to choose. Also, no one pretends that the South cared about slaves, but people still seem to be under the false opinion that the North did. Outside of a few religious people, abolitionists, and die-hard Republicans, the North was all too happy to look the other way and reap in the benefits of slavery. You can't honestly try to draw lines on who benefited from slavery. There are blacks that benefited from slavery and even that is under contention, while historically factual. It turns out, human slavery is a nasty nasty business that almost everyone was tangled up in, in one way or another.
Pretty much. Jim Crow laws were very common in the North, as well as the South. Also, you'd think they would've done more for the slaves, if the goal of the entire war was to free them, right? I mean, the Freedmen's Bureau was hardly funded and could never provide all slaves with land and housing so that they could move on with their lives. Nope, the North was oddly fine with making slaves go right back to their masters and ask for a job "sharecropping" in the miserable conditions in the field. Really fishy considering the historical narrative many people pitch.
+Gary Daniel Actually slavery held the us, especially the south behind. While the north was moving into the industrial age, inventing, etc, the south was way behind.
Tim Gass Do it! I would love for you to hand the video 'author' his ass with *facts*.
Indentured survitude was voluntary and the contract was entered into on a basis of consent by the individual. From my understanding it was simply an exchange system. An indentured servant would work for so many years in exchange for land. And it was to promote and encourage settlement in North America.
Now that was enjoyable because it was so educational. I for one am ready to learn. And learning starts with listening.
So, let me see if I got this right 1. The USA had slavery like most of the world at that time, & we abolished it after 89 years. 2. Slavery is still practiced in places like Africa, the Middle East and India. 3. You don't like Trump. Does that pretty much sum it up?
If you ignore the rest of the video, I guess so.
"Reasonable Person" lol, its reasons like these I cant get enough of the internet
Reasonable Person India abolished slavery.
My point is why does this guy who made the video add in comments about Trump? If he makes a video about the history of flight should I expect more comments on politicians? If you ended up sharing a cab with this guy would he somehow add into a conversation about the weather his take on Bernie Sanders?
+Reasonable Person
white people still enslave all nation through the evil banking system IMF AIPAC etc.
"Not all slave owvers are cruel.."
It's like saying some rapist rape kindly.
Various Curious-Yes, the mindset of human beings is quite disturbing, isn't it?
Various Curious and I have found another nazi fallacy in this comment section.
Various Curious How can that even be compared??? Rape, and slavery, slavery is more like a government than a sex act.
I'm a kind rapist, I always ask before I do anything
I'm sure both are probably true Various.
Some parents treat their kids and pets like shit while other you could claim treat them well.
Same with comparing how humans treat animals for food the highest bar and lowest bar is like a night and day difference.
Awesome Job, You've Earned My Sub.
Thanks for the good informative video bro
The most respectfully given, and non-biased information on this topic i have ever seen.
Agreed.
That must be why the SJWs and the Geeks hate it so much! :P
So many crazy people these days ...
I admire his attempt but he relies on multiple flawed sources for a lot of incorrect information.
Caressa Clark I'm black and I agree.But I still had to check his sources to make sure they were legit.
Caressa Clark irish slaves in the U.S. at one point was about equal to african american slaves. they were kidnapped from ireland, almost 2/3 of them. they were forced into these conctracts. they did worse jobs since they were cheaper, not bought from africans but kidnapped. white christian culture and the british empire, largely the 10 commandment.... are what mostly ended slavery world wide.
idc what this guy says, hes got bias sources. anyone can go through the documents and check the numbers, they kept records on it. also... the white christian culture thing is a worldwide event, so its kindof complex to go over it on the world scale... but their colonization and the u.s. backing out of the slave trade were the absolute largest factors in ending slavery in the world.
the ending of slavery involves philosphy and history. i think you need to be well versed in history AND PHILOSOPHY.
[alt-right poster]
1. Slaves were the happiest people on Earth.
2. Slaves were a tremendous boon to productivity.
3. There were more intact black families under slavery than there are in Chicago today.
4. Something something Soros.
5. You should listen to Sam Harris' new podcast with Charles Murray on the subject of race as it relates to I.Q. and do your level best to take literally everything said out of context.
6. [A meme.]
7. Her emails tho
8. What has Africa given us, really? Nothing basically, because black people are gross!
9. Slaves were better off than people who earn minimum wage in 2017 (keep min. wage lower than the cost of living tho - we don't need people getting ideas)
10. Her emails
[/alt-right poster]
you are being racist.
Paul Little May I recommend "The Half That Has Never Been Told" by Edward E. Baptist or "American Slavery as it is" by Theodore and Angelina Grimke Weld? For thar matter just look up the Grimke sisters on Wikipedia. They were the daughters of the richest slave owning family in South Carolina and were so disgusted by what they saw that they both choose to leave the south. "American Slavery" is the testimony of 1000 witnesses many of whom were originally slave owners about the vileness of slavery. It available on the Internet archive and was part of the basis for "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Tom Paine, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton all disagreed with your assessment. Your continue spouting of these lies does so much harm to our nation. Please care enough about our country to do some research and stop falling for such lies?
+Helen willis
Twas a joke, my friend.
Freddy Ishere I don't know why you ask this. I don't think I.Q. is considered that significant anymore. In terms of civil rights it doesn't matter at all. The greatest genius and the most severe developmentally delay child have the same civil rights in this country. I have never figured out why so many people know theirs. I had problems in school in the 1960's and they told me I was very intelligent, but the actual I.Q. score was not released. That was N.Y. state policy. Somehow all the Klan types I've ever talk to always knew theirs and they were all some insanely high number. The funny thing the Klan types never struck me as particularly bright. Go figure?
Once again liberals show that they are horrible at parody, due to their complete inability to understand their opponents' motivations.
Thank you. Valuable information. Love the impartial nature of this video.
Could you do a video about penal colonies of Australia. I think transporting the poorest people out of society, for mainly petty crimes....plus the year long boat ride to a hostile land, where you're forced to build the colony from sandstone......was pretty much slavery. Im curious to know what you think
Well done and very informative.
Thanks for putting this up of youtube
Regarding number 4, what can you tell us about foreign trade policies before the Civil War?
Well researched you got me to subscribe
Interesting and factual. Thanks!
Great video! And you're absolutely correctt on 'two wrongs don't make a right' (something the comment section should learn)
well done.Would love it if you would consider discussing two subjects/topics
1-the phony ignored trade embargo north vs. south
2-the fact that more than a few wealthy Southerners could pay to have others serve in the CSA in their stead
Thanks
Loves me some history. Objective means to understand fully, without judgement
what is that photo called at 3:09?
That's Giulio Rosati, Inspection of New Arrivals
Abe Lincoln was indecisive AF!
Well done, excellent video!
Great video! Totally unbiased and historically based. Your critics must have taken the alternative history courses taught by the Alt-right!
giving yourself is so powerful and a calling
In the same letter as Lincoln sent to Greley ("if i could save the union"), he also adds:
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
The 1st part without this one is often used to attempt a demonstration on how Lincoln didnt care about slavery.
In fact Juan Garrido, a black conquistador of New Spain, bought some slaves to search for gold, he had to leave Coyoacán when the Crown removed from government (Garrido supported Cortés)
DUDE THANK YOU BEEN SAYING MOST OF THIS FOREVER
Indentured servitude could be voluntary, but in the beginning most were involuntary, criminals and those who had fought against the crown, and you could whip or mistreat them the same as any African slave. Children were also sold into indentured servitude & were highly prized, as you could keep them 14 years, if you didn't work them to death before that.
That's true. But, so what?
: You sound strikingly similar to "masaman" (cool channel). Are you one in the same ?
So what do you suggest?
Rewatching after watching the reaction to the PragerU video. So a good video!
you nailed it number nine is the one people need to know the most
Outstanding video.
Great video thank u!
If you pause the video during the document part with "slave" highlighted, you'll see that 75 percent of its usage is to refer to the south as "slave holding states" not necessarily talking about slavery as an entity.
Great, verifiable research, excellent presentation, and I learned a few things. Nice tune too. But many will still refuse to believe these facts. The end looked a little like a Japanese battle flag from WW 2, but that's just a minor coincidence. Very professional.
Hello, I am a black person(from what I know and has been informed of by my family), and after watching this, I feel better about myths about the nature of slavery around the world was. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for this,,,,, I agree with most of the points made here except number 7
Great video man.....
Lincoln said a lot of things he didn't completely believe in order to help end slavery.
Question so once all these myths are acknowledged by everybody what will change ?????
Side Note:
Leopold II king of Belgium 1865-1909 owned the Belgium Congo (under the name of the Congo Free State) and I mean he owned all of that country, its earth, plants, animals and human inhabitants. They were to the last man, woman and child his personal property and were treated as such. He enslaved the entire nation. He had a personal army of mercenaries who terrorized the population and enforced the universal slavery of it's inhabitants. Each and every last human even the children were forced to do free labor for him from sun up to sun down seven days a week. Very little food production was permitted, only enough to keep the population barely alive. The population was tortured on a daily basis. Arbitrary and atrocious punishments included random amputation of limbs of children and rounding up entire villages for slaughter. There is no consensus as to the exact number of people who lived in that country during that period and more importantly the number of people who died as a result of their systematic genocide perpetrated by Leopold II for his personal gain. The best estimates put the number at somewhere between 8 and 10 million tortured to death. Yes I include dying of starvation and disease within the category of those tortured to death since it was caused by their enslavement. Keep in mind that, that number is greater than all the African slaves ever held captive in North America by those of European descent and he accomplished that in about 20 years. I am not stating this in any way to minimize the issue of slavery in the Americas. It was a horrible massive crime systematically perpetrated by one small group but with the tacit approval of the government and by extension the people well after the formation of the U.S. But I do think it is important to keep such things in perspective. We weren't the first, we weren't the last, we weren't the worst and we did eventually correct our mistakes and it has been 152 yeas since anyone has held the status of slave or slave owner in this country and 46 years since the last slave died (Peter Mills 1861-1972). It has been over 60 years since the last slave holder died (not counting those who may have, as children, been the de facto owners of slaves).
While many of my ancestors did own slaves, many more were slaves themselves. Most people in this country are a mixture of ethnicity and cultures. My DNA report took days to unravel. If we were for example to punish all who are descended from slave owners and reward all who were slaves I would be slapped around a lot but rewarded even more, metaphorically speaking.
Yes it is important to learn and know history and remember it in order to avoid repeating past mistakes if for no other reason, but we also need to focus on the current practice of slavery around the world as well as within our own borders.
One example, over half of the "Asian Spas" in the United States keep slaves. They call them massage therapists. But they are really slaves that are exploited women held captive and are for all intents and purposes slaves. They are not permitted to ever leave the place of business. They turn over all the money earned to their owners. They cannot refuse many requests made by the men who visit such places. Fear and intimidation are used to control them and occasionally they are found dead. Most are either here illegally and are afraid of being returned to face unimaginable consequences or they have had their passports confiscated by their "owners" who paid to transport them here to exploit them. When they get too old they are sold off as domestic servants.
Thank you for being unbiased ! :)
This is a pretty good video
I new it. I moved to this country from Jamaican in 1983 and I seem to have been the only child listening in my 4th grade class that the African tribes caught other tribes to be slaves. Africans smh.
Excellent video
Great video 👍👍👍👍
The claim that many slave owners were "kind" and "loving" towards the people who they enslaved depends on your definition of "kind" and "loving". It might fit an abusive person's definitions of "kind" and "loving", e.g. the definitions imagined by those rare men in modern times who have kidnapped girls or women in first world nations and kept them isolated from the world as sex slaves. Keeping someone as a captive, especially when the captors violently assault or kill slaves who flee, is not being "kind" nor "loving". ANY slavery certainly is not a healthy definition of "kind" and "loving".
honestly, I think the comment section was more educational than the actual video.
What Lee fought for in his own words;
“The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” Robert E. Lee
I don't think Jefferson, Madison, or Washington could have said it better.
Note - All the above were Virginians.
I would be interested to see you do a separate video on the Arab slave trade.
"Sometimes there were cruel bosses"... That's a funny way of saying that many indentured servants were charged room and board on top of the debts that they had entered the servitude to pay off, thus resulting in conditions by which they simply could never work off the debt and therefore never be freed.
OMG where did you get the contract signed John Reid? 14:48 14:49.
It's sad that this video had to be made. Good information.