10 Common Slavery Myths
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- 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.
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/a...
www.history.com...
www.gilderlehr...
www.snopes.com/...
www.thejournal....
www.nytimes.co...
www.pri.org/st...
apnews.com/920...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.historyirel...
www.splcenter....
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....
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
www.youtube.com...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
#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.
+The Cynical Historian, this video will hurt many a butt. I hope you have asbestos underwear, because the flames are coming.
+Vinchenzo C you mean like, this videos going to hurt his butt cuz it's so full of shit?
😂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.
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 ^_^
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.
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.
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.
My main objection to your video is that you seem to imply that indentured servitude was just a walk in the park, then you were free of your contract, and you went your merry way. Large numbers of indentured servants never lived to see the end of their contracts. There were many many abuses of the indentured servant system that you gloss over or don't even mention. You seem to have an inherent bias against admitting that many many white people labored under a terrible system that frequently abused them as badly as anyone suffered.
James Scott
Not true. He did not even imply that indentured servitude was a "walk in the park." He simply stated that chattel slavery as.practiced on the U.S. was not equivalent to indentured servitude. While he exained the differences between the two. He also commented on cruel masters of indentured servants who did not honor the contract.
You don't have to tell me what he said, I watched the video as well. I just don't believe him. He minimized the effects of indentured servitude at every turn so he could make his case for the horror of chattel slavery, which no one is arguing against. In the time of white slavery and its twin brother 'indentured servitude' the colonies were run by Planters, for Planters and indentured servants had NO rights, regardless of what a worthless, unenforceable piece of paper said. The Magistrates did as they were told. "Servants" were told of jobs serving the upper classes of British North America for a short time and then promised a parcel of land with which to start their new life. It was a crock. When they got to the New World they found out they were 'serving' by working in the tobacco fields, their 'contracts' were lengthened by years for ridiculous infractions, and if they survived their service, they found out their promised land parcel was deep in Indian country. Try reading a book like White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America
by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh. It might give you something to think about. And unlike our author here they don't use Snopes and Slate as "sources."
Yes chattel and indentured are different. Indentured servitude was often cornered, ordered or swindled. Children in Great Britain would often disappear (hence the term kidnap "kid-nap"), because they were minors a seller would co-sign on behalf on a indentured contract, families even sold their children to pay off debts. You had a choice either go into debtors prison or sign your life away on a indentured contract. Stories and movies based on a person getting dunk in a bar then finding themselves on a boat to somewhere actually did happen frequent in the poorer corners of the UK. Indentured servants were treated harsher, although they had legal protections under their contract those were rarely enforced by the magistrates themselves. It was far more common occurrence magistrates would hand wave abuses that indentured servants would bring against their contract owners. The suicide rate of indentured servants was abnormally high, and contract owners did everything they could to lock in the indentured servants indefinitely through legal means. In essence indentured servants were made slaves through Law. If you were indentured, food services for a week added 2 weeks to your contract, clothing a month, illness 3 months. Tobacco seeds, equipment 6months to a year extra on your contract from any simple research and books on the subject on this matter. If your plot of land did not produce well enough you were in debt to your contract owner dependent of the cost. This constantly rolled over yearly, go read a contract I think there are a few digitized through the Library of Congress. No one is downplaying chattel in fact what this "historian" is doing is downplaying a form of slavery (that is what indentured servitude is) as non-slavery.
boo whooo
I feel the same way, but then some people start talking about reparations that I would have to pay.
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.
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.
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".
Instead of mass incarceration they should make inmates indentured servants
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 :)
Thank you. That was a great history lesson and you covered a lot of ground in just 14 minutes.
Loves me some history. Objective means to understand fully, without judgement
I just can’t grasp the concept, no matter what date and time, anyone, ever thought it was ok to own another person...
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'.
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.
Very good info. Reading through the comments, lots of sensitive folks.
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
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
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
I like the video but some of your points are muddied by your other points...especially 4 and 5 how can a cause be both the reason for secession and NOT the reason for going to war to save the Union...? I think it's clear that it WAS in fact the driving force behind Lincoln's modus operandi and he simply stated what he did in order to underline that reunification was far more important on the whole (being a relatively new nation with little in the way of stature) but that he would do whatever was necessary to accomplish this.
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.
not all slaves were forced to work for the Confederacy some voluntarily joined
Dakota Nelson Yeah..more than likely under duress.
Dakota Nelson, slaves were following their owner's in these instances. This was not voluntary.
I met a Black man whose grandfather was a slave and fought for the Confederacy. When asked why he said that he had every confidence that the South would end slavery after the war ended.
Islamisthecultofsin he would be sadly mistaken
I saw in a video somewhere that the South did free the slaves in final months of the war. I haven't verified this yet. Another video said that slavery was collapsing on its own and mechanical farm equipment hadn't even been invented yet.
Thanks for putting this up of youtube
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
great video...i wonder why so many dislikes ...LOL
Great video! Totally unbiased and historically based. Your critics must have taken the alternative history courses taught by the Alt-right!
Great Video! It was very informative. I hope the people going around repeating these alternative facts view this video!
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.
Even some Native American tribes ended up keeping "slaves" but they were considered prisoners of war and regardless of race, were treated equally. But it still happened.
The CIVIL WAR was about dividing a "nation" and further increasing the debt of this Nation so it would default on the loans already given to fight the "War of [In]dependence". The King/crown/vatican decided that a new form of slavery would replace the old one. So debt would be the means of control of the people and the states. During the Civil War, King George was so worried that the plan wouldn't work that he had an invasion planned during the war! They would've gone through with it if it wasn't for a little-known alliance[unknown and fact not taught by public schools] between the US and Tsarist Russia led to the Russian fleet showing up in force in New York and San Francisco. It arrived at a crucial time in 1863 when Britain and France were on the verge of intervening on the side of the Confederacy.
In the end, after Lincolns murder the crown/vatican plans worked. Our debt was insurmountable and we did end up back to where we started as far as who controls us, but in much worse shape financially that led to the wealth of a nation being stolen from the people to pay the interest on the debt (1933 when FDR confiscated all the gold) Once declared insolvent our "representives" Pledged the people as surety and instituded the old BIRTH CERTIFICATE scam and we are now, wage slaves/chattel. THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE Pope Justinian!!! Do you think Agenda 21 and the U.N. TAKE OVER is the final part of this plan. They have all the wealth now. They think we aren't necessary and basically the final part is to get rid of us altogether (Americans are to high maintenance) or to return to a serf/slave system. Do you really think our politicians run the show? Are they still talking about Russia or are they back to their normal duties of lying, lying about lying, and then stealing, passing mandatory laws to have a collapse of the entire system, so they can move in the white tanks and soldiers with blue berets. The founding fathers was a fairy tale and a lot of them were lawyers or loyalist to the King/crown/vatican.
During the time slavery was allowed by Britain, the British sold men from Ireland into slavery in the Caribbean. That is why you can find Irish names among people in the BVI who claim a distant ancestry.
Calling a prisoner a slave isn't really that far off in a lot of cases...
Also, I doubt any country has 0 slaves. Human Trafficking happens everywhere. Though, I suppose that's a slightly different topic since it's illegal slavery.
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.
Anthony Johnson was said to live in the 1600's, why is his clothing in the picture so anachronistic? It resembles the attire of individuals in the second half of the 19th Century, not at all like what people wore in the 17th Century
the problem with slavery is people get their history lesson from Hollywood ........... which is the worst place to get a history lesson from
I see you mentioned only the slaves from West Africa, but failed to mention the blacks that were kicked out of Europe and Germany at the same time... you're lost bro...
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.
Love you, Mr Cynical Historian, but, as the saying goes, if you walk down the middle of the road, stones will fly at you from both sides. You are but a stranger in a strange land.
There is a misconception of "Africans Sell Africans." The majority of West African kingdoms did not participate in the slave trade, although they captured POWs for indentured servitude and were deceived by White invaders to convince them to give their prisoners to them. And most times the chiefs were double crossed after they made a deal with them. So Europeans did most of the capturing than buying and most Kingdoms fought against European colonialism and slavery than doing business with Europeans.
Excellent - really enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work.
Read exactly what Lincoln had to say about slavery. Lincoln was only biased by the fact that he was elected POTUS and wanted to be the only POTUS.
Interesting vid. Morons & trolls & bigots share thoughtful insights below.
Slave-maker ants have practiced slavery long before humans did.
I love how everyone is saying that this is fake yet no one has proof to refute it except liberal Ad Hominems
Wow, only truly misinformed people would say slavery was invented in America. This is ridiculous.
Abe Lincoln was indecisive AF!
Indentured servitude is not the same as slavery? Tell that to he children rounded up off of the streets of European cities & whisked away against their will, without their families knowledge. 'Lower class' people in coastal cities were seemingly terrified of letting their children out of their sight for fear of them being abducted. There were laws against this of course but do you really think slave traders cared for such laws? Do you really believe the law makers themselves cared for such laws? You don't think these laws & their paperwork could ever have been manipulated, by people in a position of power, to 'legitimise' the human cargo aboard ships? On top of this Having an x amount of years contract only matters if your life expectancy goes beyond those x amount of years.
These people were kidnapped into slavery. Being forced into working for free is slavery no matter what term you use to describe it.
you can resurrect people!? well then do it
A want to be scholar who uses big words yet fails to comprehend a turn of phrase? Sounds about right.
Do you really believe that there is no 'stigma' for today's working classes, regardless of race? You don't think the huge wage gap between the classically upper class & lower class jobs reflect this?
As for the difference between slavery & indentured labour in the plantations I read somewhere (I looked for it but can't find it) an account that goes something as follows: The first forced labour to come from Africa were classed as indentured labour, however when asked what right these people should be afforded the (Black) African Slavers informed them that they had no rights & that they were no more than animals & to be used as such. This wasn't only a verbal thing it was also shown through lack of respect in their treatment at the hands of their black captors. There are accounts of how people, who had been rejected from buyers for whatever reason, would be killed on the spot by the African dealers as it was cheaper than keeping them alive by having to care or them. If this is true then to say the whites created justification would be false, they were merely following an the example set by blacks. Is this his true? I can't say. Is this believable? I would say definitely.
It wasn't a race thing to begin with, it was a greed thing & blacks were every bit as guilty as whites.
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
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.
Very true about the Irish. "Sign on the door read, No Irish need apply"
In what year? There were "No Colored Need Apply" signs until at least 1965. In those days, unions, which are supposed to be so "liberal," today, were nothing but the Northern-white version of the KKK. Their point was to ensure that no coloreds could "take white men's jobs."
Discrimination and indentured servitude are not the same as chattel slavery. Did you watch the video?
Laughably poor research and presentation.
laughably poor criticism
One side note, the sub-Saharan slave trade was vastly different than the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There is no evidence that says that the Conganese knew the type of slavery they were selling the slaves to. Many people in the trans-saharan never lost their humanity, their slave status was not passed on to the children, and in some instances you could not rise in station if you had not once been a slave. A slave could be in a high position, marry, etc. A video about the differences in the two slave trades would be interesting.
It's clear in your tone that you could have been biased in this video. But I truly respect you for delivering good info that showed unbiased facts, with biased quips.
What I'm trying to say, and failing, is that it takes a true intellectual to do what you did here.
I'm sorry if that sounded fucked up. I'm a bit buzzed. Lol
bit buzzed myself man (2 glasses of wine'll do that), but I catch your meaning. Thanks
Spud Bud selective use of "facts" + bias (aka agenda) is called SPIN.
I agree. The Cynical Historian touched on some myths that would piss of left wingers and other myths that would piss off right wingers.
He missed a big one. That America = USA. The majority of blacks that were shipped to America ended up south of Panama because unlike whites they could withstand some tropical diseases and conditions better.
KKuurus he did specifically say he was focused on American slavery not Panama. Not trying to be a big dick or anything but he did say this.
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.
The first legally made slave in the New World was Irish owned by a black man.
Well done, excellent video!
Who really cares? We all have to work tomorrow
All slavery is bad no matter what
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.
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.
"The worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it."
~Slavoj Zizek
love me some Zizek, always the perfect kind of contrarian
True enough, though I am curious what's your take on the given quote? would you say that good slave-owners were in a way worse?honest question hehe
I could see the argument being made, but it really depends on the definition of worse. Worse for abolition's sake, yes. Worse in terms of cruelty, most certainly not. Value judgments are difficult for me because of that.
I see, I certainly agree with your statement regarding individual treatment by certain slaveowners, but I am to an extent also inclined to view how the structure of society maintains the predominant social fabric. btw if you don't mind me asking, wwhat would you say your personal political views are or where you lean towards?
"I was a teenage anarchist, looking for a revolution"- _Against Me_ Then swung hard right while in the military. Went full hippy after getting out, and I think I've evened out overall. Suffice it to say, I've been all over the political spectrum, and don't really have the same hard-set politics as normal folks. Studying history has a way of blunting any ideology.
Indentured slavery is slavery no matter how you slice it.....
Oh come on I know the word is meant to separate but they were slaves still yes with a time line but usually not given. just add more years... It was meant to mentally separate but the owner knew better and so do I. They may have thought it was voluntary until they got off the boats...
why do people think, that listing other races and how they had slaves, validates what happened in the United States, it isn't it only shows how slavery was always wrong, this whole comment section is just riddled with, "black people helped" or "the word slave comes from slav which is a yadayada bla bla bla" it doesn't change anything so stop bring it up, it doesn't even give context
Roe Alaska, To be fair, that's just because in america they were actual assets that could basically used as money printing machines, aka, farming. And the only reason they were better off, was because they were a long term investment. If you're paying a bunch of money up front, you want that investment to give back as long as possible. Meanwhile, fuck your factory workers, they're getting paid a buck a day and can be replaced the same day if they die at no loss to you.
It doesn't validate it what is going on today is that white people have been singled out as being solely responsible for slavery which is completely false
Black people are among the worst offenders when it comes to slavery most of modern day slavery is occurring in Africa
Europeans slavery of Africans had been taken out of context and yes Africans kidnapped and sold their own people into slavery in the tens of millions to the Arabs and Europeans
This is more than just helping whole African empires were founded on capturing slaves to trade for goods from the Europeans. Greedy Africans profited from selling their own people into slavery
Dont tell me to stop bringing it up I will keep doing it until you are sick of hearing it
TheReddPerkins White people were just doing what everyone else was doing. Did nothing? maybe the civil war was not just about slavery but it did result in the 13 amendment being passed banning slavery.
The British made slavery a capital offense
I think the blame has been solely placed on white people for a reason and its time to start exposing black peoples role in slavery
Im not sure if you were aware of this but there was an anti slavery movement prior to slavery being banned.
Did the Arabs or Africans have any anti slavery movement
Africans had no trouble selling members of their own tribes into slavery
It would be nice for some history channel documentaries and mini series like roots to portray the history of Arab slavery and the Africans who not only captured the slaves but also enslaved lessor tribes for what was probably thousands of years
I refuse to feel guilty about slavery when these other groups get a free pass and are not called to account for their actions which from what I have read they were worse.
It took Europeans 200 years or so before they decided to abolish slavery. The Arabs continued to practice slavery until the middle of the 20th century and even with laws passed slavery continues in North Africa and much of Africa today
@TheReddPerkins Slavery was normal those days. Everyone did it. Why are whites guilty? Those whites would never had access to slaves if it was not for the black slave traders in Africa. Not once have i ever heard anyone complain about the black slave traders. They are the root of the problem. And where the f?ck is my compensation for my European ancestors that were enslaved by your ancestors? Europeans were enslaved by africans for over a 1000 yrs before we finally got strong enough to fight off your racist slave trader ancestors. I WANT MY MONEY!!!!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! GIVE!!! NOW!!!
YOU MUST GIVE ME YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR CAR AND YOUR JOB!!!!! YOU WERE BORN PRIVILEGED FROM THE HARD WORK OF MY ENSLAVED ANCESTORS!!!!! I WANT YOUR MONEY!!!!!!! PAY ME NOW!!!!!
Once again you speak utter crap. No one calls it savage africa. They call it DARKEST AFRICA you stupid racist idiot. And they call it DARKEST because very few whites had seen inside africa.
I have seen a few of your videos and everything I have seen and heard is absolutely true and it is a damn shame that they are teaching our children those damn lies.
When did you reenable the comments
Slavery IS always cruel
In Louisiana on the first day the call went out 5000 free blacks enlisted in new Orleans
Great video man.....
It really Makes me sad Seeing all this racism. I wish we all could just look past one anothers skin color and cultural Differences! its Truly Saddening seeing The World's 🌎 People Turning on one another over these IDIOTIC, Minor Differences. And Also its Very Depressing Seeing so many People in the World moving Backwards Rather Than moving Forwards and Uniting instead of Fighting!!!! we need eachother to Coexist! We need to Make a mends and call a Truce!!! I consider All ethnicities To be my Friends. I give all humans the benefit of the doubt. My point is This is 2017 And i cant Believe such horrible Racism still Exist!!! Racism is Stupid... And The people on Earth who are Racist Are Stupid for being so Small minded and Ignorant! and you would Think each year we get older, We'd Be Getting Smarter,Wiser And more understanding That were all Humans no differences except different personalities and perspectives. Im 30 years old and i Hope and i Pray That I can live to see the Day when Racism is the thing of the past, Something we Move Forward From And Never Ever Look Back at!!! Because i feel We are Way to Sophisticated And way to Intellectual to step back and lose progress In This battle Against Racism We shouldnt Be Reverting to Old Ways of Hatred and Racism. But instead be the better Men and Women i know we can Be and Progress forward and welcome our brothers and Sisters from Different Races, Ethnicities,Religions and political beliefs And those still Wanting to be Hostile and Harm us will still Not be Welcomed unless they can change their Barbaric Ways. Anyways i can Dream... Thats my right. I wish the Best For EVERYONE IN THE WORLD 🌎 WITH BIG CARING HEARTS! AND OTHER FELLOW VISIONARIES. Thanks for reading this! and i apologize for my horrible and lack of Grammar. Have a Wonderful Day/Night!
Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.
U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!
Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
1. Took a lot of stuff out of context. In many cases it was even worse than some slaves had it.
2. Well, anyone who thinks America invented slavery is probably on the autism spectrum.
3. Yeah, common bs from southern apologists.
4. They did. That's not a myth.
5. Correct. The most important state's right of course as you mentioned was slavery.
6. You are correct on this.
7. They were not, you are correct.
8. They didn't, you are correct.
9. Incorrect, you're right.
10. They did in the United States. Considering this is the focal point of 99% of your video, you're once again entirely speaking out of context.
This video is pretty half-assed and historically inaccurate for a video that's supposed to debunk stuff.
*SLAVE SOLDIERS FOUGHT for the CONFEDERACY?*
10:18 _"It is true that there were slaves who were forced to work for the Confederacy."_
Case closed on that one, because whether they fought voluntarily of not is not relevant to the claim you cited.
"Another important difference between Latin America and the United States involved conceptions of race. In Spanish and Portuguese America, an intricate system of racial classification emerged. Compared with the British and French, the Spanish and Portuguese were much more tolerant of racial mixing-an attitude encouraged by a shortage of European women-and recognized a wide range of racial gradations, including black, mestizo, quadroon, and octoroon. The American South, in contrast, adopted a two-category system of race in which any person with a black mother was automatically considered to be black."
The Confederacy was actually KIND OF about State's Rights. They used it as an argument as to why they should be allowed slaves and when the Union put the foot down and made it clear it was not allowed, their actual economy was threatened. The South THRIVED off of slavery. Have a hundred men working your fields for free? Where is the downside? Not to mention the South supplied the Union with materials for industry, which was a big reason why the Union wanted them back.
One more point you are wrong about, it was common practice for factory management to whip employees for breaking rules and they could dock employees pay. It has only been recent that the practice of docking pay has been made mostly illegal. In my first job if you were so much as one minute late you were docked an hour's pay. That meant you were required to work that entire hour but you would not be paid for it. To refuse to work for free for that hour meant automatic termination. But a few decades ago the federal government cracked down on that practice. In Pawtucket Rhode Island there is a museum that was formerly a factory. They still have many of the original textile machines there. It is called Slater Mill. On the wall of the factory there is a list of infractions for which employees can be whipped. I would also like to point out something else. More than half of all factory employees prior to the 20th century were children. When I say children I do not mean they were 16 or 17 years old and thus legally minors. I mean they ranged in age from 5 to 15. In those days 16 and 17 year old employees were NOT considered to be children but instead they were regarded as adults in all things except the right to vote. Children were NOT free to simply walk away from their jobs, most were sent there by parents or joined their parents who already worked there. It was not unusual for Mom, Dad, Uncle Bill, Uncle John, Aunt Mabel, Grandma Williams, son Bob age 16, daughter Mary age 14, daughter Ann age 12, son Stephen age 10, daughter Margaret age 9, son Joseph age, 7 and daughter Elizabeth age 5 to all be working in the factory tending to the machines in one way or another. A very large number of children died in the mills. Do you honestly think a five year old girl has a choice? No their status legally was not the same as the slaves in the south but that does NOT mean that they were not wage slaves. Again, more than HALF of all factory workers in the north were children 5-15 years of age who worked an average of 12 hours a day 6 days a week and ALL of their wages went to their parents for household expenses. Oh and whipping your employees was not assault it was corporal punishment, something that also was virtually universal in all households and schools well into the 20th century.
Following is the full text of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession:
"AN ORDINANCE.
To dissolve the Union between the State of South
Carolina and other States united with her
under the compact entitled "The Constitution
OF the United States of America.*'
We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention
assembled^ do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared
and ordained.
That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the
twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of
the United States of America was ratified, and also, all Acts
and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, rati-
fying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby re-
pealed ; and that the union now subsisting between South
Carolina and other States, under the name of " The United
States of America," is hereby dissolved
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.."
Please point out where in the above quoted full text of said document it mentions slavery.
Full text of the Mississippi ordinance of secession:
"AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:
Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.
Sec. 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.
Sec. 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
Sec. 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States.
Thus ordained and declared in convention the 9th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1861."
Where in the above document does it mention slavery???
Full text of the Florida Ordinance of secession:
"We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed."
Again, no mention of slavery.
Only Alabama, Texas and Virginia mention slavery in any way and all three do so only by referring to "slave holding states." Not one of the other ten Confederate States mention slavery in any way in their ordinances of secession. I would suggest you actually read the documents and not just parrot back vague propaganda consisting of poorly summarized version of history. You are NOT going to learn real history by reading the Reader's Digest Condensed version. Go to actual archives and read actual documents and stop relying on poorly written incomplete and highly slanted textbooks.
Many wrongs and inaccuracy are in this video.
1) Africans were made up of tribes and whichever tribe was defeated would have to submit and become the servants of the victorious tribe which they would then be forced to make a vow to join that particular tribe to expand and build their society, they would even marry into their family's. (Notice how the defeated tribes were not killed as the Africans were very humane and didn't see sense in mistreatment)
leaders of African tribes were then greeted and deceived when the white Christian man came over wanting to give weapons to make their tribes stronger and in return, he would be required to capture other Africans (from opposing tribes).
Now, this is the part where white people twist as Africans were unaware due to the language barrier and lack of cultural understanding that African tribe leaders were under the impression that white culture performed this same practice. They never knew that they would conduct such mistreatment by being whipped and having children being raped.
savagery, child molestation, and homosexuality were forbidden in African culture. However, just like today the white man found the most corrupt tribesman and did business with him thinking he was doing right by his tribe when in actual fact he was contributing to the demise of his people. It was never a get rich quick scheme and if social media was around back then Africans would have seen what was going on and stopped the trade within 2 days.
2) This video was right, the slave masters were not as bad as they are depicted in these films....THEY WERE A HELL OF ALOT WORSE.
Think about it people, forget facts and let's just be honest for a second. Slaves were property *slash* products *slash* items *slash* yours *slash* do whatever the fuck you want with it. So what exactly was stopping the slave master from mistreating a slave when ever the hell he felt like it? you can rape a baby as you please. what are they gonna do, call the authorities? use your brains people.
calling indentured servitude anything else but slavery is nonsense, i'm sorry but it is true... slaves *should* have had a "year of jubilee" every 5 years, but the less than 3.5% of white families who owned (black) slaves in what would become the United States refused to obey the age-old code of the "year of jubilee". slavery is sickening and so are many things...
Indentured servitude is literally just fancy slavery. But it's not like it matters anyway.
And I've never heard people claim that Irish slaves were in America. My ancestors, who WERE Irish slaves came to America to escape that. Irish people were most definitely slaves, just not in America.
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.
Slavery is so old you can't cover everything. Saw it in my feed and was like "this might be good" and here I am. Nice video on a terrible topic lol. However I do disagree with that all Irish slaves were really indentured servents in the west due to the people called "redlegs" in Barbados. Mauritania has like 4% of people in slavery and schools (the small
Amount there is ) was desegregated a few years ago I'm
Pretty sure
Excellent video
When someone in the USA says, "White people ended slavery," they mean white people in USA ended slavery in the USA. I don't know of anyone who thought that white people ended slavery in the entire world for all time once and for all. True, people like Frederick Douglass and other such figures played their part, but...there were no black law makers at the time white people abolished slavery at the time it was abolished in the USA. Even if not all people who opposed slavery at that time were white, doesn't negate that in that time in the USA when slavery was abolished, it was at the very least, overwhelmingly, white people who ended slavery in the USA. The rest of the video I don't have a problem with.
36%....? More like 2%-6%. Southern states were very poor outside of the top percentage. That number is ridiculous.
Your statistic regarding slave ownership is faulty. It is a misinterpretation of census data. Census records of 1860 give the number of non free "colored" people living in each household. It does not state who owns the slaves. Most slaves lived on plantations. Most plantations consisted of the owner and his family, often an extended family and a number of free white employees. A typical plantation may consist of the owner, his wife, his 9 children, his mother in law and sister in law, 6 paid employees and 27 non free colored persons. You are interpreting this entry as though all the Whites who lived in that household collectively or separately owned all the Blacks. Typically the head of household owned all the slaves, none of his family members or his employees owned any slaves. So you interpret this entry of 19 free whites as indicating all of them owned slaves. This is far from the truth. In most cases only the head of the household owned any slaves. The reality is that on this typical plantation, 5% of the population of whites actually owned any slaves and the other 95% did not own any slaves at all. Families didn't own slaves, individuals or occasionally incorporated businesses, mostly sole proprietorships and occasional partnerships owned slaves. Mixed in with all the non slave holding households the reality is that fewer than 5% of all free whites owned so much as a single slave. Or do you really think the children, in-laws and employees shared in ownership? They did not. Slaves were property similar to real estate and children could not own property and women could not own property unless they were widowed. Again stop parroting back poorly researched so called history and read the actual documents. Census records are actual documents. They are original source documents which if properly interpreted are a wealth of information.
What people fail to realize is that for thousands of years, humans have been misused as little more than property by those with " means" or "status" based on a system of valuation that objectifies people like a work horse or piece of produce for trade. Slavery has always been weighted by one thing: perceived worth. To those wicked enough to partake in slavery, at any point in history, they examine and place a determined value upon a slave based upon gender, color of skin and hair, eyes, and physique, as well as the usefulness for a certain function. When irish people were used for cheap labor, they were valued less because of their sickly palors and seemingly unhealthy frames due to poor nutrition of diet, where as black slaves were usually from healthier cultures where good food was abundant enough to provide for healthier living and as a result better bodies. That is the reason why, to an extent, black slaves were more valued in america than irish slaves, as well as indigenous peoples in various nations when invaders enslaved the populace. HOWEVER, the shift in thinking changed once not only more irish people imigrated to the US and thus began to assimilate into society, but the fact that more and more blacks were enslaved by the likes of the dutch and other euro pirates, claiming it a more costly endeavor that would earn more in the long run. This was a ploy to raise the costs of black slaves exponentially to the point that black slavery became more profitable as black slaves were reduced to little more than living stocks. Hence the term stockade and things we call "Human Resources", a slave time coined term that departments at all levels of infrastructure continue to use to this day. By the time the changes to the black slave trade occurred, it was more beneficial to the apathetic, greedy slave drivers to own and therefore take better care of their black slaves through the years , and as a result people needed less and less white workers for demeaning labor, leading to anyone being able to recognize Irish people as just as white as others by the late 19th century. But for Irish people to be so accepted, people of color had to become more marginalized, unfortunately; slavery must transfer to one group in totality for a system based on slavery to survive. Which is not to say I support such systems at all. thats just the history of the trade in the world. Irish people began to be welcomed over time into the rest of white american society. But in truth if one wants to point the finger for the mistreatment and social stances used against the irish, we have nobody else to blame but the british empire for imposing the norms of mistreatment upon the Irish, and thus when brits colonized america, it would take generations for those old world ignorant sentiments to be bred out of most people. But of course theres no mention of how slavery has affected others throughout history, especially in america and as a result of american imperialism. Look at the mistreatment of chinese people, and japanese, and especially hispanic people and other indigenous ethnic americans such as the lakota and other vanished peoples of the west. Where is the justice for those that lived within the native hemisphere from alaska to south america? BEcause those whom have lived in the americas, and have ancestry dating thousands of years back in this hemisphere are truly american ( north american, south american, mezo/ latin american etc). Its easy to talk about something that happened so long ago, because so few can truly empathize with such experiences in this day and age. I myself experienced nearly forced, unpaid labor I had to do for years, and though I fought for payment in the end, it changed my view and gave me an insight into the basic aspects of what living as a slave must have be like, though that is still a far deeper thing to understand than is possible for me. BUt again, history has a tendency to maintain old, useless beliefs and hatreds, when the now and the future is most important. Its still a good thing to teach our histories, lest history repeat itself, but the wounds need to heal if we as a species are to move on and grow in a positive manner. PE@CE my fellow humans.
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.
Indentured servants were usually treated MUCH worse than purchased slaves. Many of them didn't even make it out alive. Also you say it was voluntary? Who would volunteer for such a thing if they had a choice?
I think the last comment was very misleading. The Chin dynasty may have gotten rid slavery but it was a serf driven society and it made no effort to rid the world of slavery outside its own boundaries. To claim that slave revolts as the prime driver for abolition of slavery is complete nonsense. In fact in many areas such as the southern US getting rid of slavery was considered a threat and believed by many that it would have unleashed a major race war. That argument was used as a recruiting tool by the confederates. While we are at it at least you did not try to introduce the bogus argument that it was because it was loosing its economic basis. The south had a very successful economy and studies of places like Jamaica have found it to be untrue. The people who opposed and finally got rid of slavery who were predominately white and opposed it on moral grounds. Primarily the British government but including others opposed it on morality. Remember it was an English court that found slavery inside England was unlawful in 1756. The British used a major portion of the countries annual budget to buy out slave owners. At significant expense they established anti slave patrols in the Atlantic and strong armed other countries to get rid of it. What ever complaint you would like to make about the British supported by countries like Denmark and individuals in other countries made a concerted effort to eliminate slavery not only in their own countries but around the world.
I'm Irish/Italian living in Ireland this is new to me , I think no form of slavery should of excited its so sad & hartbreaking we are all = we all bleed red blood not one race is better then the other even saying race seems wrong we are all humen..!! & We look for life out side our planet no wonder they stay away wouldt you..?? We can't even get on with each other lol im saying that in hindsight ..!
I can't speak to the topic of slave soldiers from the Confederacy as that is outside my area of expertise but I can tell you that there were multiple regiments of all Black volunteer Confederate soldiers who were free Blacks living in the south. I know this because my 4th great grandfather was one of them. He owned a plantation of slaves in Florida and he signed up not due to his slave ownership but due to his loyalty to the State of Florida. Plus the Civil War would not have made much difference to him any ways as he paid most of his slaves a wage.