History Teacher's First Reaction to PragerU | A Short History of Slavery
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- More PragerU reactions: • The Inconvenient Truth...
After many recommendations, Mr. Terry reacts to PragerU for the first time. In this video, Candace Owens discusses a short history of Slavery. What will Mr. Terry think?
Original Video: • A Short History of Sla...
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
TeeSpring - mr-terry-histo...
Patreon - / mrterry
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com...
PayPal - paypal.me/mrte...
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
What do you think of PragerU? Is it a channel I should cover more? Do you think their brief history of slavery was fair?
I believe they can be very selective in theyre presentation of history. Personally I dislike most kind of content, they have, bc I feel like when presenting history it shouldnt be done with political agenda as a priority. Which I think they like to do.
But seeing you talk about it is obviously fine.
I don't trust them at all.
You should treat whatever content they put out like the plague and avoid it.
If you continue to cover the topics they discuss with this level of objectivity, I'd love to see it. I know they're controversial, but if they are as biased as people claim they are it shouldn't hurt to have an apolitical, historical perspective to "set the record straight", at least a little. I certainly don't consider them to be unbiased, but I agree that it is important to shed light on multiple perspectives.
Apropos, it wouldn't hurt either to react to left-leaning content from things such as the 1619 project, or other videos discussing slavery from a progressive/revisionist/critical standpoint.
Candice Owens and PragerU are both attempting to indoctrinate younger audiences into a pro-white mindset as an attempt to counter current culture. For most people, I would suggest to avoid this content as most is highly targeted at children and younger populations, in an attempt to alter how they view society, primarily through a pro-white/conservative lens. They are not dishonest, merely manipulate the facts to support their agenda whilst avoiding those facts that do not.
All that said, I would like for you to continue these series of videos as they present some facts and arguments you may not see elsewhere. You have great critical thinking skills so I have little fear their indoctrination will work on you. However, I feel you might be able to correct some of their talking points, allowing your audience to get the facts without the heavy manipulation.
I cannot stand Candice Owens or PragerU. They both promote strong Conservative Christian agenda of which I disdain both. But, I feel that anyone with good critical thinking skills should present themselves with facts and ideas that contradict their views on a regular basis. Not to change their minds, but to better develop their own understanding of the world and how it actually works.
I guess that is a long explanation for why I would like to see you cover this content more in the future. Just don't give them a platform. I don't see that being an issue based on the content I have seen from you thus far.
She wasn’t referring to only the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. And “They” refers to the U.S. educations system. Slavery outside of the U.S. was never addressed in any class I took growing up in California.
Same here, grew up in California during the 70s.
I also grew up in California, I was taught about the trans-Atlantic slave trade & also about the Egyptian slaves, the Mongols & others, was never taught it was a “white” thing.
exactly. They only teach American Slavery in schools, probably cause it feeds the narative.
How much history did you get outside of the United States and Europe? I went to school in the 90's and barely anything in the entire rest of the world was covered at all.
@@theatheistbrony9332 exactly. They taught mostly US history and had a week or two to touch on world history
We were taught this way back in the 60s, in my village school. Keeping people ignorant keeps the racism going.
They don't teach it anymore. Watch other reactions, especially from young POC, you'll see the surprise.
Nonsense. No history book ever written has made that absurd statement.
I was taught the same thing in 2015. I'm surprised this is not common knowledge.
@@TikkyNoSurnamea lot of them are just grifting hard for old white guys to get their views. These are the same channels that do "first time listening to AC/DC", and getting praised in the comments by a bunch of old white men who love hearing black people tell them their music is awesome.
They know the game, and they can see their view stats.
You certainly are ignorant, I'll give you that.
No, there are people who truly do believe American slavery was the only slavery, or the worst and longest running slavery.
Yes, there are a lot of reactions to this video out there, most of the black "reactors" don't know this.
I am sure you are correct but so what. The everybody was doing it is a deflection not an argument. Sure we should teach that slavery was present as far back as we have recorded history, but that
we should remember are a nation founded on the principal that “all men are created equal” a potent and revolutionary political state. However , we have never lived up to that principle. In my life time things have improved. But it is a struggle and people behind Prager U. Are now
Attempting to use false comparisons to hide the fact that our slave history has led to deeply rooted racism and continued inequality. Prefer does. Not give a damn about the the issue of slavery- rather the use of faux intellectual discussion, meaningless distractions it intends to bolster the argument that somehow. Since slavery existed else where why do black people complain so much here. We see you and we note that Florida schools are now required to teach that slavery had it good points since it could teach slaves Lo or skills in the event that they were freed, wow I just gave you a new course to teach. Slavery. Was a good thing.
Ps apologize for typing errors but Parkinson’s is a challange
@@johnconnery1939 I am correct, and it’s not a deflection. It’s an important distinction.
Here is an example of a deflection: “America was terrible for having slavery” … “The rest of the world had it too!”
This is not a deflection: “America was terrible for having slavery” … “Yes, that was terrible, and all of human history is filled with these atrocities, and we need to keep combatting it, especially where it still exists.
This video is the latter example. So, maybe you should try again.
@@johnconnery1939 People ARE doing it. Like, right now. It hasn't STOPPED. And the narrative in schools at this point only serves to teach an entire race they're victims first. Leader like Malcolm X and MLK Jr. demanded more out of black communities, and GOT more. Then, instead of keeping those standards, the nation decided to spend a few decades telling black people only the highlight reel version of events, while providing no standards to build upon.
I didn't learn about Slavery until I was in my 8th grade year. My first introduction to slavery was centered solely of Slavery in the US and was solidified by watching Roots as class assignment. Until that point, the only reason that I knew that slaves existed before the US was because of movies and religious conversations about Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Even when discussing the Greek and Roman empires in Highschool, the fact that slaves were kept was obfuscated behind more peaceful verbiage such as incorporating them into their culture or ruling over the conquered civilizations. If schools are still what they were 20 years ago, which be all accounts I have heard they are worse now, I wouldn't be surprised that someone even from my time in school would be surprised by what was said in this video.
So, in 8th grade did you take a class in WORLD history, was it US History? My guess is that it was the latter.
I feel you may have missed the point, I don't see how what class I was taking is relevant. My point was that was my introduction and that further courses, including World History in High School, never really discussed the topic again in nearly as much detail and never used to create additional context.
Same with me bud. I'm almost 40. I was never taught any of this. :/
I learned it on my own through a passion for history. But yeah... My schools? Didn't care about educating anyone. 47% failure rate (worst in the state - Illinois. A state with several of the *best* universities in the world.)
Slavery is a separate topic from American slavery. That's why. When discussing how the USA came to be, slavery is a major part of the history. Less than 100 years after becoming a country, there was a war that was fought over it. The events leading up to that war centered around slavery and its expansion. Thomas Jefferson ended slave trade in Virginia, but kept slaves himself while calling slavery hideous. Our Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, yet blacks weren't treated that way.
Sure, we can talk about slavery across the entire universe if we want, but when you're in a US classroom viewing history through the lens of America, our slavery is going to be the focus. Talking about slavery elsewhere is fine, but it's not as important, because African slaves today or Egyptian slaves before had no direct impact on our country. The PragerU vid is trying to downplay the significance of slavery in our country by basically saying, "hey, everybody was doing it", which is true in a lot of ways, but it has no significance to OUR country.
تشهد الموسوعة اليهودية والمكتبة الافتراضية أن سفن العبيد كانت مملوكة لليهود. كان 78% من مالكي العبيد في أمريكا يهودًا، و0.35% كانوا من البيض، وتم شحن 90% من العبيد إلى البرازيل، وليس إلى أمريكا الشمالية. وهذا من شأنه أن يفسر العبيد البريطانيين البيض الذين تم شحنهم إلى أمريكا.
I have been teaching history for over 25 years. Every year at least one third of my class is shocked when I tell them that the US did not create slavery and that it existed for other people and other times. They also believe that the Atlantic slave trade brought slaves only to the US and no where else.
And many Americans thought that the white men were the ones that went around hunting and enslaving people to be brought to America. Many Americans are not aware that black slaves were hunted, enslaved, and sold by other black people (from different tribes).
What grade do you teach?
@@DUVAL_CountyExactly...
I am a teacher and have a grad degree in History. I have learned about the Mesopotamians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, I learned about the medieval world and also the modern world. Slavery has existed throughout human history. That was never in dispute. The Greek ideal of democracy only existed for free Greek men. Women and slaves were not considered citizens and could not vote. During the Roman Empire slavery was part of the Roman machine. Many of the conquered were enslaved. However, if the conquered people accepted Roman ways and they became part of the Roman world, like the British were Romanized, and the Gauls and Celts also became part of the Roman Empire. In fact, some of the Roman Emperors were of North African heritage, like Septimius Severus. In the ancient world, slavery was a state that was mutable. Slaves were captured in war could be freed. Some slaves in Rome had more power than the Senators. In Turkey the Sultan was usually the son of a slave girl. In the Ottoman Empire, the Janissaries were the elite troops of the Sultan. These soldiers were formerly enslaved but got their freedom after converting to Islam. In the ancient world, slavery was a different sort of beast. During chattel slavery, in the US, the status of the enslaved could pass on to children and grandchildren. Chattel slavery was based on skin color. That is the biggest difference that people are totally unaware of.
@@modgirl2001 : I guess Thailand (formerly known as Siam) also had chattel slavery (from about early 16th Century - late-19th Century), where the status of the enslaved could pass on to the children and grandchildren.
King Rama V started to abolish slavery in Thailand in 1974; however, it was not an overnight thing. There were processes before the slaves would be freed. It was not until 1905 that legal slavery in Thailand was totally abolished.
My great grandfather (on my mother side) was a slave until about 1903-04, but not his sons & daughters (my grandfather., great uncles & aunts). But my family on my father side was the slave owner.
Unfortunately, there are still modern-day, illegal slavery in Thailand nowadays.
I know it is hard to believe as an educator. But too many young adults who came through the American public school system don't know this. Most can't name 5 countries in Asia, Africa, or South America. It's sad. Great reaction video, though!
Thank the emphasis on standardized testing.
1 of the flaws I noticed when talking to a teacher is she complained about people not know nations in Africa but (it was a short online discussion) she mentioned teaching about tribes and ethnic groups in Africa but not nations. That said, this is Prager, the goal is not to educate people but feed them political lies and distortions-which happened near the end.
Ya, I wasn’t taught any of this when I was in school.
@@jbdragon3295 What school did you go to and just what ranges in time of history did it attempt to teach?
I have even met a college sophomore that was, totally, clueless when I asked her "what are the 2 countries that border the U.S.?"
I’m a educator in high school as well. NEVER have I learned much about “slavery” around the world either in high school or college. Don’t know if that’s the case with everyone, but it seems common with many of my classmates who attended colleges all across the country. Mainly only discussed slavery in America, especially since I grew up in the “Roots” generation.
It's Crazy, Alex Haley ( who wrote Roots) said he fabricated the idea. of slavery in the US
I too grew up with Roots being a thing. Everyone knew the reality of slavery because of Roots. Turns out Alex Haley just made that shit up.
? Did you grow up in church or ever read the Bible on your own? Slavery is mentioned in Genesis (first book of the Bible) and continues throughout Old/New Testement. Moses led SLAVES to the Promise Land, Esther (book in the Bible) references when Jews were enslaved. Daniel and the Lions Den - they were enslaved and forced to bow to foreign idols - Daniel, and 3 others, refused to bow and were tossed into the Lions Den and survived when God intervened. Daniel went on to become influential with the country's leader. On and on throughout the Bible references to slavery are made....
The Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, and the Pyramids in Egypt, Mexico, and Central and South America were built by slaves. Historical buildings in Greece/Italy (coliseum, leaning tower, etc.) were built by slaves...All of those major accomplishments were done BEFORE US was discovered...
Roots was a lie...indeed its writer referred to his work as "a myth for his people to live by".
YOu do know that Alex Hayley said of his book "I tried to give my people a myth to live by" As an educator read Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell. His essays are full of citations to back up his work.
I'm glad that you have worked in a successful educational environment. Now please watch some other 1st time reaction videos. See how much of this is new information to those reactors. Not all schools are doing a good and complete job.
Way too many anecdotal comments on these history channels seem to think those first time reaction videos don't exist.
I've seen dozens of people express that they've never learned on certain topics. (star spangled banner, slavery, you name it, it wasn't taught someone.) : / I'm pretty sure it's by design, politics and whatnot. Not a lot of teachers are what I would call "good".
It's literally the corollary of the Dunning-Kreuger effect that experts in topics can't fathom that other people don't know things that are seemingly obvious to them. So I'm saying this guy knows history but he doesn't know how many people don't know it.
I've heard a LOT of young black people saying about this issue: "We were never taught ANY of this in school." That's just sad! Why do you suppose students haven't been taught any of this? Food for thought as an educator, in my opinion.
woodrow wilson , who was a kkk supporter , when he was president he wrote a 5 book volume called A History of the American People - In Five Volumes ............. AND HE WROTE OUT ALL OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN HEROES OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS OF OUR COUNTRY AND BEFORE ................. but school books from the 1800'S BEFORE WOODROW WILSON ........... ALL CONTAINED OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN HEROES
@@sparta9472 false as far as attempting to erase histories of african american heroes. Hell, if that was the case, you'd never know about George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, Salem Poor, and Phyllis Wheatley, to name a few. However, Wilson was a grand dragon of the KKK.
In my opinion the narrative has this guy under formation psychosis. He really wants to downplay the significance of the role American history played in ending slavery. I don't like that he's like goalkeeper and speaking out both sides of his mouth.
Look at the cognitive dissonance in action,
10:00 "you're saying slaves banned slavery? well, no"
10:25 "again, who else ended it?" - in response to saying white americans fighting the civil war played a big role in ending slavery
This repeats itself throughout the vid. Most public educators have an extreme leftist bias they pick up from professors in University. Universities and Government are a revolving door with one lending credibility to the other when it matters. Think Covid misinformation (that was actually true all along)
WHITE GUILT may as well be tattood on this guys forehead lmao
@@Kainis80 he did write out a lot of the African American Patriots and Heroes such as Richard Allen ( 1760-18310, Absalom Jones ( 1746-1818) Judge Wentworth Cheswill ( 1746-1817) James Armistead (1748-1830), Peter Salem (1750-1816) , Lemuel Haynes (1753-1833) , William Nell (1816-1874 ), Henry Highland Garnett (1815-1882) Hiram Rhodes Revels (1822-1901), Joseph Hayne Rainey (1832-1887), Robert Brown Elliot ( 1842-1884) Josiah Walls ( 1842-1905),.............. just to name a few
@@RevolutionPaulRonmy thoughts EXACTLY!
When they refer to "whites ending slavery" they are referring to the fact that Britain, parts of europe and the US banded together to stop slave trading around the world. The slave trade as an open market was ended BUT we still have illicit slavery to this day all over the world. Specifically in the middle east and the America's. It is to say that our countries were the first to formally end it through laws and action.
yes but that is an inconvenient truth vis-a-vis the poster's 'apolitical' worldview ,)
The problem with saying that is that it skips over the part where whites (American colonists, the English, Spanish, etc.) were responsible for EXPANDING the slave trade beyond the localities that used it with tribes that they had conquered. What you can't say is that "Here's all this slavery and then the whites ended it." Yeah....after expanding it greatly. You don't get a medal for putting out the fire you started.
Not to mention ONLY ONE country ever had a civil war over slavery ….. God bless America!
She completely ignored Darius and Xerxes. Darius I instituted a lot of reforms, which included banning the slave trade in the Persian empire. Xerxes the Great expanded on his father's reforms, which included completely outlawing the practice of slavery and sending those who were enslaved back to their country of origin.
Good call. Persia outlawing slavery was almost unheard of in the ancient world.
I would say she completely ignored a lot of facts, as per usual.
The thing is though, she's speaking of slavery leading to the United States and those who want to claim America was founded in 1619 with and for slavery and not July 4 ,1776. She's also pointing out slavery was common around the world.
@@theroachden6195 Not really. She goes into detail about how the ancient world was a den of slavery, even referring to the "brutal persian empire" as one of the terrible ancient forces that "nobody talks about".
@@Metrion77 There's the subtext to consider. She's attacking the controversial 1619 project, which has earned some of its ire. Some of the points made within that have been shown to be historically problematic, from the outright false to the fantastical. There are a lot of twists and turns and narratives within. It's also this project that places so much focus on the slavery aspect with regard to the United States that if this was your first time being educated as a student, you might have thought it started with this.
It's also worth mentioning that there are other people in the comments who have mentioned that a lot of what's going on currently in school does ignore many of the points brought up in the video. I'm sure this isn't universally true but it shouldn't be ignored.
I’m 40, was only taught about slavery in America. The whole history of slavery was something that I had to search after school.
well, when i was in britain age 13-16, i did get to learn about the helots in sparta . . .
the zanj in the 'abbasid 'iraq was... a shock to me. i had to search that after school, as you put it. the whole arab / islamic angle was something that only 'islamophobes' would teach me
@@zimriel America tends on focus only on America. “World history” is a mandatory course, but unless you’re one of the few who truly loves it, you won’t get much from it. Unfortunately, not many are interested.
did you learn about ancient rome😭😭
we were taught about colonialism which is full of slavery not just american, we learn about sparta who had more slaves then citizens and we learn about rome who had millions of slaves for hundreds of years, stop it.
@@WyattRota You can speak for yourself and be correct, but you don’t speak for everyone. You most likely live somewhere with decent schools. I’m not so privileged, as I live in Louisiana where we have not even been taught about the Acadian deportations during Louisiana history. But don’t forget my comment about how not having interest in history was a big part of the problem.
A while back NPR said that there are teachers who are umcomfortable teaching the history of US slavery in schools, or teaching books like Tom Sawyer. It's weird to me that some teachers don't feel comfortable being objective. I haven't seen it in school as a student, but I have seen it in debate groups on line. It's just really weird.
Black and white are nice and stark, but gray exists and must be dealt with.
I'm sure there are many white men in recent years who now don't feel comfortable teaching or talking about slavery with black students. Social media and the news paints white people as the evil in the world and kids have less respect and on average are more violent. Teachers can be fired for putting hands on a student even in self defense.
Some are uncomfortable because it makes certain people look bad. Some of those people are heralded as heroes, good people. It's hard to reconcile the two. Then you have to explain how everyone should embrace these heroes when they were so deeply flawed, and sometimes outwardly hostile to other Americans for not being White or Western European.
They are afraid of saying something "wrong" and being gotcha'ed -- and that comes from both (all) sides.
@@randolphstokes6642, yes, but I don't think people who say separationists or confederate generals were heroes, try to explain why what they did was wrong (because they just portrayed them as heroes). You can't "reconcile" the two because to say that fighting for keeping other people as slaves is heroism is a lie. It's fine to explain the good and bad sides of a person as far as can be told from historical sources, but it's important that you not make someone seem as they were not because of the lense that you like to view history through (by you I mean anyone in general). People need to learn to not feel guilty for the deeds of people of the past. They're not your deeds and you can't change what happened, but you can be a better person than they were and if you get the chance, do something to remedy the negative affects of the past.
She's right about one thing, I remember a significant lack of nuance when being taught about Native American, African, and Asian culture in school.
That may be true but under the wrong hands, the "nuance" would lead to alot of downplaying just as candace owens was doing in the video. Misconstrued statistics for the benefit of one perspective would be considered nuance at that point. Its pretty obvious that there are two or more nuances that could be at play. Wanting more nuance could be called CRT and communist rhetoric and the other nuance could be downplaying and minimizing and giving ppl the benefit of the doubt. U see that today with ppl saying "it was a different time" or "it was normal back then" to justify our first presidents having slaves even though alot of them wrote abt how they knew the practice was immoral and wrong but couldn't say no to it. Going so far as to make loopholes to keep their slaves. That justification is true to an extent. Yes it was very common but it was also seen as wrong and immoral by many ppl so that excuse cannot be the end all be all. So having more nuance when teaching touchy topics such as slavery is never as simple as just saying what happened and how it happened cut and dry. There will be biases on both sides of the spectrum so either way, true nuance won't happen in our schools. Further inspection into what happened will make one person want to deny it all and be done with it. "I don't want to think abt that stuff anymore." "Its unpatriotic" or smth. And it might make another person want to tweak a few things to make it fit into their worldview, their ideology if you will. So once ppl realize that a real further inspection (nuance) can't be viewed from the lens of ur particular ideology and it can even shatter ur entire worldview, they'll tweak it somehow.
"The harsh truth" won't be told bc no one's internal political leaning or biases or worldview will fit into that causing their world to shatter. It will lead to denial or changing the "harsh truth" into something more friendly
You were taught those things...?
@@DeuceBooty Yes, we had world history during my Freshman year of High School and learned about these cultures and the negative effects European Imperialism had on them. The school did however neglect to comment on their extensive history of committing atrocities on themselves. Because apparently history only begins with the Europeans committing inhuman acts!
@@bluebox87059 Yeah, my High School World History and European History classes ignored that stuff too. But honestly, in the grand scope of World History what purpose does it serve to explore that at the HS level? That's more an anthropology thing which I'd be shocked if any high school even offered that as an elective.
Both of my kids (graduating HS less than 2 years ago) watched and said the only things they were ever taught was slavery in America. The rest was brand new information. But I remember learning nearly all of this when I attended school.
I too am surprised that so many people don’t know this history which I learned in grammar school and high school.
It's most likely a simple matter of the curriculum prioritizing American relevancy over world issues. There's a good chance the only thing they'd be taught about slavery in terms of a global context would be one or two sentences mentioning it's existence. The reality is that the history of slavery can be an entire course all of on it's own. Your kids only have so much time in their day to learn things. Personally I'd rather my kids be taught more about taxes or the importance of interest or basic car mechanic skills.
I learned about slavery from the bible first. Your kids don't read
@@jonfox4022also, the World History AP curriculum has been changed to World History AP Modern, meaning that teaching about older forms of slavery simply isn’t possible. That doesn’t mean it’s unimportant, but simply that it’s not in the time period of the curriculum.
Also, from the Eurocentric view world history is often taught from, it’s understandable that many would focus on the transatlantic slave trade.
Do we take a slavery of the world class in high school? No its u.s. history so obviously it focuses on our history of slavery.
It's definitely interesting how slavery is taught in schools and how it affects our thinking as we grow up. I grew up in Greece, and there, we don't focus so much on the ancient Greek (Athenian, Theban, or Spartan) practices related to slavery and prisoners of war, though we do learn about them. The focus is on the more recent Ottoman slavery and genocides of the 15th through the 19th centuries and the Greek Revolution. A lot of the parallels are interesting. There are obviously a lot of differences, too.
America is only 245 years old. All of its history is recent. Their are people alive today who remember jim Crow, the Tulsa race massacre , and grandparents who were chattel slaves.
@@stikupartist3698 The Armenian genocide in Turkey was 1915. It was 1974 when Turkey invaded Cyprus.
Well now that I understand. I mean Greece and the Ottoman empire, damn now there's some history to study. If you wanna cover that part, it might take a lifetime :) I am French and we sometimes forget, american are toddlers as far as history goes. Or teenagers with massive guns and love to throw temper tantrums. Glad that they're on our side though.
They said the British Empire was the first country to abolish slavery in 1833 but other countries had already abolished it by that date. For example Mexico, where slavery was abolished in 1825.
I think this is a complex one, but also potentially an issue that undermines the Prager U argument. For example, what's a country and what's abolition. I don't know about the earlier historic record. And so on. Nevertheless, Haiti was declared an independent republic in 1804, so a country, and it'd banned slavery earlier on and its 1805 constitution (I think) also said that slavery was abolished. The country was formed after a successful slave rebellion. So, not only did former slaves bring an end to slavery in Haiti (and possibly influence its abolition elsewhere) but also slavery was not formally brought to an end by white men first in the way suggested by the Prager U video.
@@mwka Indeed. I'll tell you what's PragerU criteria for "country": Being white.
I know China wasn't always the country it is today but they banned slavery alone time ago.
@@DreameverCompany Or having borders?
@David Lurie Right. I wonder what happens if we follow the money from the plantations AND the goods produced. I've heard dozens of talks that claim a majority of the shareholders were British.
The context to keep in mind is that the “they” you ask about is “The 1619 Project” - which is why she started with “slavery didn't begin in 1619”.
I think the context to keep in mind is that slavery was institutionalized in a country whose founding document asserts that "all men are created equal". Just sayin...
@@aldodrossi5303 True. That said, if you read the private correspondence of a large number of the founding fathers (including slaveholders like Washington and Jefferson), you'll find that they were aware of the issue you bring up, but weren't in a position to get rid of slavery.
Instead, they attempted to implement measures to contain slavery and cause it to fade away; things like the much maligned ⅗ rule, which wasn't about how much of a person a slave is as it was about how much a non-voting slave should contribute to his master's voting power. It was a compromise; but it was the slaveholders who wanted the value to be 1, and the free states who wanted it to be 0.
All countries had some major contradictions in documents and papers and in real life but europeans and americans are the only ones who managed to make things on documents and in real life be the same..
@@AD-yv6gt I'm not at all sure if that's true. But assuming it is, what's your point?
@@aldodrossi5303 if you read the founding fathers were talking about abolition prior to the nations founding. The question was how. And no it's not just the simple, "let them go, that's naive. Slavery was well established. It was a practice of thousands of years. Washington wanted to solidly establish the nation before attending to abolition or else the nation may never have been founded and abolition may have not taken place at all. It was much more complex than you realize.
The first fact she talks about needs to be stated. I was helping my friend's 9th grader with her history homework. She wanted to show me her power point. They were studying ancient civilizations. I asked her if the Incas had slaves and she looked at me sideways. I asked her again and she said that was before slavery. I asked her if the Egyptians had slaves, again, she said it was not a thing yet. I had to educate her on the fact that slavery goes all the way back to the beginning. It may not be taught that it didn't exist, but it is not discussed with any other time period than the colonies through the civil war. That gives the impression that America was the only perpetrator of this practice. Also, she did not know that the American Indians had slaves. She thought "we" brought it here. She is a good student and makes all As, so the school seems to think she is getting the right information.......um, is it designed that way?
Seconded. This lack of accurate information is a huge problem
Yeah, history is weird in the USA. My mom says she grew up learning a single thread:
Fertile Crescent => Greco-Roman Culture => Dark Ages => Crusades => Renaissance => Rousseau => American Revolution => Manifest Destiny => Monroe Doctrine => Civil War.
And that's it.
She learned nothing about Japan, Korea, Australia, the Indian Subcontinent, Africa, or Mesoamerica. She had to learn those things outside of school. I'm pretty sure she had to teach herself about Genghis Khan and the Ottoman Empire. And just like the 9th grader you're talking about, she was a damn good student.
Even if you're a damn good student: history classes in the US are basically a random assortment of stories.
Yes it is designed that way. It is designed to divide people and dumb them down. Students are never taught how to think, they're only taught what to think, and it's typically loaded with liberal spin. The US public education system was started by John D Rockefeller, who said (to paraphrase) he does not want a nation of thinkers, he wants a nation of workers. America was about to enter the industrial era, and the nation needed lots and lots of men to work in its factories.
@@tracieh215
the evidence of lack of prior education, is not evidence that somehow the educational system is at fault. people can refuse to use what is available to them. offhand I'm guessing that in the black projects of major metro areas, there might not be that many good libraries and even fewer public computer resources for doing independent research. even then, black kids could have talked to their grandparents and asked them what their lives where like when they were kids or young adults.
there is nothing to stop you from learning something if you have people to talk to who know more than you do.
Not All native Americans were slaves, some of them we slave owners. They had black slaves of their own.
"1619 project". People literally say that's when slavery here started and it was white people
As a college student in California, Candace is right to say that "we are never told about all these other groups of people who have done awful things". Everything is fixated on how American people (specifically white Americans) have done so many wrongs in the past. All nations have sinned, and all people fall short of righteousness. No skin color is responsible for evil
Amen
School is teaching AMERICAN history because the country is United States of America lol of course the main focus is gonna be heavily about this country compared to world history.
@@YungFrenchToasty Schools also teach WORLD history not just American history, and whenever slavery is brought up the only focus is on the fact that it occurred in America. What happened in the states with slavery was awful, but it's become a trend to bash the American nation and view other countries as perfect which is not true. America is far from perfect, but America is not at fault for all the wickedness occurring in the world.
@@joshuastevens232and you think with the 200 plus other countries in the world they’re going to discuss slavery??
@@jonathanzamis4390 I assume that they would, they should. Slavery was everywhere. What is said in American schools make it seem as if America was the only place where slavery was present. what is your point?
I’ve seen multiple videos of ‘man on the street’ interviews where people were SHOCKED to hear that slavery ever existed anywhere outside of the US and to anyone but Africans.
One of my college professors told the class that the world was a utopia until the whyte/western man invented selfishness and started enslaving everyone else - thus teaching others how to be bad. Thankfully this was not a ‘history professor’, per-se (music history/appreciation), but still.
Lie again. Most Americans don't even know where Africa is on a map and this is because your education centers American history only. So of course their discussion of slavery is about slavery in America.
@@olavihekandjo2928 would be important to put the slavery in the U.S. into context of slavery in general.
@@olavihekandjo2928 To be fair, much can be said similarly about many in Europe.
I always question those types of videos. They only show the side they want to highlight.
@@patriciawilliams6844 obviously everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
When I was in college 10 years ago I did meet people who thought that slavery was invented in 1492.
some of them were likely professors of history.
Yep, its KKK left wing propaganda. Those are the same people that can't be educated in the facts that their ancestors sold their ancestors for profit.
In college I met people who thought Africa was a confident. In fact, I still do.
The worst thing about her “analysis” of slavery is how she fails to mention how American slavery vastly differed from the majority of historical slavery. No slavery is ever good, but historically, you could buy your freedom / your children weren’t necessarily born into slavery. That is a key distinction between American chattel slavery and historical slavery. No slavery is ever good, but American chattel slavery was by far the worst.
Cyrus the Great, upon conquering Babylon, decreed that all slaves were to be free, and declared it to be morally wrong to engage in slavery in Persia.
The first human rights declaration in known history.
That's because slaves don't pay taxes.
@@MalekitGJ based and victoria2-pilled
@@MalekitGJ Slavemasters do. The CSA sure had interest in keeping a fat tax base to finance their planned industrialization, and they were the most ardent defenders of slavery in history...
@@MalekitGJ Who needs their taxes when they give everything they have in labor for free.
Haiti and Mexico both banned slavery before the UK did. The Texas Revolution was largely in response to the fact that the Mexican government didn't want the American settlers to bring slaves into Texas.
Of course the african Haitians also committed genocide on the white Haitians when they rebelled.
exactly
You are right about the UK, however slavery ceased to exist in England from about 1200 and in Wales and Ireland not that long after. There was serfdom but the key difference was that they were attached to the land whereas chattel slaves could be sold. Of course, one of the complaints about Charles I was that he did not prevent the taking of English slaves by Moors and Turks. Scotland had a form of slavery until the eighteenth century.
@@thostaylor This is true. The UK abolition had much more effect in Britain's overseas empire than at home. It was still an important moment for those enslaved throughout that empire.
@@0816M3RC Yes, and they passed strong anti-white laws after that. I'm not trying to justify everything the Haitians did, just pointing out that, unlike what Candice said, it wasn't "white" countries that first abolished slavery.
I love how she mentions the thirteenth amendment as an amazing example of white folk abolishing slavery, yet never once mentions that the thirteenth amendment explicitly says that it's legal to use prisoners as slaves. Interesting omission, that...
If you commit a violent crime, you should expect to pay back to society as a way to make up for your wrongful deed. Penal labor is legitimate and morally correct.
It kinda make sence tho when u commit a crime u lose some of ur rights. Otherwise it's a paid vexation
Silence, Yankoids
@@ChavvyCommunist Ok socialist
@@ChavvyCommunist Not an argument.
There's lots of people who genuinely believe that white people started slavery and that Africa was in perfect harmony until the Europeans came. You can see this in other people's reaction videos to this same video, they literally gasp and are shocked to hear it.
Just one example of the disingenuousness and bad logic of PragerU is the statement, "White people ended slavery." A more accurate statement would be, "Most of the people who helped end slavery in the United States were white." What the original statement, "White people ended slavery" misses is that most of people who did NOT want to end slavery in the United States were ALSO White. (I'm looking at you, Confederacy.) To blame all white people for slavery is fallacious; so is crediting all white people for ending it. What PragerU also misses is that fact that the effects of slavery in the United States continue to be felt today, and that's what so much of the current political controversy is all about.
While I agree with you, I think it's worth pointing out that it seems like a fairly common perception that historic slavery in the US is the responsibility of all white people today, regardless of their background. I've been accused of bearing responsibility for historic slavery in America because I pass as European, despite the fact that not only am I of mixed Polynesian/European heritage, but none of my ancestors (that I am aware of) we've visited the American continent.
@@TheMonk72 Providing anecdotal data doesn't really help your point. On the matter of White people bearing responsibility for past progressions, you gotta consider that even if your family emigrated from Europe or anywhere else and had nothing to do with the trade, they still benefited from the labor, so to act like things should be left in the past is just ignorant.
That or you were just being teased by some jerks.
@@thinkbetter5286 Black people born today also benefit from the slave labor of their ancestors because they live in a first world country built on their backs. Are they also somehow implicated? I think it absurd to hold people responsible for benefiting from something they had no hand in causing.
@@Dreikoo I'm not blaming an entire race, just pointing out that claiming that your ancestors were innocent is narrow-minded.
When slavery "ended" the knife was still firmly in the wound, all the way till the civil rights act the knife wasn't even acknowledged. Now all that's left is the wound, and like the knife, it goes unacknowledged.
You can't tell me with a straight face that slavery's wounds still don't affect people to this day. From the credit system, poverty, culture, and laws, most of the descendants still can't catch a break.
Most people's complacency, willful ignorance, and to put it bluntly, stupidity is the reason the wound goes unacknowledged. Riots, protests, debates, etc all have proven to just be destructions or a small stich to a gaping wound. The answer is in the castle and the people who run it.
@@thinkbetter5286 As I said, my ancestors haven't spent any real time in the US... except for the occasional holiday, I guess. How exactly have I benefitted from American slavery? About the only way I can see you making that case is to use an argument that essentially makes every person on the planet just as culpable, including all of the descendants of slaves. I doubt you want to make that particular argument however.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the previous post - I was just leaving work at the time.
"Slavery is a white phenomena," said no one, ever. Prager made that up.
Lol, the lefty said whaaaaat!? That's what an ideologue get's out of a vid showing that the Europeans didn't invent slavery, deaf deaf deaf deaf, "WAIT A MINUTE, they said something that I've never heard. YOU'RE A LIAR, see, still bigots" (self-satisfied look on face). Weirdo.
So "The 1619 Project" which is fiction being touted as history doesn't exist?
@@lodrbyroni It does, but that's not what it says, read it sometime.
@@staghornthedruid957 I'm more into non-fiction history books. And she didn't quote the book, she surmised the premise of the book. Just because you put quotes around it doesn't make it a quote from the video.
@@lodrbyroni So, you didn't read the book and now you think you know it enough to speak about it?
I went to a high school in 3rd ward Houston. We were literally taught there that Europeans invented slavery. That's something my teacher said. We didn't have to do any white guilt bs, that was a few years after my high school career, but inner city schools hire really good athletics coaches and activist teachers.
If that's true then how do you explain the Egyptians enslaving the Israelis and all the other instances of slavery in the Bible? I'm pretty sure nearly all of the Bible takes place in the Middle East and Asia Minor (now Turkey), right?
@@JohnSmith-zw8vp yeah, pretty much, with some short cameos in Greece and Italy. And it's especially funny when you realize that most of them also believe the racist conspiracy theory that both the Hebrews and the Egyptians were black Africans.
@@lasagnasux4934 No you gotta go a bit further south (Sub-Saharan Africa) to find the black Africans.
During the 15th to 19th centuries, European powers like Portugal, Britain, the Netherlands, and others were involved in the exploration and
exploitation of West Africa's coastal regions. They often engaged in raids on coastal towns to capture slaves for the transatlantic slave trade,
which was a brutal and tragic period in history.
She should tell the whole truth, when British and other colonizers went to west Africa especially Ghana(previously called Gold Coast known for its
wealth in Gold), they raided the small coastal towns when they first arrived and sent the slaves to America and Britain, some tribes fought back and
they started to loose soldiers.
So to acquire slaves, some European colonizers schemed, manipulated and fueled conflicts between different African tribes and kingdoms, which
contributed to instability, wars and violence in the region, They forced tribes to war each other and at times then backing one tribe over the
other. When the wars was over, they then took the prisoners of war and sent them on slave ships.
This approach was part of their divide-and-conquer tactic, which aimed to exploit existing rivalries and instigate new ones among the local
populations.
European powers did engage in military conflicts against African kingdoms and tribes during the period of colonization. When local African kingdoms
or tribes resisted or opposed European colonization or the slave trade, the European powers would often resort to force and military actions to
assert their control. The European colonizers would establish forts and trading posts along the coast and sometimes inland, using them as bases for
their operations.
Many families were torn apart, with husbands separated from wives, parents from children, and siblings from each other and sent on slave ships. The
emotional and psychological toll of losing family members to the slave trade was profound and devastating. For enslaved individuals, the experience
of being forcibly taken from their families and communities was traumatic and contributed to the enduring legacy of pain and loss for generations.
European traders had advanced military technology and firepower compared to many African communities. This power imbalance made it difficult for
some African tribes to resist or oppose the demands of European slave traders, therefore in a few cases, African middlemen and coastal tribes
collaborated with European slave traders by capturing and selling fellow Africans to the European ships, also very few African middlemen and coastal
tribes may not have fully understood the extent of the inhumane treatment and suffering that awaited the enslaved Africans once they reached the
Americas and the Caribbean. It's essential to understand the historical context and the power dynamics at play during that period. The transatlantic
slave trade was an exploitative system that systematically dehumanized and oppressed Africans, regardless of the involvement of a few African
middlemen and coastal tribes, and not all members of these tribes participated in the trade. Europeans were already enslaving africans even before
the involvment of theses tribes and middlemen. There were over a 100 ethnic groups in Ghana alone and less that 13 of them might have participated
in the trade.
Various Akan states, such as the Fante and Denkyira, resisted European incursions and slave raids along the Gold Coast.
In the northern regions of Ghana, the Gonja and Dagomba kingdoms were known for their resistance against the transatlantic slave trade and European
domination.
The Ga-Dangme people, primarily located in the Accra region, also resisted European advances and participated in armed confrontations against
European forces.
The Ewe and Anlo tribes, located in the eastern parts of present-day Ghana, resisted the slave trade and colonization by European powers
The Ashanti Kingdom was known for its military prowess and successfully defended its territory against British forces in multiple wars during the
19th century.
There were more than 4 countries in Ghana alone doing this(British, Portuguese, Swedish, Denmark, French and Germany). Competing for more slaves and
gold.
There are 54 countries in Africa,and they all have a story to tell. Different wars were fought over centuries for freedom from European conquerers.
Some tribes mostly exchanged gold for mirrors, gin and gunpowder not slaves.
Enslaved Africans who managed to escape from plantations and European control formed maroon communities in remote and inaccessible areas. These
communities served as safe havens and centers of resistance against the slave trade and slavery.
Slavery was abolished because several tribes and kingdoms in Ghana and neighboring areas fought back against the slave trade, as well as against
European colonial encroachments
European slave traders and colonial powers often retaliated against African tribes and communities that resisted their involvement in the slave
trade. When African communities refused to collaborate or resisted attempts to capture and sell fellow Africans, European traders resorted to
various punitive measures to assert their control.
The abolitionist movements exerted political pressure on European governments during the late 18th and early 19th centuries to reconsider the
institution of slavery. The abolitionist movement gained momentum in Europe and North America, some Africans and European-descended individuals in
the colonies also participated in advocacy efforts.The international community, including other European nations and non-European powers, began to
question and condemn the slave trade, leading to treaties and agreements that contributed to its eventual abolition.
Industrialization and technological advancements reduced the need for large-scale slave labor in certain regions. Moral and humanitarian arguments
against slavery gained traction during the Enlightenment period. Abolitionists highlighted the inherent cruelty and injustice of slavery, leading to
a broader societal awareness of the need to end the practice.
If you you choose to leave out all these important details, lie by ommission, gaslight and decide to attack the majority of the African people who
have gone through generations of trauma, and just want to be left alone. It just speaks to me in great volumes the type of person you are.
The scary thing is they have started removing, changing and falsifying the chain of events that led to the complex structure of the slave trade,
i've seen this on several websites including wikpedia. All these facts were up there a year ago. When i check the timestamp of these articles
today, it mostly says it was changed 6 days ago or a month ago. Shocking!.
If u think white people went to africa to sing and dance with the natives? go ahead and beleive what you want to beleive. History is always being
whitewashed. I cant find most of the website sources. But you can ask chatgpt to verify this information.
@@voxupvibes sorry boss, I ain't reading your 5 point essay
In the UK we learn about slavery all throughout history so we’re well aware of slavery not just being an “American issue”, but in my school at least the most focus seems to be on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade because of just how horrific and how large a scale it was, as well as having British involvement. We do however put a lot of focus in our history lessons on periods like Ancient Egypt for example, so we’re exposed to the idea of slavery in other areas and time periods too.
Regarding ancient Egypt, the Biblical references to Moses having supposedly liberated his people from Egyptian slavery under a Pharoah of undisclosed name, is not supported by archeological evidence. More likely, it was bitterness from the downfall of the Hyksos era which led Moses to call himself a former slave, though he was a prince and his people were the former aristocracy of the violent and degenerate Hyksos rule. If Moses were ever motivated by a desire to liberate Canaanites, it was gone by the time he returned to Canaan not as a liberator but as a genocidal tyrant, and so did he brag in his own written record.
We also learn about Roman Britain in which slaves got all the shit jobs, and medieval Britain with the serfs. So we are all well aware that slavery has always been a thing. But from our perspective the Transatlantic slave trade and the Holocaust are held up as the worst things in history. Obviously being where we are the Mongols didn't affect us directly. There is criticism that we don't learn enough about Ireland and India which is fair.
@@chesterdonnelly1212 Not everythings fair. Slavery in the USA was pure evil, and it wasnt just a slave trade it was slave breeding on US soil, rapes - the children becoming property - subject to whims - having no rights, their humanity denied in every way, their masters pure human crud - rapists - sadists - psychopaths - torture practitioners - and TRAITORS.
And fairly or unfairly we remember that, and we associate you as someone who is trying to defend it because you are - and you lie when you say that anybody downplays the evil of Genghis Khan - nobody is downplaying how bad Genghis Khan was - you are making that up in your head to nurse your bitterness - and I hope you cant stand it.
How horrific? What about the eastern slave trade that started way earlier than the transatlantic one? you might wanna rephrase or look up your facts. Besides Britain sure as hell doesn't have to apologize for the slave trade as they ended it. If anything, people should thank them for it or the slave trade would still be alive and well. Although capitalism would have ended it eventually. Slavery can't exist in a capitalist system. They're anathema
@@nickschwaller3154American chattel slavery and the trans Atlantic slave trade was horrific.
It was some of the worst slavery that has every been seen
I get the feeling that Prager U is not an accredited university.
Does the U really mean university?
TYT has covered this. Basically, Prager U exists solely to produce these Right-wing propaganda videos and the brand is purposefully designed to appear pseudo-scholarly, get young people to "educate themselves" on these topics in a calmer, safer way than listening to screaming talking heads like Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, etc. but the content is almost the same.
@@MrTerry Yeah. PragerU is short for Prager University, although they're nothing more than just another right wing think tank propped up by fracking companies and other conservative groups.
@@MrTerry Yes
@@MrTerry unfortunately
I love how like 85% of the arguments actually support what her central argument is lol
Well…. it’s kinda hard to argue with truth.
What truth. Transatlantic slave trade was always race based. Europeans never called themselves white untill they started the slave trade.
@@AFR0MAMBA Haiti banned slavery in 1804 and they weren't the first so she's already wrong on that. Not her first or last lie.
@@paulnejtek6588 Slavery still goes on in Haiti today. One thing to ban it another thing to enforce it. So Candace wasn’t wrong.
@@paulnejtek6588 "Haiti banned slavery in 1804" banned where? Where were Haitian colonies to ban anything anywhere?
There was slave revolution against France, that's totally different thing from abandoning slavery by the law! After that revolution there was still slavery, but not by French, there were still force labor but this time with Haitian owners!
Don't be stupid, and copy some stupid statements from newspapers!
It blows my mind when I see people react to Thomas Sowell’s history of slavery. There are people out there that really don’t know.
I think many of those people are being disingenuous.
He’s not a historian
@@Amazingprophet08 well a guy that spent 50+ years of his life dedicated to learn the history of black people. Graduated from multiple Ivy League schools.
@@thelonewolf405 I’ve read everything from Sowell and he doesn’t even reference Black professional historians in his work. Not even to refute their claims. I can’ respect his grind but his conclusions are more based on polemics than historical analysis.
@@Amazingprophet08 Oh gosh. So because he doesnt ref Black profressional historians somehow what he says is null and void? Great. Good way of thinkin. Logic.
I think the problem is that just like probably every country history in school is taught mostly from the country's pov. So while I definitely learned slavery existed throughout human history there was more taught about the African Slave Trade than the Roman Slave System. I personally find this particularly troubling when you look at the effects Slavery had on the advancement of society. When I took Western Civ in college my professor was the first to point out that Slavery severly stunted the advancement of human technology and that had it not existed, been abolished earlier, or been as pervasive most ancient cultures could have gone through early industrialization.
"could have gone through early industrialization" - that is conjecture, though, not fact. Take the US as an example. Technologies were absolutely utilized, even by the south. Cotton gin is a prime example of that.
But what you saw was one section choosing technology and advancing past their slave-driving counterparts in the south.
If a piece of technology came forward during history, and its use outpaced that of slaves, it would have been (and was) introduced and put into use. If its use surpassed that of slave labor, then slavery in that nation would run itself out, which it did in MANY nations across the world, long prior to Britain and France (as suggested in this video).
It is not true that there was any major conspiracy to suppress technological advancement in order to keep slaves, because the way tech advanced, much of that was used in conjunction with slaves to make them even more efficient. Once slavery's purpose was rendered obsolete, it would then be replaced by machine.
@@LiberalLoudMouth Yes the American South may have used industrial technologies, but they were not industrialized. So what I mean by early industrialization is Rome and Greece both had steam technologies so had the potential to begin the early stages of industrialization. Outside of Europe many ancient cultures had Iron working knowledge that was lost to time and could have potentially led to early steel manufacturing. With slavery in place the need and want to advance these technologies did not exist. In Rome this was particularly bad because rather than advance into the Iron age proper they imported Iron and Steel Armaments which further stunted any technological push into industrialization.
I do not believe that things that were more efficient and led to far better production quality, would be cast aside for the sake of holding onto slavery.
As for the south, they epitomize what happened to people who didn't progress. In fact, we're still seeing the effects of their religiosity breeding both ignorance and "old fashioned" behavior, neither of which are related to slavery, but they are still extremely impoverished as a result of these unrelated things.
@@joshuatayloe8616
Thomas Sewell, an incredibly qualified historian, and fellow at the Hoover institute at Stanford, does a wonderful job discussing the true history of slavery as a particularly human institution through its various forms including not only slavery in the US, but Arab enslaving African, African enslaving African , African enslaving European, and the different cultures and groups that formed and benefitted from these endevours - all the history we do not teach in schools today.
Pretty good, but you never mentioned Islam 's role in slavery. Its enshrined in their religion as war booty. Islam is all about conquest, hatred, and slavery. Yes, I can prove it. I read the Quran.
Most people that are on the right like him care less for history and more for downplaying the effect modern racism has on the people of this country.
Dr Thomas Sowell is an economist. one of the greatest minds. not a historian.
@@jeffrobbins6846 but he researched history to evaluate economic impacts/models, etc.
@@jeffrobbins6846How is he not an hostorian?
The whole video is one big red herring to avoid criticism for modern day issues that have stemmed as a result from the legacy of slavery, and it's why you can't really discuss any PragerU video responsibly divorced from politics. There are, obviously, always going to be historical inaccuracies in PragerU videos, but the point is that they serve more as propaganda than they do a historical resource. I will say though that they are an excellent teaching tool for how political propaganda is shaped and presented in the modern day.
But are American modern day race issues a result of the legacy of slavery? Or is ongoing racism a far greater factor? Is racism an outcome of the slave trade? If the descendants of slaves weren't visibly different via skin color, how many of their families would still be languishing in poverty after 150 years?
@@LarsonLake The ongoing racism is a legacy of slavery, in a sense. The ideology of racism was created as a way to justify slavery - and then outlived the institution of slavery to go on and justify discrimination in different forms in the future.
@@LarsonLake slavery was never ended in america. it can still be used as a punishment for a crime, so yes modern race issues, especially when it comes to our prison-industrial complex, are a result of slavery. its just taken on a new shape in the form of the racist practices of our criminal justice system.
I agree that it's somewhat propaganda. The whole premise of their education is a response to what they see as leftist propaganda. It's like a propaganda war. The recency bias of liberal activists is trying to address and correct for the effects of slavery (i.e.: racism) in an expedited manner rather than waiting for the historical process that takes hundreds of years and subsequent wars that generally make old issues fade in importance compared to current problems. The common cause between conservatives and leftists is that both want this country to be a land of equal opportunity for everyone. They just have different methods by which they see that being accomplished. Both the arguments for and against these methods can generate false or misleading information: intentional or unintentional propaganda.
@@joshuagodinez5867 I... are you seriously suggesting that wanting to correct the now centuries-old ripple effects of the institution of slavery is a... bad thing?
I grew up in WV. We are often the butt of jokes, called hicks, etc. But we covered slavery throughout human history pretty thoroughly. I’m shocked others did not.
Prager U is nothing more or less than right wing propaganda. Florida and Ron DeSantis has approved Prager U content to be taught in Florida classrooms. These poor kids will graduate with no chance of passing any college entrance exam. Idiot Righties want to make sure their kids grow up to be just as IGNORANT AND RACIST AS THEY ARE.
My mom is from WV, my dad is from TX. I always knew my mom's state was part of the "good guys" during the civil war, and my dad's state was part of the bad guys. I think TX is trying to erase that history now. It's very dishonest and scary.
Yep im a freshman this was covered in 4th and 7th grade for me and im in wv too.
Are you kidding me? PragerU is distorting reality. Most kids are taught that slavery existed even way before the Roman empire. But you know this, you're just trying to spread misinfo. Find your little strawman, because you can't actually win in a logical argument about why we should provide slave reparations to former slaves ancestors.
sorry but what is wv?
We talk about slavery in American history because it was racialized and written into law. It's apart of American history.
I don't think Candace Owens was ever in the Senate, I don't even think she's run for office, I think you might be thinking of Mia Love who was in the House of Representatives not too long ago.
She wasn’t ever in any office. She is a pundit first and foremost. A pundit with the goal to change the narrative to a history that is only sunshine and rainbows with no introspection on our past and what it says about ourselves.
She did testify either in the House or Senate not sure which off the top of my head
You’re exactly right. Thanks for pointing that out. I am making a correction to the video!
@@MrTerry I am happily surprised to hear you don't know Candace Owens off the top of your head.
@@benjamincretsinger1198 She did and it was a joke, she was there to say racism in the US is just a lefty lie.
I'm 41 years old. When I learned about slavery in Elementary school, the teacher teaching the class told us that slavery was exclusive to the US. And that was the curriculum in the late 80s, just think of what it has evolved into today.
I'm 50, raised in the South, and we definitely learned about slavery in other parts of the world. You either had a shitty teacher or selective memory.
I’m a little less than a decade than you are and grew up in a very ‘liberal’ part of the US. In public school, my teachers taught slavery as “White people owning black people as property.” And the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade was white men going to Africa and capturing black people, then putting them on ships to America. There was zero nuance that slavery existed prior to that or that white people had been enslaved at any point in human history. Our textbooks weren’t even old. Maybe 2 or 3 years old. (Most of books were as my middle school was newly built)
The only reason I knew otherwise is because I had taken an interest in Japanese and Egyptian culture and I read a few books about their histories. (Thanks anime and ‘The Mummy’)
That is probably due to the focus of the material. Yes Being told that is all that slavery was is entirely wrong but an elementary school teacher who is teaching all of your courses and has 45 mins to focus on what small amount of US history they can is not going into the depth that is world slavery. They will teach US History and pass you off to middle school where they will continue to get it wrong.
I'm 49, went to public schools in California, and at no time did the teacher tell us that slavery was exclusive to the US.
I am way older then all of you. World history in hs taught about global slavery. Us history taught about us slavery but also in both mid school and hs taught that us slaves were happy and better off than indentured. I remember this cause that sounded like horse mess when they said it. I am european.
I never heard a history teacher speak of slavery in school. Everything I learned I learned on my own in school libraries or books at home.
Im 56 from Canada and I remember Roots was popular when I was in elementary school. I believe that this narrative pushed this victim status that you see today.
I had a different experience. I learned it with every history teacher or professor i had. Granted they show a very limited view of the entire history. Usually a biased view.
Slavery was always in my history classes
You can't talk about American history without talking about slavery
@@mikielsahagun6054 we aren't truly educated as the history of slavery and indigenous groups was watered down. We in Canada have been duped by the indigenous peoples as we have given so much with nothing in return...no we are one as canadians. They always use colonialism to make money but they depend on us to keep Canada free. Russia circles our waters up in Yukon and I don't see them joining the military to fight for their land. They take the wasy way out...whine victim and we pour money at them
No, most people do not know that when slavery started. You come to this realization when you here people talk about the history of the white oppressors.
Just my two cents - I'm grateful you made this video. It's so important that we acknowledge and confront how modern-day political views shape how history is presented. I also appreciate that you are committed to staying apolitical and just presenting the facts, acknowledging when the video is right, but calling out its baloney when it's wrong.
The history isn't the problem here (although plenty of Prager U videos distort history very badly). The problem is the underlying propagandist message: "See slavery isn't just a white man's thing. blacks weren't the only slaves."
So? "No one talks about that." Sure, they do but, again, so what?
How does that get American whites off the hook for exploiting slave labor for 300 years? How does that undo the multigenerational damage of that (and systemic racism for 100 years thereafter) inflicted on American black people?
So, this video is a comfortable smokescreen for "We've all been masters & slaves. Get over it. Stop whining or making whites feel guilty about it."
Having Candace Owens say this is the perfect anesthetic allowing viewers to remain numb to any call for justice & reform of any kind.
@@jones1618 Very well said.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "off the hook". If you mean that we should pretend that hasn't had a major impact on the way our modern world has evolved then no, it doesn't.
If you mean that it provides a reasonable argument against "whiteness=bad", then yes it does in my opinion. And I know that's a super-fringe position in the real world, but PragarU is equally super-fringe and I have had to deal with people who genuinely believe that white people are inherently evil because of the slave trade before.
PragarU isn't trying to teach history in any meaningful way; it's trying to fight a propaganda war.
@@Golmov_the_Wretched I agree w/ most everything you said. I personally have never met _anyone_ who believes "white = evil." I have heard countless people (including governors of states) who have used that argument as a Boogeyman to censor history.
Do I believe white 10-year olds should feel "bad" for behavior of their ancestors? Absolutely not. But, adults (teachers, admins, governors) who know better but go out of their way to deflect _any_ history of evil or exploitation are committing a present-day injustice. Gaslighting history and calling it education is outright propaganda.
@@jones1618 USA has only existed for 246 years.
She's not talking about history classes, she's addressing the mass media trends.
And she's still spewing bullshit. Because everyone knows slavery existed before even the roman empire. But Republicans need a strawman to fight, since they can't win against a real person.
everyone should've passed middle school so history class is still important
i think the information here is misleading and tries to convey political bias in through manipulation of details of history
تشهد الموسوعة اليهودية والمكتبة الافتراضية أن سفن العبيد كانت مملوكة لليهود. كان 78% من مالكي العبيد في أمريكا يهودًا، و0.35% كانوا من البيض، وتم شحن 90% من العبيد إلى البرازيل، وليس إلى أمريكا الشمالية. وهذا من شأنه أن يفسر العبيد البريطانيين البيض الذين تم شحنهم إلى أمريكا.
@paul-ye3ut noone said it wasn't. But again she's addressing a trend where many many people believe white people invented slavery, or that they perpetrated the most or worst kinds of slavery.
Which is obviously not true.
she's not a congresswoman, she's a political commentator and an activist.
Mia Love is NOT Candace Owens.
Just a bad call, showing some of that “they all look alike” ish
*bullshit artist
I think he's confusing her with Burgess Owen's of utah
She’s a well-paid celebrity troll
Let’s tell it like it is
@@coyotelong4349 she's not a troll at all, she's a conservative, she's not hiding it.
Haiti was the first country to outlaw slavery! Haiti then defeated Naplolean and France which forced France to follow suit!
I really wish I had more teachers like you growing up. I struggled through school in the 80’s and 90’s with dyslexia and ADD. I did well on standardized tests, but had a hard time paying attention and being organized in class. The way you speak and explain things holds my attention and I want to know more.
Times change. Kids today have ADHDTV.
@@theman4884 Yes but so did I. Born in '82.
Same dude, I had no idea and dropped out at 17. I got diagnosed with inatentive ADHD at 24 and returned to education at 25 to do a one year access to higher education psychology course, now with meds and a better understanding of myself. I only discovered while on the course that I am most likely dyslexic from researching comorbitity between neuroedvelopmental conditions and taking leftty and penningtons screening test, combined with a family history of dyslexia (a diagnosis would be £600 so I doubt ill ever get one). I just finished my course and got AAB so I am going to university in September! I plan to do research into neurodevelopmental conditions and an independent academic study I did for my cours into executive dysfunction in an educational setting between ADHD participants and non ADHD controls really cemented this ambition for me.
that's great that the poster captures your attention, do your own due diligence, however, as the dude is fairly biased in his commentary and unable to admit to the important role European nation states have played in the global effort against slaver.. if he is unable to fairly describe history for whatever reason you can come up with, it's important to know this )
I really appreciated how the host didn't act like he knew everything. When something was presented, and he was unsure, he didn't ACT like he knew. He clearly stated, "I will have to go back and look at that". A lot of internet folk will just say something that the THINK may be true, or something that holds water within their beliefs. I appreciated his willingness to basically say, "I am not sure about that, I would have to go back and check". Watch any history video and they will, with little to no facts, back up their beliefs with vague statements. You can spot an honest man in an argument when he says something like, "I don't have the data for this argument, but let me check before I start to make a statement that is presented as fact".
This guy was biased as fuck
I cannot say I completely agree, he did gaslight his audience by trying to diminish the role European nation states have played in the global effort against the subject of this video
@@setapart2879 yes he is, i knew it the moment he called himself 'apolitical' )
I agree that this history teacher made an intellectual and unbiased evaluation of Candice Owens’ historic telling of slavery. I wish more experts were available to evaluate material espoused by politicians and their ilk.
@@tombudzinski950 the teacher is not an expert at all.. I think you overestimate how much history teachers know.. he is also not unbiased at all, he has a strong and evident bias, which is why he cannot admit some of the things in her video are indeed part of history as it occurred )
I like the video. I wish you would have challenged the leap of logic at the end regarding modern political movements. Not to say it’s right or wrong but to point out the leap. I think it would also have been worth pointing out what happened after slavery, even to list them, as missing points worth further discussion. Jim Crow laws for example.
Agreed. That was one giant leap of logic which had me blinking and confused.
It's not that much of a leap when you already know who implemented such laws and who actively removed them. And who TODAY act as if such laws are still on the books.
This! People like Candace never want to discuss the 100 years of atrocities (the riots,pogroms, massacres, and murders) that occurred after slavery was decreed over. Its not like the descendents of hte enslaved are still mad about slavery. Some of us are angry at the atrocities and hypocrisies engaged in by the US government after it was suposedly over, See the 13th documentary!
@@lkeke35 exactly. Even when Jack Johnson beat Jeffies (“The great white hope”) in a boxing match, whites rioted and killed dozens of black people.
@@Snowmon89 If you think there aren't laws on the books in state and local governments that benefit whites over blacks I think you'd be surprised. For example, did you know that it's illegal in the state of Georgia to have and ice cream cone in your back pocket? If that law still exists what makes you think that laws based on race still don't exist?
While she talked about factual information through most of her speech, she implied that people weren't taught those things, and she finished her speech with her opinions. Opinions that are part of the conservative narrative, and not necessarily factual.
I appreciate you pointing where she’s right and wrong on this video. History is viewed through a lens that is painted by our political beliefs, and teaching history without a bias or objectively can be difficult. What you teach versus what you leave out is political too.
So I appreciate you doing this objectively. Explaining and giving context to what she says helps quite a bit. You earned a subscriber today!
Thank you! That means a lot to me
I agree with you when it comes to objectivity, but we need to know why they are doing this, and the reason is to ofuscate and deflect blame, when BLM and black organizations demand reparations or change in policy to achieve racial equality they use these arguments of "well you were not the only slaves in the world, and we the whites ended the practice" yeah, we are not talking about reparations for the rest of the world, but for those enslaved at home and fixing your own mess doesnt exactly desserves a medal. Thats why they reach into world history, in order to justify and minimize US past policies, like "well slavery was bad, but everyone else was doing it".
Indubitably
She’s still a raccoon
I didn’t hear anything stating she was wrong, just expanding on what she said. We could keep doing that, even with what he said.
For example -
The Britísh ending słavery isn’t only ending what they facílitated. They līterally patrolled the Atlantíc, Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean to stop all słave tradíng.
This included stopping the Barbary pírates and trade to both North and South America. They absolutely deserve credit for taking a stand to end it. They even fought Afrícan kingdoms to end słavery there and fought to stamp it out in Indía. When the British told the Dahomey to stop it, this was what their King said:
"The słave tradè is the rulíng principle of my peopłe. It is the source and the głory of their wealth…the mother lulls the chíłd to sleep with notes of triumph over an eńemy reduced to słavery…" -King Gezo of the Dahomey
there's been tons of interviews on the street asking your average people about stuff like this and yes they're completely oblivious and in my schools I was never taught anything but American slavery and never taught bad things about other countries except for Germany.
Did you not read the Bible. It talks about how conquered peoples were routinely taken as the SPOILS OF WAR. If your team lost, you were enslaved under pretty much the same moral conditions American Slavery had. Owner had COMPLETE CONTROL over every aspect of life and literally held the lives of their slaves in their hands. When I saw Candace Owen was going to narrate I knew I was in for a treat. While most of what she said was factual, the premise was that WHITES didn't Start SLAVERY was weak because if nothing else, they PERFECTED IT. Candace is BLACK WOMAN that, like Clearance Thomas, want people to see them as WHITE. They look down on their own people with an air of superiority.
"I think most people know that", I thought so too, but I have seen a couple dozen reaction videos to this, and apparently, this basic knowledge on the history of slavery is news to far far too many people, a true failure of our education system... or as some believe a part of a orchestrated narative
To the point where Candace points out the "Africans depicted as living like Pharos before white Europeans destroyed their culture" (paraphrasing) is effectively false - I would suggest the idea she's rejecting is that "Africans in general lived in an ancient 'Wakanda-like' society where peace, wealth, prosperity, freedom, and equality were the standard of living for all Africans" - something like that. As you point out, there were many wealthy kings in many African nations, tribes, and civilizations. I don't think that's what she's arguing against. Of course the kings lived like kings... they were kings. I lived in Djibouti for some years and the President there is effectively a king in practice as he accumulates wealth through land-lease deals and lives a lavish lifestyle with his friends and family while the majority of the local population lives with no prosperity whatsoever. The average African through most of human history was not living like a Pharo and the white Europeans didn't destroy their culture. The white Europeans - in the context of the Transatlantic Slave Trade (notably after and during the Arabic/Islamic Slave Trade which started in the mid 700's AD and was race-based and in most cases cruel and chattel-structured) only expanded the African culture of warring, capture, enslaving, and selling human lives that already existed for thousands of years - the market just expanded.
I've never once been told that "slavery was a white only thing."
You cant beat a strawman without creating one.
PragerU is also the same channel that says the civil war wasn't about slavery.
🤣 pragerU is a Con
@@sownheard and he straight up defended one of the generals (I think they took that one down after).
I have seen people that genuinely believed that slavery was invented by Europeans, not necessarily a common thing, but it is pretty ridiculous.
are they from america? imma bet theyre from america
@@joshwest8882 Some from America, some from Europe, one that I heard this from was a civillian at Okinawa when I was stationed there.
@@aauwhatitdo1582 that's not what I was expecting
Thanks for sharing
@@joshwest8882 Either they are America or Swedish (if europe).
The (seemingly) more valid take is that whites invented racial slavery. People generally know that slavery existed for the losers of wars in all cultures, but slavery being based solely on race is a white invention. That’s how I’ve heard it.
Also, Candice Owens didn't write this. All these videos are written by Dennis Prager and read by whomever he thinks would best deliver the message.
I did not know this. Thanks for sharing.
Ha, yup. Who else to deliver a video aimed solely at making Fox News-addicted white folks feel more comfortable with the legacy of slavery than the well-paid token Candace Owens?
That's the first time I've ever heard that claim made. I also can't seem to find any resources that back your claim up. Further, it wouldn't make sense in the case of many of the videos because there have been many people who are experts in their respective fields who have participated in making the video content.
Do you have anything specific that this is true for "all these videos" by chance? And I use this in quotes because if he uses it as a practice 10% of the time, that would make you less than accurate. Surely there is some resource that can back up that he writes every single one of these.
If I were to be specific, I'd point to a few examples. Dave Rubin is more than capable of writing his own copy - and further, he's been consistent with his own messaging since he left TYT. You may not agree with some of his opinions (or perhaps you do, I have no idea) but if the conversation is about whether or not Prager himself wrote it, I'm not buying it.
Nor do I believe that General Ty Seidule, former Professor of History at West Point (now retired) and also a published author just read off what was handed to him.
Or how about Brad Thompson, Professor of Poli Sci at Clemson - and he talks about topics he's already published himself.
To use another example, Jordan Peterson - who was writing content long before he presented any videos - do you think he would accept somebody else's written piece rather than his own material? - side note, I understand some people find him controversial - though many of the criticisms are taken out of context - again, this has nothing to do with your claim.
Perhaps Christina Hoff Sommers - never mind that she's a Democrat, has her Ph.D., and has written several books on feminism. Surely she was there "just to look good" and parrot only what Prager wrote.
How about Antonia Okafor who spoke to her own personal experiences and has been about empowering women - you want to tell me that Prager invented her history and just gave her a script to read?
The more I research this, the more absurd your claim sounds.
Do us a favor and admit that you were more interested in disparging Prager U than actually fact checking what you put out there.
@@MrTerry I've just replied to the OP, but the claim that all these videos are written by Prager is ridiculous. If you look at those presenting, you will find most of them are established with their own careers, many of them college professors, authors, and journalists. Further, they speak from their field of expertise often communicating on the things they've already written about in the past. I think Colin just wanted to throw shade without actually fact-checking that statement, so I've basically done that for him. There's simply no evidence that Dennis Prager writes these pieces and I can't imagine the many presenters would be satisfied with parroting someone else's work.
@@RonJDuncan On PragerU's website, it says, "PragerU is responsible solely for the content of its presenters on PragerU videos and other PragerU-produced media." I knew I'd read that before I posted but I couldn't remember where. These people all have their own commercial enterprises and agendas, but when they go on PragerU, they're just mouthpieces. As for whether Prager himself writes the stuff or it's some kind of ollaboration, I can't find evidence for that but I can tell you that all these videos exhibit Prager's writing style and cadence. They sound like him. Candice Owens doesn't normally speak or communicate the way she does in this video.
She said no one talks about modern day slavery, but every doctor's office I've ever been in has the poster in Spanish & English about human trafficking & slavery. They even point out it's not just sex slavery, it's enforced labor in factories or farms, as laborers of all sorts. Not to mention every other post on Facebook is warning people about human trafficking. WTH is she talking about?
Gotta be careful with PragerU. They use a lot of strawman arguments to attack society in general, and leftists / progressives specifically. One of their other party lines is that there's a human trafficking epidemic (which is true) and no one has been trying to fix it this whole time (which is false). This party line has been a lynchpin of the recommendations that I see Sounds of Freedom...
I have never encountered a person in my life that knows anything about modern slavery.
She was talking about the race hustlers and politicians I think, and she's right. Hell remember when the movie about child trafficking came out? Can't remember the title, CNN, MSNBC, politicians and all those crooks called it a conspiracy theory... I get where she's coming from and I do understand what you're saying too. The weirdest part is that it seems that what is being taught in US schools is wildly incomplete and they seem to make the history of slavery about race, which it never was. It's always been about the strong enslaving the weak. I can't say, I am French and we covered a good chunk of the history of slavery in school but never once have I heard our teachers mentioning race at all. Don't know, I guess my american friends might be able to enlighten me on this part.
In general, when PragerU videos refer to a "they", it generally refers to the other side of the political aisle, government establishment, or extremist groups. Context clues dropped throughout the video points to this mostly because they want to avoid being seen as accusatory. So to dodge that the channel typically keeps any accusations loose. There are a few videos where they call out a particular group and those are some of their most harshly ratioed videos. Some have even sparked legal issues.
They’re pretty spot in with facts and cut out the riff raff. The point of their videos are logical explanations to common misconceptions.
@@fromthepgh … did you even watch the vid?
“They” is always an attempt to bolster their base and make them feel like they’re part of the group. Even when “they” doesn’t exist and nobody is saying those things. Which is another use of they; to insert all sorts of logical fallacies and misdirection. Sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant.
@@fromthepgh “logical” only if you accept their bare bones “common sense” and don’t actually know about the stuff they’re leaving out or look into whether the common sense is actually true. Or whether the definitions they’re using have changed over the time periods in question so much that the opposite conclusions should actually be reached.
@@hautehussey in other words the old straw man argument routine. Attribute the opposition with the most feeble or vague representation of their views, and then commence to destroy or "blow down" this mischaracterized view It's pretty par for course with demagogues, particularly on the right. This is why you very seldom see them engage with worthy adversaries in a rigorous debate.
Terry, I wasn't taught about slavery only about it in the USA. It wasn't until I became a older mature person did I find out by questioning my teaching by myself! Now I know that slavery probably began in Egypt but also that also in Europe as plebes and serfs... So it is easy to conclude that vast most of us come from roots of slavery. Only the very blueish of bloods potentially got away without having slavery in your personal linage!
US education tends to mainly focus on our own history and not on other country's history which is a shame but I think that leads some people to believe that it only occurs here because they never learned otherwise. However, I don't like how in the PragerU video it is implied that because slavery occurred prior to slavery in the US that it means that it was okay that it happened. Nor should it mean that it erases the impact that it had and currently has on our country.
@@rachelsimpson1520 the video does not imply what you have stated. It is merely describing that slavery has been everywhere, that there is nothing inherently American about slavery, and that trying to attach all the ills of the enslaved to the US and its purported values is folly.
If you did not see the beginning of the video, let me remind you. Mr T read the clearly described agenda of the channel before starting the video. The video also ends with the intended conclusion that puts the US in a positive light of forward thinking and attempts to help shield the viewer from the temptations brought by the race hustlers and Victim Olympics.
@@hanzo2001 It absolutely implies what I have stated by making the argument that since slavery has occurred elsewhere and as you stated "isn't inherently American" that it diminishes our role in enslaving people. If Americans enslaved people, shouldn't it be our role to extinguish the aftereffects of having enslaved their people? (Rhetorical--you don't need to answer)
@@rachelsimpson1520 Actually, Americans didn't enslave people. The European slave traders purchased slaves that had already been enslaved by African slavers, and had been put up for sale on the coasts. Due to the large trading networks established by Europeans, they were in possession of very valuable goods (spices, gold, gems, etc) that was highly sought-after by African leaders, allowing them to trade such goods for slaves.
At the time, Europeans had no way to go into the interior of Africa to conduct slave raids, because of the prevalence of tropical diseases and also because it would most likely be resisted by African warlords.
The video only diminishes America's role in slavery by contradicting the narrative that American slavery was something unique, and uniquely evil at that. Slavery existed all over the world, and it wasn't seen as a moral failure until the European enlightenment. For some reason, the western world seldom gets the credit for abolishing slavery nor for going on a worldwide military campaign to stop it.
Going by the recorded history, there were slavery, since the time of the first civilization, the Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia, around 3500 BC (ancient Egypt was not unified for another few hundred years later). And in the East, there was also slavery in ancient China.
I’m so glad you brought up the concept of whiteness and how it has changed. You did a great job with this video as always.
It's funny how people think black and white are some objective groups when the concepts are at most about 500 years or so old.
No one has ever explained exactly who is "white" to me. Who gets to decide these things? There is a LOT of racial overlap (both genotypically and phenotypically) between southern Europeans and Middle Easterners/North Africans. Even some northern Europeans have "brown" skin!
She's calling these other racial groups murderous, cannibals, savages. Almost to excuse this history.
She started by saying “slavery was not invented by white people” and then what you pointed out, it sounds more like an agenda than history.
The "they" she is talking about are the teachers of the victims that you can see all over RUclips reacting to this.
What you learned about slavery can depend on where you went to school as well as what grade you were in. I was a military brat and was taught different parts of slavery throughout my education. I wasn't taught about the entire slave trade the first time it was brought up in school, it was brought to us in stages.
If you want to church and didn’t know if slavery existing outside the the U.S. , you weren’t listening in church
I'm Spanish and knew this from my schooling (been in the US most of my life, 66 yr. old). From looking at a lot of these reactions you would think it was never taught. Most claim they never learned this in school. Something is wrong with current schooling in the US. Yes, I understand that she was just giving a small sample between these events, and might be interpreted as incomplete.
Those reactions are BS put up by Republicans. Everyone knows that even way before rome, there was slavery.
My kids are in public school in CA. They are absolutely teaching it. Last year was the beginning of the required ‘Ethnic Studies’ class for 9th grade. They went into depth about slavery being as old as record keeping. They also taught it was Portuguese and Spain who began the selling of humans. Before that, slaves were basically prisoners of war and then carried out from there.
It’s being taught where we live… are the kids listening and comprehending? I don’t know.
Hopefully you can see the point trying to be made about our government wanting to keep people hating each other.
It's being taught now, but when I went to school here in the US it was barely covered , I graduated HS in 1975.
She also ignores the fact that the CURRENT state of Africa, (and other non-white areas), is partly a function of empire and colonialism since the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade by major European countries, (often my own, Britain), but that's apparently not worth mentioning according to her. What she's doing is cherry-picking certain information whilst ignoring other stuff that disproves her point.
So while it's right to point out that 'victimhood' isn't a sensible response let's not lose sight of the reality of what's happened SINCE the ending of slavery. If racism had ended when slavery in the US ended then the situation would be a lot better... but it didn't
Great impartial critique Terry! Loved your point about “who else was gonna end slavery?” Doesn’t mean those people were righteous
Thank you!
“who else was gonna end slavery?" The people who were selling them?? Like Terry said, most slaves that got here were slaves before they were bought, it wasnt until western civilization came along with the idea it was bad that it was well accepted(at least in western civilizations) that slavery was wrong. That was one of the main points in the video and I was surprised to see it get missed. Who would have ended it? The people collecting and selling the salves to the west that some to this day still continue doing - like literally anyone else(not getting that point shows her other point - leaving the blame on the west like the west was the only one that could have ended it because it was only on them to do so. Her point was the blame goes to everyone and thinking "well who else" shows the ignorance and I was surprised to see Terry not get it). Who? Literally any other civilization but the west could have tried, and not seeing that and putting it solely on the west to end proves her point.
Honestly I dont think Terry is very connected to the culture war and he should probably stay out of it unless hes planning to go down that path of research first. When Terry says "who is this They shes talking about" he should find that out first.
@@vitaminKsGood4u I get your point, but the video doesn’t do great at elaborating at who this “they” are. Is it everyone not in the west? Is it the woke left? Very blanket term and therefore you can extrapolate many things from it
Terry does great with these videos and I’m sure he understands the culture war better than I do! It confuses the hell out me
@@alextootle4268 I have posted a response but it keeps getting removed so I will sum it up with:
I feel anyone who hears it and thinks "who is 'They'" should maybe ask her to be sure you get a proper description from the source. She is very active on Twitter and will happily explain it if you find it confusing.
I think my trying to explain it ends up in some filter that gets my comment deleted(most likely by RUclips, not pointing at Terry).
I think that you would be surprised how many people don't know the true slavery history. I am 49, and never learned about it in school. If you watch reactions from this specific video, then you will be saddened by how many people are ignorant. When she speaks of "they", I believe she means the education system. It is broken in much of the country.
It's important to understand what the rhetorical function of the PragerU video is. We can find this by looking at the arguments they present:
1) Everyone one did slavery (so it's ok that "white people" did it).
2) White people were the first to end slavery (which makes them better than everyone else).
3) No One Regardless of Skin Colour is Guiltless (so it's wrong to place the blame on slavery in America on white people).
4) "Black People" are still doing slavery (so it's wrong to focus on what the the American did).
5) "They" (mainstream media and liberals) are lying to you about slavery & about white people and they are profiting from it.
6) Therefore, you should focus on "American values" instead of trying to deal with the legacy of slavery that taints America.
While they present a certain amount of historical facts, PragerU consistently frames them in a way to push a conservative political agenda. I feel that it's wrong to view PragerU as educational content because of this.
This is pretty wrong 1 they were making the point that white people did not create slavery 2 they are not claiming that while people are better but they are pointing out that it was Americans that fought to end slavery here. 3 5 and 6 are all just correct and while we should learn that slavery was part of our past we should not live in it because people are not effect by slavery now so there is no reason to constantly go back to it.
This is a very polite way to put it.
Very well put and a nice summary of that horrendous video of theirs.
@@Henrik_Holst what’s horrendous about the truth?
@@masonguthrie1257 If you have to ask it shows that you just lack the skills to detect political propaganda, twisted facts, half truths because of political and religious bias and are easily fed BS.
"All whites, by the way, were captured and enslaved by the Muslim Turks" and you didn't challenge that!? Muslim slave traders weren't all Turks and they enslaved non Muslim Europeans, not"whites" whatever that is, (as you do point out). She also doesn't mention Europeans, in turn, captured and enslaved Muslims. She goes on to talk about "murderous" Muslims and cannibals, whether they were involved in any kind of slavery and sound like justifications for slavery.
And she doesn't mention how, whether in Rome or among Arabs or Africans, slavery wasn't necessarily life long and there were ways to become free. It usually happened to war captives and it didn't extend to their children and endless generations or based on race.
I remember Cypher's 1 hour highlights of his live reaction to this video, deconstructing it in its entirety. PragerU doesn't like citing sources correctly.
She also omitted this:
"Historical accounts make it clear that when they raided coastal towns from the British Isles to the Iberian Peninsula, the Vikings took thousands of men, women and children captive, and held or sold them as slaves-or thralls, as they were called in Old Norse."
And in the Middle Ages Europe serfs were slaves.
Omitting information is PragerUs bread and butter.
It is not entirely true that serfs were slaves. Granted, "serf" comes from "servus", the Latin word for slave. However, by the Medieval era, the position of serfs involved a complex relationship of rights and duties to the lord of the manor. Serfs could not be bought and sold like the slaves of the Roman Empire, for example.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 Which goes back to something the host said. There are many different instances of servitude.
There are instances of voluntary servitude. People in the armed forces are very often thanked for their service. In the U.S.A. the police are seen as public servants the same as public officials. Whether they actually serve or not is a different discussion.
But we're mainly concerned with those that are compelled to serve. They are considered slaves; at least in the U.S.A.
The situation you described existed in the Middle East and Africa. Even in the Americas, depending on the region or the Colonial power, a slave could have certain protections. Freedom was not an impossibility though I doubt that it was easy. And there were instances in other parts of the world where a slaves descendants didn't necessarily become slaves. In the U.S.A. there were laws passed to restrict slaves becoming free.
As to Western Europe in the Middle Ages, the strict definition of a Serf was that he was tied to the land. Unlike in the U.S.A. a Serf couldn't be sold; technically. His family members couldn't be sold. But they were all transferred with amy sale of land. He also, could not travel without permission. And, technically, the Lord couldn't kill a serf but could starve him to death or beat him at will. Also, the Lord made the laws as well as serve as Judge if and when a serf had a controversy with this same Lord. That means that if you happened to have the misfortune of ending a serf justice was at the mercy of your Lord. If you'd ask almost anyone they'd say that this qualified as slavery.
Your name seems East Indian. I'm aware that views on slavery and servitude in India differ from those in the West. I'd like to learn what those are from you.
@@orodriguez947 what you write is, as far as I know, correct. But why do you want to mix up the terms slave and serf If they describe similar but different concepts? There is a reason why a serf is called a serf and a slave a slave. If only to make discussions among historians less convoluted/confusing.
@@justanothername5199 Because terms aren't static. What they called a serf back then, many Americans would term as a slave now.
"You cannot sell a serf as property, because a serf was part of property that could be sold".
At various times and places, slaves could have more freedom and better lives than serfs. It is almost like the issue is all shades of grey.
Thank you for this expanding on this with facts and giving the nuances this topic deserves
It is NOT true that "we're told that slavery is a white phenomenon." That's simply not true. I know of no history book or history class in the US that says slavery is a white phenomenon.
What IS true is that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is a "white phenomenon" because, well, Europeans started it and, well, they kept it going for quite a while. When US slavery is discussed, TA slave trade is discussed as it relates to slavery in the US. That conversation is about European-Americans taking part in slavery. But that is NOT saying "slavery is a white phenomenon."
Sorry, but I feel like you should have hit against this harder.
"I'd think most people know that" Oh believe me you'd be surprised.
😬
To my understanding, early slavery was a political and cultural tool as much as an economic tool. In the big empires who were constantly expanding, they had to decide what to do with the conquered. There were those who surrendered, and they weren't going to make any problems by being included in the empire. But for those that resisted, it was obvious that their anti-imperial sentiments were going to be LESSENED by their defeat by said empire, rather it would only be a matter of time before they rebelled to reclaim their sovereignty.
Slavery worked to suppress rebellion threefold: by denying access to resources needed to rebel like weapons or wealth, by separating the rebellious and isolating them from each other, and by encouraging slaves and their children to "marry up" to imperial citizens or nationalize to weaken ties to their original culture.
The transatlantic slave trade of the colonial era was very different. Europe was not enslaving Africans to prevent rebellion as they expanded southward. The faster Europeans could establish colonies and capitalize on the new world's resources, the more territory they could claim and the less would be in the hands of the other empires. Then it became an economic cold war as each country sought to build up their military and financial might. Slavery was an economic necessity to fuel the expansion of the sugar and tobacco and spice plantations. Racism against Africans, which was already present due to the muslim-christian conflicts, was popularized to morally justify the de-humanizing and enslavement of the African population.
Ironically, I'd say it was this generalizing of the different tribes that led to the rise of Pan-Africanism, and the unity of slaves in the colonies. Rather than 1-2 slaves on a plantation sharing loyalties to a tribe or cause, now everyone on the plantation was "a black slave" and we see the rise of black rebellions in Haiti and across the new world.
And let's not pretend the whole white world was struck by an attack of conscience mid-1800s. While "the divine right to rule" was corroding since Napoleon and the rise of democratic republics, the British agricultural revolution gave rise to machines that simply made it unprofitable to feed and house dozens of slaves, while the Industrial Revolution gave rise to markets that didn't need slaves. It wasn't that "People didn't want to be slavers anymore", it was just that slavery wasn't worth it anymore.
Your understanding is wrong. You are missing a lot of information. The overwhelming majority of people in the Atlantic slave trade where already slaves before being bought by white people and the slave trade actually existed 100s of years before Europeans landed in Central and South Africa. In fact, the port they first landed in existed for 100s of years and were selling slaves to North African Muslims for the Islamic slave trade. One that existed since the 600s and made its way to Central Africa around the 1100s.
@@r13hd22 There was a vast difference between the islamic slave trade and the transatlantic slave trade. The muslims took slaves from their conquests, the way Romans did. Conquests through india, down the coasts of africa, the byzantines, and even the tagalogs of the Philippines. They had very strict laws protecting slaves from prostitution or physical abuse, and the quran encouraged the pious to free their slaves as devotion to Allah. There were defined paths to freedom as soldiers, spouses, buying your way out. Slaves could hold high positions in government as eunuchs, and even the act of castration was considered very controversial (not the case in china or europe, btw). All of this supports the theoretical origins of slavery as a tool to repress culture, rather than just a source of free labor.
The transatlantic slave trade offered no such protections and was purely economic in nature, part of an economic war to . Of important note is that there were no centralized protections of slaves under europeans, and no laws guaranteeing a slave's freedom. Because the slaves of the transatlantic slave trade were not enslaved for any reason than to be free labor. Why offer a way out to a resource?
"The overwhelming majority of people in the Atlantic slave trade where already slaves before being bought by white people" Obscenely untrue. Unless you're talking about the logical loophole that the people were being enslaved by local warlords to sell to white slavers. Which is like saying "I didn't steal your car, I paid someone else to, so I'm not a thief."
@@Metrion77 Why do those that know the least speak the most?
1. Slavery is slavery. To claim its OK to enslave someone you conquered smacks of stupidity and extreme bias.
2. Most of the slaves in the Muslim Slave trade came from the south of the Sudan...not from where they conquered.
3. Look at you attempting to create a major fabrication...there were no centralized protections for slaves guaranteeing their freedom? SLAVES HAVE NO FREEDOM. ANYWHERE.
4. Attempting to say that buying slaves is the same as capturing them shows you have a clear agenda to cling to the idea that America is magically as bad as you need it to be especially after the massive lie about the Islamic Slave Trade.
You sound like a racist spewing out such nonsense.
I’m pretty sure when I had history in school, before college and actively trying to learn things on my own, most content was very America-centric. Like it didn’t hit until college that when I was born Germany was just becoming a full country again. However there were a lot of things that weren’t touched until higher education unless you sought it out on your own which wasn’t easy. Let’s also not forget those fun made in Texas books that had any picture from the Civil Rights movement in black and white only to learn later that there were colored versions.
I think we just forgot how recent some things in history are in the big picture but maybe that’s just me.
Yup. Martin Luther King Jr.'s *kids* are still around, let alone his grandkids. And those kids of his ain't withered and gray. The Civil Rights Movement was not some distant historical event; people who lived through it are still alive today. Printing those pictures in black and white was revisionist, plain and simple.
Black and white photos are cheaper to print in a textbook.
@@michaeldriggers7681 Pretty sure those books had other pictures that weren't in black and white. Colored maps, for example.
@@michaeldriggers7681 well that’s simply a bonus
Yep, pretty much the same for me. Most of the “real” stuff came in higher education. It’s really sad in retrospect.
I don't mean to burst your idea that most people know that slavery predates 1619. I suppose that some people could remember that slavery was mentioned in the Old Testament in Egypt but I don't think that most people in the country could tell you that the sunrises in the East and sets in the West. I never take anything for granted about the knowledge that we tend to think is "common" anymore because the American public will surprise you and disappoint you. That is just my honest assessment. Ask them where the Declaration of Independence is in the Constitution and see if they can figure that out that it isn't in the Constitution.
*PREDICTION BEFORE WATCHING:* I'm guessing she downplays slavery in America and never mentions Biblical slavery.
Prediction: You don't know that white people have been slaves for hundreds of years, under Africans and Muslims.
@@shefchenko111 I've read the Bible. I know slavery has been around for thousands of years. The ANE had tons of slavery.
If you really want to read about the most horrific forms of slavery ever to be in effect, its all in america, and the middle east. From respectivly native american peoples and the islamic empires.
When slavery is discussed (in USA), it is primarily a reference to the transatlantic slave trade of the 1500-1700s. Your point about recency bias explains why. I would also point out that, although slavery existed long before, 'white people' streamlined and inflated the practice to levels never before seen in history (mostly due to new technology and scale of industry). I would also argue that, although African tribes enslaved each other prior to the transatlantic slave trade, with the incentives offered by 'white' traders the practice became wildly more frequent and aggressive. Before slaves were largely a byproduct of raids/wars. After they were often the reason for the raids/wars.
I think the point mainly was that it was "just business", both for whites and Africans, and not necessarily some sort of evil racist ploy.
People just needed labor to grow their sugarcane and tobacco for free.
Your statement is akin to saying that the drug dealer is the victim of his buyers. If it wasn't for people buying drugs, he wouldn't have to sell them, right?
@@Tijuanabill A drug buyer can typically be a functioning member of society and not completely destroy his life. Some people do, but most of em manage to keep it together.
A drug dealer though? No, if you're a drug dealer you're pretty much screwed. I think some poor person struggling and resorting to selling drugs is actually being taken advantage of by his rich clients who are foisting the vast majority of the risk on him since if you get caught with possession the penalty is a lot lower than if you are caught selling the stuff.
@@Dreikoo Yeah man, you have it all figured out. Drug dealers are poor, and the buyers make them sell it. Your logic is so fucking twisted, I don't know how you function in life.
@@Dreikoo I agree that it was not about the 'evil racist ploy' I am suggesting that although it existed prior to the trade, the demand amplified the prevalence of slavery.
That Taíno history segment was remarkably lacking in detail, and glossed over a few fairly important notes. Like, for example, how Columbus then enslaved the locals, and treated them so poorly that they ran out of people to enslave in only 30 years, in total reducing the population of the Bahamas from ~40,000 to 0.
Not just the Bahamas, as a matter of fact, from my knowledge (which admittedly might be biased now that I think about it) this truly started off once they arrive to La Hispaniola (Current day Haiti and Dominican Republic) where they established the first European city of the new world and started having more of an involvement and regular interaction with the Taino tribe (I am dominican so there is the source of my possible biased information)
They were inferior anyway.
that's not true at all, colombus wasn't in charge of that area for more than like, the first 3 years or something, it was other people who reduced the population so hard.
@@romegypt5675 the claim wasn't that Columbus himself did the entire genocide, just that it started immediately when he arrived. Which it did. Columbus was as evil as it gets, and that evil continued with his successors.
Chattal slavery in America was glossed over. It was as if she was trying to minimize it. She's a Black American working for an American company, of course she is going to have more discussion with Americans about American slavery than what happened or is happening in other countries. We are still dealing with the effects today, even if her grift demands she deny it to get paid.
I love that you want white people to take the blame for slavery, but you have no intention of giving white people the credit for ending it.
This video is a response to the 1619 project which is being advocated to be taught in some school districts.
Then she should have quoted the 1619 project. Why would she only allude to it if this is meant to be a response?
After watching countless reactions to this video, NO, not everyone, not even most, knew that slavery went back so far
Anyone who ever picked up a bible should know...
@@smokinjoe4709 I agree...most of the reactions are young adults that were never taught this in school, and probably never read the bible (just leaned what necessary & went to church to appease parents)
After reading this comment, I can concur you are delusional and looking for a strawman. Republicans have never been great with reality. You've always had to lie about others to gain even a foothold in politics. Everyone knows slavery has existed much longer than even the roman empires' existence. This whataboutism nonsense is why Republicans will not win the race this year nor in the next 4 years. Because you all need to grow up and admit that America fucked up and had to fight an entire dam war just to free slaves. It doesn't make me any less patriotic. As a a progressive I want our country to grow up and that means correcting and learning from our mistakes. Not cowardice and covering things up, Like your Republicans always do.
@@RockinLocks4u Yeah absolutely. The Bible should be the most important and detailed history book in the curriculum.
And PragerU should also part of it (like nowadays in Florida).
That will give our kids the advantage in knowledge over those non-believers scum, who base their decisions on nasty things like science and facts.
What disgusting practices. Praise the Lord!
"Not even Most".... unless your circle of friends are really dumb, most people know that. Between religion and major Hollywood movies made since forever(Spartacus 1960, Gladiator 2000 just to name a few), you would have to live under a rock to not know slavery existed thousands of years ago...a big one...
Slavery changed in context from being a effect of warfare and occasionally being a result social constructions. Slavery in the Us became a part of the religious structure and had pseudoscience argued it was part of nature.
There is a difference between understand someone became a slave because they lost conflict and a belief that someone was created by god to be scientifically inferior.
No, it was always about economics for the southern states. That was the driving force of slavery in the US. It was just easier to think of slaves as subhuman so as not to feel guilt. Christian churches may have had some apologists but were also at the forefront of the abolitionist movement.
@@norwegianblue2017 depends on the church (but the Bible is pro slavery so it’s irrelevant), but it’s not like economics of the slave trade didn’t always exist. But when Norse took slaves, it wasn’t because Odin had made those people to be inferior genetically.
Yeah they didn’t give a shit and had no reason to justify it. The only difference
@@norwegianblue2017 well, even the northerners thought that africans weren't smart enough to make it in american society and would largely die out after emancipation.
I imagine that distinction was lost on the slave.
It’s not that her history is wrong. It’s the way she’s presenting it. If she wants students to be taught about Egyptian, Greek and Roman, all ancient civilizations, they will be taught that in Ancient Civilization history. What she is talking about is American history. If you want students taught about Mongolian slavery then they would be taught that in far eastern history. American history is the history of America! And I can’t believe I have to even say that. And even then American history is broken down into 2 classes. An American history teacher cannot spend precious class room time to go into all the different civilizations across the eras…they wouldn’t have time to spend on anything else. And we are talking about how it affected us. How we operated under slavery. The different laws that were instituted because of it. How the states were formed and brought into the union. She is taking one element and asking why we don’t mention everybody else. Because #1 it is not pertinent!
I have watched a lot of reaction videos to this ( and still watching more), I am intrigued by how different people react to it. There definitely seems to be a difference in what people know of the history of slavery (and I admit even myself). Still trying to learn.
If you want to learn anything about anything PragerU is literally the last place to look. Theit accuracy is probably worse than your average Facebook-mom chat room.
@@noneofyourbusiness3288 Really? Like what was wrong in what she said? Don't like getting corrected, do ya?
Try facts about slavery from Thomas Sowell. Now there's an eye opener from someone who studied that part of history very diligently
@@nickschwaller3154 Please. Educate yourself.
@@noneofyourbusiness3288 Have you ever considered that you might be the uneducated one? Because you sound like an ideologically possessed, uneducated fool right now. So I repeat my question, while omitting certain aspects, what Owens said is just historically accurate to the dot, so what exactly did she say that you feel (i say feel because it seems that emotions are more important than reality nowadays) was wrong? And think carefully because you have absolutely zero clue of whom you're talking to. You don't want to go down the road of historical knowledge with me, you'd lose.
When I watch man on the street videos, I see evidence people don't k ow slavery started before 1619. As well as people not knowing till they react to a Thomas Sowell video. So not sure if all races in America didn't know but among black Americans it seems like it is a thing to me.
I'm black and I've never encountered another black person who thought like that who was over the age of 20, must be an environment thing i guess.
If you think Thomas Sowell is anything but an uncle Ruckus it only shows further proof of your lack of education.
@@PDVism If you think PDVism is anything but an uncle Ruckus it only shows further proof of your lack of education.
@@defftony Oh poor baby, did I hurt your feelings?
i havent been in hs for decades and here i am being taught by a history teacher lol. I like how you embrace new media man.
Her conclusion at the end is ridiculously naive, and she has just as much of an agenda as the “race hustlers” she calls out. Also didn’t appreciate her body language at the end - it came off antagonistic like she’s out to win rather than inform. More tribalism 🙄
Great reaction! Love this channel. As to your question, "Who else would have ended it?" For starters, the African tribes selling weaker tribes into slavery? They could have decided to give up the practice, right? Didn't the British Navy have to guard the Ivory Coast to stop Africans from selling other Africans into slavery?
No, African traders could not have halted the US practice. Remember that US trade in African persons eventually was prohibited (no American was buying from those stronger tribes)? Yet the institution of slavery continued: enslaved mothers bore and raised enslaved children.
No, the British navy stopped ships that were transporting slaves. Those ships were owned by white people. Thanks for trying though.🙂
Yes but if there wasn’t a big market to buy slaves, there would have been far less incentive for them to capture and sell their neighbors. Sadly whenever there is enough demand for anything, no matter how sick and disgusting it may be, there will be people who will happily supply it. This makes buyers as culpable if not more so than suppliers. Eliminate the demand, the supply will dry up fast.
The West Africa Squadron patrolled the Africa coast from 1808 to 1867. 1,600 slave ships were seized, 150k slaves freed, and 1,600 British sailors died from disease, combat and accidents.
The USN also had ships on the West Africa Station cooperating with the Royal Navy from 1819 to 1861.
@doncarlin9081 Maybe but there are still an estimated 700,000 slaves on the continent of Africa today. And that is a conservative estimate. You'll never fully eliminate the demand any way, but even though we did successfully eliminate open slavery and therefore the global demand, there will always be bad actors.
Here's my thing: the history or existence of slavery in other places has no bearing on what happened here in the US. The fact the holocaust occurred in Germany in the 30s and 40s would not, in some way, justify or excuse a holocaust today.
Yes, Europeans did not create slavery. But the US distinctly benefited by the slavery that did occur here. And under that system many atrocities were committed against human beings. That's a fact. Atrocities happening somewhere else does not mean we're all square.
Slavery is the starting point. That's why it's brought up in regards to modern race relations. Not because we invented it or some such, but because the starting point for black people in America was as property.
From slavery we have the Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, and many other events and shifts and changes but for much of that black people were still treated as second class citizens. All of those things echo to today and have shaped our current race relations. That's why slavery matters. It was the beginning and there aren't many worse beginnings for a racial group.
As a black man I wish people like you would shut up. You are holding our people back by clinging to the past acting as if you are being held down. In the mean time, we have black people coming here from Africa doing as good as white people are because they have not been trained by white liberals to be weak minded victims. And all data points to actual AFRICANS doing extremely well. The average Ugandan is making $600 a year less than the average white person is...how? Are you going to say that Whites are going up to people, finding out they are not born here and allowing them to do well while keeping down American born blacks? Its complete nonsense.
And also, in Africa, they teach how only Europe and America has not only ever apologized for slavery, but has also gone out of their way aiding Africa and helping it modernize. While Islam, which had the largest African slave trade wont even admit they did it AND are trying to get it back like in Libya where they are once again selling blacks into slavery. Its the same with the Indian slave trade, they wont even admit that they took Africans into slavery for over 500 years.
They are the enemy of our people. White people are giving us opportunities that none have or will and here you are complaining on the internet using a computer device about how oppressed you are...you have no idea what oppression really is.
That's an interesting question whether the US benefitted from slavery. If slavery had not happened in the USA, would per-capita GDP in the USA today be higher or lower? Canada had much less slavery but its current economic situation is very similar to the US. There were a small number of plantation owners who benefitted from slavery, but the slave plantations competed for land with non-slave-owning farmers, hurting the non-slave-owning farmers. The most successful countries in the world generally have the strongest protections for individual rights against exploitation.
People like you are the reason why it'll never get better it's an idea formed in your head so what's the solution making white people pay making us get on our bent and knee it's called retribution it's called revenge it's called an excuse it's called put me where I want to be give me your attitude only results in two things racism on both sides or enslavement mental enslavement
@@WestleySherman It was such a large influx of cash that even if it was only in a few hands, I'd call that a benefit if we're talking about the late 18th century. It made a new nation a major player in global trade.
It could be argued that it ultimately became a hindrance to the South. That instead of advancing like the North they clung to an archaic system that only benefited the small percentage at the top who had a vested interest in keeping everything the same.
But beyond that, whether the nation explicitly benefited or not. The wealthy aristocracy used race as a foundation of the social order. Especially in the South but also nationwide.
They needed to create that bulwark of poor whites to make sure their machine could continue to run properly. So despite the fact that poor whites had next to nothing they were able to spin it as, "Well yeah, but, we'll give you a wage job and that makes you #2. Not bad being above black people and Indians right?"
@@kyletrout3828 That's an interesting question whether exploitive economies based on slavery are more economically efficient than economies where workers are paid wages set by some sort of labor market, possibly with unions to allow collective bargaining, such as Denmark. For example, if the plantation owners had paid market wages to white southerners, or Native Americans, or even Black people who immigrated from Africa voluntarily, would that have prevented the USA from becoming a major economy at the global level? If there had been a mechanism for people in Africa to immigrate to the USA voluntarily and work for market wages, then Black people in the USA would likely be richer on average than they are currently. But if slavery had not existed, and if there had been no mechanism to immigrate voluntarily, then Black people in the USA would be back in Africa, and they would most likely be much poorer (incomes of just a few dollars a day) than they are in the USA currently. The question of who benefitted and who was hurt by slavery in the USA in the very long term (centuries later) is very complicated.
In a video called a short history of slavery, one would expect that they would talk about how slavery originated and or how the systems evolved from slavery of Ancient Greece or on latifundia to the ones prior to the civil war and the one that exists today.
Slavery is older than ancient greece.
@@puraLusa never said started there.
Because it predates recoded history, he already set it is tied in with the invention of agriculture..
@@lafther210 Indeed. However this goes against the fascists agenda.
That would mostly just be "the history of the human race" though.
When Britain, france and America began to abolish slavery, you say they did it because they were the ones facilitating slavery at the time. That's easy to say, but its not entirely true, because parts of the Muslim world were also facilitating slavery at that time.The British actively participated in ending slavery across the Muslim world, as well as actively stopping African leaders from continuing the sale of people.
Obviously it's good to have an open mind, but the problem is the whole "moving the goalposts" thing when it comes to bad-faith arguments. When you make absurd, ridiculous claims combined with obvious, undisputed factoids ("slavery has ACTUALLY been around for thousands of years and white people have been slaves before in history. checkmate leftists") like prageru does it forces you to concede that they are saying some things that are technically true. So from an outside perspective someone sees that and thinks "well, at least they're not lying about all of their facts so maybe there's some truth to it" ignoring that those facts are framed to make a completely insane conclusion.
Still appreciate you covering this nonsense and calling it out, just can't stand prageru.
what is the insane conclusion if you don't mind me askinf?
@@TheRed02151 well let's see how close you get.
What was Candace Owens point in the video? Try real hard and I think you can figure it out.
Dude literally was just saying moments earlier like 30% of the population were enslaved then as soon as Candace says a 1/3 he jumps in and says well well well it depends. Bruh, you literally said basically the same thing as her moments earlier.🤣
Dude is a biased "educator" keep kids away from him.
He's not a math teacher! 🙃
"Dude" said 30% of the Roman empire's population were slaves, the guy "moments later" says 1/3 of the ancient world were...big difference
Just from my experience in California high-school they barely briefed over how old slavery really is and they only really talked about white imperialism and didn't really cover other important historical events such as the ottomans involvement in arabic persecution during the first world War or the Chinese warlord era post WW2
Why would they cover those topics in American high schools?
Omg I can’t believe you were denied knowledgeable on that topic!!! One of the most well known, significant and transformative historical events in world history
@@gabrielchaparro7431 Where did anyone talk about a "US history class"? Believe it or not, they teach more than US History in high school history classes. At least they did when I was in high school. We had US History, European History and World History. And that was back in the 1980s.
@@gabrielchaparro7431 I agree, because at my school we were taught US history only because obviously we are the only country that did anything that matters
State Legislatures and school boards sometimes change what is covered in the curriculum. Many times these changes are politically motivated. So what's taught can vary from state to state and/or time to time.
For example, I was born in 1982 in Houston, TX. When it comes to social studies, my school district taught: 1) low level Geography in Elementary School, 2) World History in Intermediate School, 3) moderate level Geography as an elective, U.S. History, and Government [Civics] in High School.
Much of what Candace Owens presented (and much of what she didn't present), was covered in my general education.
But when it comes to my nephew (who's about to start high school next year), there's things that I learned in middle school that he didn't. He was taught that slavery was first abolished in the United States. When I was in middle school we learned that Haiti abolished slavery before the U.S. did.
When I was taught about Greece and Ancient Rome during the part of World History where we're just explaining how civilization came to be what it is in modern times -- we learned about slaves then. We didn't cover slavery in pre-colonial Africa, our education was very western-centric...but because of the popularity of Abrahamic religions outside of school, I believe most of us understood that slavery had to have been a thing in Africa.