Go to ground.news/brandon to stay fully informed on breaking news. Try it out or subscribe through my link before August 15, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access to avoid propaganda and bias in the media.
I just marathoned Vinland Saga and 37 episodes of it in 36 hours this week up to the end of the second arc, the second being the one focusing on the main protagonist being a slave in Denmark almost exactly 1000 years ago in the Viking era. Racism isn´t a problem but slavery as an idea is more explored. It also provides a good demonstration of why people you might think are relatively enlightened for their day are still very problematic people, and that slavery itself is an inherent flaw no matter if they still have some quality of life by their own efforts like the lack of legal protection they have as legal property. Some masters might be fine with some of their slaves but they don´t have to treat them equally, they can feel possessive of some slaves to the point of active jealousy and believing that they are owed things from them that they aren´t. It´s a very good show if you ever wanted to see for yourself.
Oh, and it does a lot to humanize slaves. It even shows one of the slave women who was separated from her husband in a war, him being captured separately and sold to different people, and when she finds him again, she immediately calls him husband, even though she herself is often used as a sex slave, the focus isn´t on anything of tarnishing or denial of her ability to still love people who mattered to her, and their drive to find their child again.
It doesn’t matter who was it’s first practitioner. It doesn’t matter who did and didn’t condemn it. What matters is that slavery is a terrible thing, and we should all be against it. We shouldn’t try to support the confederacy, or any slave owning state for that matter, because they may or may not have treated slaves better. People need to stop trying to believe this falsity that slavery wasn’t all that bad, or that since everyone else did it, it was ok. Simply put, it never was, never has been, and never will be. I certainly hope one day, we will live in a world where that is the case.
Just note I haven’t watched the full video yet, but I’d like to say that in my experience, the first argument is generally used to counter the proponents of critical race theory who believe that whites are collectively responsable for the slave trade and that blacks are collectively innocent. Also, you’re sure that there are some people who think that Africans weren’t involved? I’d wager that most people in the United States think that Africans weren’t involved.
@BrandonF I really cannot wait until the Founding father argument. How does one juxtapose the fact that the founding fathers did incredible good (that is at least my opinion) for the world while acknowledging the elephant in the room that they were slaver holders. (I think that is the argument, do I misunderstand?)
its funny how that racist notion doesnt even take into account the history of police in America in the first place. Or just the history of the jail system in America. Reagan did a number
yeah i dont get why people always throw this out i think its mostly people who have white persecution persepectives "stop saying all white people are bad the africans did it to see were not evil YOU HATE WHITE PEOPLE YOU DUMB WOKE LIERAL" something like that i think (the last part was a bit exagerated)
Pro tip: you'll never find the dumbest pro-slavery argument. They've had hundreds of years to refine their craft and at this point there are too many beautifully stupid contenders to sort through. Give em all participation medals, preferably made of lead.
So is murder, or rape, or poverty, or cancer. Plenty of horrible things have been part of the human experience; the reason is the human experience is broken. I don't see anyone lining up to defend those things, so why is this one so hard to grasp?
@@EvsEntps "Glorification of war"... the time where he clearly told that Musketry is dangerous endeavour, Marching is insanely arduous, Weather, sickness and Low provision will more likely to kill you and Executions in war should never be romanticized... Very glorious indeed
@@MikaelKKarlsson So reenactments of reenactments? Will there be reenactments of reenactments of reenactments, and so on, or does the recursion stop at some point?
That's not the argument at all. It's like you've never listened to western media and seen people promoting collective white guilt for slavery or racism, while ignoring that every other society on earth had institutional slavery at some point. Some still do, but they aren't in Europe
Nobody does that, that's why he won't show the actual arguments. They're refuting the dominant progressive worldview that the only ones ever to blame for slavery are white Christians.
I think a issue with American politics is there is a lot of people who make arguments in bad faith. they don't go into debates wanting to potentially change their mind.
"It was the 19th century, nobody knew it was bad!" Yeah, except for John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, the enslaved persons themselves, all the Union soldiers who didn't really think about slavery and saw the horrors for the first time during the American Civil War, and so on and so on and so on...
@@brianstabile165 Brazil and Cuba, that's about it, and both of them were arguably even more dependent on slavery on an economic level than the US south.
Okay everybody, say it with me, "Just because somebody is selling people, it is never okay to buy people, under any circumstances. People involved in slavery are evil, no exceptions. No, put your hand down, this is not a discussion."
I would say the _action_ is evil. The evilness of those people involved varied. I don't say this to provide cover for enslavers or any people who do horrible things. Rather when we demonize people with a broad brush of "they were evil" it blinds us to the fact that road to evil actions and just as importantly the acceptance of evil actions is nuanced. It makes it harder for us to spot when we imagine that evil doers are obvious, single-faceted, and in all ways contemptible.
You can be involved in slavery just by coincidence, e.g. by inheriting slaves. It might be possible to simply free them but this might be prevented or at least impeded by law, and the slaves _might be_ better off with you as their master who can protect them if necessary than being on their own. George Washington was such a case. Eventually he testamentary freed his slaves who then adopted his surname.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 George Washington did NOT free his slaves on his death. In fact, they passed on to his wife who also didn't free them. The Washington's had an enslaved person run away and they spent years in efforts to get her back. Wonderfully, they never succeeded and she lived a long, successful and FREE life... no thanks at all to the Washingtons.
The really dumb thing about asserting "everyone" thought it was okay (I know that's not what you are saying) is it ignores lots of historical evidence that people knew various practices were wrong, to varying degrees. It's just that in most societies of the past, people had very little ability to effect major change. Most societies in the past had barbaric punishments for those that tried to speak against the status quo, not to mention they were usually some form of autocracy and/or feudalism
@@olanmills64 Yeah that's true. Like during certain periods in European history it was effectively illegal to not be Christian, depending on the country or regime. There were exceptions but these were almost always with regions which were difficult to administer, or with people so rich and powerful that they could effectively get away with anything. Many people were Christian back then through fear, because being anything else would get you ostracised at best and executed or tortured to death at worst. That is traditionally how powerful people maintain their power, through a climate of fear and restricting freedoms. The enlightenment was the beginning of this change because it's hard to tell people all the time to disbelieve the evidence of their eyes and ears. However I think it's now getting easier to convince people of lies because the internet has the ability to create false narratives. I have friends for example who live in the countryside that believe things I know are categorically untrue living in the City, but they believe them because a podcast or RUclips video told them otherwise, and they are never going to seek the truth because they can create their own truth on their computers and other devices.
@@olanmills64 I don't think anyone says that "everyone" thought slavery was OK. The argument is that was an generally accepted phenomenon, socially and legally. That doesn't mean no one questioned it. The main point is that it's wrong and stupid to judge actions of people living hunderets of years ago by today's moral, societal and legal standards. And predicting the argument that surely slaves didn't thought slavery was OK - I guess slaves didn't enjoy being slaves, but that's completely different from having an 21st century view on slavery as an institution.
No sane slave owner would have wanted to be a slave, they knew it was wrong but just didn't care. They saw it as a neccesity that made their lives easier.
Confederate apologists: People didn't know slavery was bad back then!!! It's not fair to judge them for it!!! Also Confederate apologists: Did you know that Robert E. Lee said slavery was bad??
Europeans knew it, and European monarchists and absolutists made fun of American Democracy because of slavery, "sure, you can have Democracy, if you got slaves to do the work"
American slavery was wrong. ‘But Africans enslaved people too!’ That was wrong too. ‘But slavery existed in the ancient world, look at Rome!’ That was wrong too. ‘But slavery still exists today!’ That is wrong too.
That’s not the point though😂😂they say that in response to ppl saying “white ppl are the devil, white ppl have never been enslaved, we need reparations” don’t act like you don’t know that
Yeah but there are a ridiculous amount of people who act like Americans are the only ones to ever have slaves and single the American slave market out. People making the first point in this video aren't arguing against slavery bad, they're arguing against a suprisingly large amount of people who think slavery = America. It's like if people acted like only one side used chemical warfare in ww1 and constantly said "the french were so evil to use poison gas"
@lukasg4807 Could it be because those people are... *American* and therefore the *American slave trade* may have had ripple effects that directly impact them? It's not super useful for America to reflect on how the policies of various African nations have impacted those various nations when America has their own policy issues to sort out. Now, is it? Pointing out that other nations did bad too doesn't, in any way, help solve the issues that people are usually attempting to address when bringing up the American slave trade. Your argument is like complaining that the families of the victims of a serial killer never talk about how a different serial killer did bad stuff, too. It's a completely asinine and, quite frankly, kind of offensive ploy to silence those who have very real grievances about our history and how that history has impacted us today. Editing this in: it's not that you don't have a valid point about how other colonial nations kind of just... ignore their own history of human rights violations to point at America and go "Wow, look at them, they're so racist", but the context of this discussion completely changes the meaning of that argument. It's exactly the same as people who talk about "all lives matter" in response to BLM. Yes, that is true and a valid point, but given it is being held in *opposition* to BLM, it kind of becomes a really fucked up thing to say. And, to use my earlier example, it's fucked up in the same way responding "Yeah well, X serial killer killed more people" to someone grieving at the loss of their family member to serial killer y.
“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.” -MALCOLM X
Everytime someone says "Nobody thought slavery was evil back then!" to justify slavery, I always have to ask... What do you think the slaves think of slavery? Do you think it was normal and acceptable to them? Do their opinions not matter? In every society that has had slavery throughout history, there have been abolitionists within that society.
Its also very telling that they must not have considered the enslaved's opinion when they say smth like that. Reveals they view slaves as slaves and not human people with a real life real thoughts and feelings. It portrays a deep lack of empathy.
There have been a lot of abolitionists through history, but to be fair, didn’t a lot of slaves in ancient times think that slavery was part of the natural order and they were just unlucky? I know a lot of former slaves bought slaves, themselves. I’m not a Lost Causer, I just don’t want people to get the false impression that 18th/19th century Abolitionism was an opinion that existed everywhere throughout history.
To be fair, nothing guarantees those people weren't okay with enslaving others for their own benefit. Normality and social acceptability are not necessarily in line with whether you think a given set of atrocities (e.g. the enslavement of YOUR people) is just. All that said... That in no way helps the actual argument they're making because generally speaking if most everyone agrees something happening to themselves is terrible and unacceptable... Then maybe just maybe everyone should just agree to stop everyone else from engaging in the practice... One might even be tempted to call it a (gasp) moral imperative...
No sane slave owner would have wanted to be a slave, they knew it was wrong but just didn't care. They saw it as a neccesity that made their lives easier.
Moral laziness is often responsible for more evil than outright malevolence. TRULY evil people who do harm simply to do harm? Quite rare. People who do evil because they're too lazy to stop? Sadly, quite common in humanity.
The views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people of the North (Abolitionists), to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly Set forth, and they must also be aware, ... (That it's) only be accomplished by them through the agency of a civil and servile war... *The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, and I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.* ... *Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity* ... The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to Convert but a small part of the human race, and even Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, and we give it the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences. Robert E. Lee's letter to Mary R. C. Lee - December 27th, 1856 They knew it's morally evil, but they don't care. Even worse, Most prominent members of the confederacy like Marsh Roberts think that this is "their duty to make Blacks servile" and Slavery is nothing short of Proselytization. It's better for them to be bonded, becoming a Subservient race and "taught to be Christian" than for them to be free and have an agency of their own
No sane employer would want to be an employee either. Where do you get your morals from though. You have the benefit of hindsight. Maybe someday we'll discover that animals have as complex thoughts as humans. Then you may be considered a monster. Or global warming will kill everyone and people will consider you worse than a slave owner.
@@louthegiantcookie Only second to the people who do evil because they think they're morally in the right because their dogma says so and they're programmed to never question the dogma and see if it holds up to critical examination. Though I guess you could make an argument that trusting authority to spoon-feed them what is moral instead of assessing it themselves is a form of moral laziness, too; it's easier to believe you're (general you) saving your poor slaves from insert-argument-from-religion-slash-racial-superiority-slash-noblesse-oblige than to wonder if you've been taught something that may not be the truth.
Some years ago I really deep dived into the history of American slavery. How ever awful one imagine slavery, it constantly gets much worse by magnitude the deeper one goes.
I went into that rabbit hole recently too. Awful. Then there are White nationalists like Ron DeSantis who publicly say "slavery was good for black people".
@@waterandaftersmall pox only exists in labs, so technically no but you are right that if small pox does get out of those labs then all those people are fucked.
Slavery still happens today. The people who defend slavery back then, I feel they unintentionally defend modern-day slavery. Real comforting to know people still defend the buying and selling of people.
Its because people fail to see others as just as important as themselves. Some people see their needs and wants as more important to others. Look at how people are just plain rude to one another. Consider the most famous communists in history Lenin, Stalin, Mao. They talked all the time about equality and what they offered was equality of misery -well for most people, not their chosen few.
I agree. In fact, it'd probably be no bad thing for U.S groups who fight for justice for the historical wrongs done by/for slavery to combat modern day slavery if they aren't already doing so.
There were engineers in Rome that actually created working but obviously very rudimental steam engines and even vending machines however none of them took off because it was way cheaper and easier to rely on slaves than it is to invest in machinery or other form of automation. Slaves were plentiful and no one saw the need to rely on anything else but slaves.
As a shopping cart I think that take is reductive. You can never truly quantify oppression, it must be opposed in all forms. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
You know the Southerners that I feel pride for?... The Southern Unionist. The near 100,000 White Southerners who went North to Join the Union army and save the United States, the 90,000 Ex-Slaves whom escaped the Confederate States to join the Union Army and free their families, and people like General George H. Thomas, the Virginia Unionist, who was one of the greatest and most forgotten Generals of the Civil War. They're the one's we should really have Southern Pride in.
@josephmitchell3507 because of everything the United States has invented and given the world today. All the achievements in science, as well as all the political and religious freedoms promised by our Constitution that still inspire freedom fighters across the globe today. Best case scenario for the Confederates, they exist long enough to be reconquered by the U.S. in WW1.
@@josephmitchell3507 Because the Confederacy was anti-free press and proto-fascist, anti-democratic, and had stolen tracts of land from Mexico and the Civilized Indian Tribes.
What's interesting is when I was doing my Senior Thesis on the Historiography of the American Revolution, I came across a little fun fact. The first Anti-Slavery societies started in 1774-1775, completely alongside the American War for Independence.
@@davidmason4244 Who exactly do you mean by the English? Colonial governments did a lot of work to split apart the giddy multitude long before the revolution.
@@wildfire9280 the english and the their ancestors. From the Anglo Saxons to the English puritans, and the first english nationals to make a living in the new world.
@blackheartzerotheundergrou3225 It is! It refers to the history of a history. Historiography in general is the history of history as a subject/discipline. The Historiography of something like the Roman Empire would be a history on how we've studied and viewed the Roman Empire, rather than the history of the Empire itself.
I am utterly unsatisfied with what my school teaches me about slavery. It’s either not enough or is downright fraudulent. I’m glad your channel is still up and running!
I just saw these replies-! 1. I just noticed my grammatical error. 2. Since I’m no longer a sophomore, we might be able to learn more about slavery, I’m not certain. We only ever had it glossed over, and the civil war wasn’t brought up, we went straight the Great Depression.
@@freddythebandbear yeah it sucks how everyone makes a big deal of the Great Depression it was just a reaction to a crash of the stock market I believe
I didnt grow up in America and in the West Indies they teach you exactly what slavery was like, down to "buck breaking" and all that. One of my History teachers cried when he explained this to us, and I always remember him for that. So hearing Americans defend slavery just blows my mind.
@@TheReformedCatholichey you know the modle for Modern white Jesus comes from a panting by Leonardo Divinchie of his gay lover who was also the popes sun
@nrein89 It’s a good thing Brandon isn’t actually going over defences of slavery then. He’s going over nuanced facts about slavery then falsely claiming they’re defending slavery. BrandonF is not the most honest person.
@@BrandonFand da money can allow for trade between people, and trade allows for complex systems to run! Oh my god! We discovered one of the major pillars of civilization! Trade!
It's way worse lol. Cannibalism has many different incarnations. Desperation, eating bits of people without killing them, eating already dead people... And killing people to eat them. The last one being the only objectively bad one and it's because it involves murder. Murder was the least horrifying part of slavery.
The imperative against slavery is a moral one. I do not want to live in a world where sentient beings *like myself* are stripped of all the good parts of sentience. It's inefficient. The mind must tell the body: No breaking the bones and wills of the disobedient. The imperative against cannibalism is a _biological_ one. We find it disgusting because _eating humans makes us ill._ Therefore the body tells the mind: No. You'll get sick.
The pro slavery people really try their best to distance themselves from blame while also promoting Slavery. Its like saying Cigarettes are bad for you and they are blowing cigarette smoke right in your face. Its Hypocrisy at its highest level
For the first argument- If someone builds a puppy shredder, then sells it to you, does that make your use of it any less immoral then if you had built it yourself? If someone from a village sells you a button to release a wasp storm on their village does that make it okay somehow to push? If someone hires you as a hit man does that make your murder any less awful?
No. No. and No. But if everyone back then used the puppy shredder every day, and my grandfather was the last one to give it up, is it ok for my family to be vilified for generations? There is a huge double standard where slavery by white europeans is treated like the ultimate, irredeemable sin, while slavery by any other society is simply waves away or ignored.
@@95DarkFire Yes. sure you and you're father should not be vilified but you're grandpa should be and you're second point is dogshit yes slavery is BAD no matter who doing and those were BAD too you're point
@@95DarkFire It’s because the enslavement of black Africans by White Europeans accounted for 99.99% of slavery in the United States. In regards to the American experience, slavery anywhere else is irrelevant to the topic.
@@95DarkFireok But did you or your grandfather defend slavery? If yes, that’s why. Lol stop defending child rape and people won’t hate you for defending child rape… 😂
The interesting thing about slavery apologia is that it misses why slavery persisted. We can make moral arguments all day but what really was the reason it persisted was selectorate theory-there was a small, rich group of southerners who owned slaves who could lobby institutions and who could promote culture due to their wealth. Because of their influence and the need for others to have their backing to stay in power their influence was overly represented despite the fact most of the south did not own slaves. The morality of the situation was secondary
Small rich group using their power and wealth to influence people into believing that doing obviously wrong, immoral and horrible things to a group of marginalized people are justified and necessary?!?! Wow, glad that doesn't happen anymore (I say with a lot of sarcasm). And let out a sigh of sadness.
If that's the case, why did the rank and file fight for them? How did they see something as vile as slavery as a "good" thing worth fighting and dying for?
The last African country didn't abolish slavery until 1981, a near century after the US civil war. Let's hear your moronic dot connecting on how muh white southerners caused that..
@@invisibleman4827 So I am going to assume that you want a genuine answer. There are many reasons why poor white men join Confederate army. Fierce local patriotism, a sense of adventure, loyalty, etc. While all of this are true, they is also this under-current that was true then as Lydon B Johnson said it off the cuff remark about a century later "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Also, the draft. People forgot that the South started conscription months in the war.
Hi brandon, one additional point I would like to make to the first point is, the reason many people bring up "Well africans enslaved africans too" etc. is to act as a counter argument against the claim that The trans-atlantic, or slavery in general, was a racial institution as much as it was an economic. Whilst this is not the case for many European, asian, or african systems, it definitely became the case in US slavery, as the system of race was heavily encoded into many state legislature. The reason they keep saying "well slavery has existed for thousands of years by other races" is because they want to dismiss the claim that American slavery was racially motivated, and not just an economic/political platform other previous empires had built it on. By claiming that africans also enslaved africans, they are implying that slavery is not a racial institution/racist, and by extension, neither was the transatlantic slavery, American south slavery, and the reasons for the civil war. A false equivelancy at best, downright stupidity at worst.
The "slavery has existed for thousands of years" argument could very well be an Appeal To Antiquity fallacy. The idea that just because something is "the way it's always been" means that either it shouldn't be changed or, in this case, one shouldn't be judged for not changing it.
Bloodletting, slavery and circumcision have existed for thousands of years but now do liberals all of a sudden just change things. Society is no longer what it once was. Women, children and slaves no longer respect me after I can no longer legally beat them.
Quick reminder on the side that medicine in anyway that we recognise wasn't even a thing pre WW1 So i guess just dying of typhus with nothing to do against it also existed for millennia And yet people still argue against this even though they can actively feel the outcomes of modern medicine So why expect people to not be idiots about something that is based in racism with a nice sprinkling of blissful ignorance as it feels so removed today (especially for the descendants of the planter class who aren't taught or willing to learn about their own ancestors crimes against humanity because knowing your grandpa was a terrible human is hard to face)
Agreed, appeals to the past to justify any stance on modern history, or justification for actions taken nowadays or in the past is weird to me. Especially because people act like it is such a 'gotcha I've won' arguement.
Few are the things where their antiquity is a point for their cause, and unfortunately the (systematic) treatment of humans by other humans is very rarely it. Mostly because the death and suffering of one group did give advantage of another group in atleast the short term, but we recognize this to be utterly inhuman. Sidenote: Nice pfp. Glory to Translesbianotzka.
Fun fact This video was actually interrupted immediately after the first point by a PragerU ad about slavery In this ad Candace Owens says "Did you know White people did not actually invent slavery?" 😐😣🤦
I wonder why… 🤔 They’re clowns defending a lost cause. 🤣 People being stupid back then, but somehow were able to write about the freedom of the individual. 😂
As someone with more Confederate veteran ancestors than Union (as far as I know), I do feel some pride in them for the inherent bravery that is to march off to war, to defend you homes and/or fight for what you believe in, however I do recognize my Confederate ancestors were on the wrong side of history, and ultimately, I'm glad they lost.
It's also worth pointing out that most other forms of slavery weren't built on a policy of brutal racial subjugation. Most other historical forms of slavery did not regard the people it enslaved as being inherently servile to their enslavers, it was more of a "right of conquest" thing. TO BE CLEAR, this does NOT mean we can entirely crowbar Anglo-American racial slavery apart from other forms of slavery, nor does it mean that those other forms of slavery were somehow ok. It only means that they were not exactly the same in their rationalization or implementation.
"Even for slavery, the ethnic chattel slavery in America was _especially_ bad." I mean who in history was worse? Mongolians? Though that straddled the line between slavery and execution-by-march.
Actually they often were. It's just that "races" were smaller before. The Gauls thought of the Latins as a separate race. The English called the Irish and French different "races". In many languages the word for "people/human" and the name of ones ethnic group were the same word. So if someone wasn't a Mongol, they weren't the same race or really human. It goes on back to the tribal level even to the hunter gatherer group. Any "other" group is not the same race or even human. And therefore their subjugation was acceptable, as was eating them, using them for human sacrifice, and or massacring them wholesale for ethnic cleansing or genocide. If it makes dehumanization, abuse, and accumulating power easier, any and every difference is called out to make someone a "other" of some type, color based racism is just one form of "othering".
@@JoshSweetvale Who in history was worse? How about the Norse who usually picked their human sacrifices from among their slaves. Just as many of the slave holding societies of Central Africa, the Dahomey held many slaves and sacrificed them during their different "festivals", some years they would execute hundreds for one celebration. The Aztecs enslaved, sacrificed and ate hundreds of thousands of their conquered neighbors. When Ireland was filled with slaves (held by the Irish) it is very likely some were sacrificed or maybe eaten. Slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism were very common throughout many/most regions of the world. Like almost all things in society, as societies got wealthier and less close to death by starvation or exposure, after centuries systems often became less brutal. To claim that American slavery was more or less brutal depends on what other societies you compare it with.
@@MKUltraVictim-sw5qs alright then, I’ll bite. Slavery is bad because it inherently leads to the abuse and mistreatment of those who are enslaved. It’s a practice that treats people like property rather than, well, people. Simple as.
@@iamwonkaunles multiplication -1×-1=1😮😢😢😂😂😢😮😅😊😊😊😅😮😢😢🎉😂in Super die hat den den den den den den die hat den den den den die hat den den den den die hat den den den den die
They be one of those people that leave the restaurant table a total pigsy and leave condescending notes about how you should have served better to get better tips.
That first argument kills me every time I hear it. "Your honor, other people have committed murder. Therefore it is unfair to single my client out, and he should be free to go." That's about the level of logic we're at with this one. Why are people so desperate to defend such obviously monstrous behavior? Edit: you gave the same silly example I did lol
Racism, like all bigotry, is illogical, vicious laziness. Folks with even a modicum of self-awareness don't want to admit to holding these views. Hence, mental gymnastics ensues.
No, the argument is "This guy gave my client the knife and told him to kill the victim, but instead of being charged, he's being rewarded for being a murder victim."
@@filmandfirearms The Buyer told the seller to sell, not vice versa. And at wich point where african slave sellers rewarded after the freeing and abolishing of slaves?
As always, it seems Florida wants to out-do the stupid by teaching that "but slaves learned valuable work skills!". Yes, they did. And that's not what people hate about slavery. It's more the fact that slaves weren't free to apply their skills to their own benefit and build a future for themselves. They'd have to spend the better years of their lives working to a planter's benefit until they were too old or too injured to gain any meaningful benefit from their abilities. They got all the downsides of slavery, and never received these supposed benefits.
People hate the American form of slavery because of its effects, which is called racism. Not Xenophobia (my god, the amount of people confusing Xenophobia and Racism is impressive, although they can be used at the same time), racism, which still affects us to modern day
"There were hundreds of thousands of Americans in the south who had a problem with slavery" is an important thing to say, because often these people act as though slaves weren't people.
That opening monologue has me raving. Respectfully hilarious. If anyone defends slavery, perhaps they should experience chattel slavery until they stop defending it. I think that would be a suitable punishment, but that's just me.
Lincoln was of a similar mind, stating that whenever he'd hear anyone speak in favor of slavery, it would ignite inside him a strong desire to see it tried on that person themselves until they truly understood its horrors.
@@knownothing3364 Lincoln sure did. He kicked slaver ass with his radical views alongside Grant, Sherman, Thomas, and Meade. Fuck slavers, give em a taste of their own "superiority".
Here's a fun fact for Neo-Confederates and Neo-Nazis (or am I just repeating myself): Barack Obama's presidency lasted twice as long as the Confederacy did. 😂
Well yes, but the actual removal of the system in the north, especially in New England, took quite a while. A census from the 1850s shows that there were thousands of slaves in New England. So while the gesture is good, it didn’t really get put into effect until way later.
@@theodoreroosevelt2154true enough, though I believe most of the slaves further north were in New York (might be wrong tho). And let’s not forget how completely racist and I empathetic all of those northerners had always been to the native Americans (who were the inspiration for the name Massachusetts in the first place, some irony there)
Lmao after you covered the fact that just because the slaves were sold by African’s doesn’t justify slavery. I got an add for PragerU saying how slavery in America wasn’t that bad because slavery was around way before people were in America.
"Ancient world didn't think slavery was bad! Look at Rome! Their slaves were docile and content!" Hey, statue pfp with "Retvrn" in your name, ever heard of a guy called Spartacus? The guy who made Rome shit themselves and they needed heavy hitter like Crassus to take him down, with Pompey finishing off what remained?
"The human experience" is a good one. Smallpox were part of the human experience for a long time as well, and I still don't regret missing out on them one bit.
On the first point Portugal oddly enough has some of the best recorded history of this, having traded with many of the African slave empires and even inviting quite a few of their nobility to visit their own kingdom. Heck, quite a few Portuguese castles even have old portraits of these visiting African nobles.
@@ZinvictanGamer we do (I’m Portuguese), but we don’t call it piracy. Mare Clausum (Closed Sea), the policy that, in order to sail the Indic Ocean, you needed a navigation permit from the Portuguese Crown, this in the 16th century, mostly. Woe onto you, if you were intercepted by a Portuguese patrol and didn’t have said permit. This practice was sanctioned by the papacy, on the same line as the Treaty of Tordesillas. Fun fact: one of the two surviving ships of the Magellan Expedition attempting to return to Spain after the Philippines debacle was captured by a Portuguese patrol while attempting to sneak through the Indic, in what is now Indonesia. We set fire to the ship, brought the crew ashore, and crucified them.
There's a good book by Mark Hughes(Slave Trade 1440 to 1860) which starts off with voyages of exploration down the West African coast. It's a bit of an eye opener.
The same thing happens when talking about the genocide of the native Indians. “They were killing each other in tribal wars for centuries” well….so were Europeans. Does that mean murdering the Indians was justified? Absolutely NOT!
I think I know what you're alluding to with the "Thomas Jefferson arguments." One I've often heard is that slavery was intended to be phased out in the South or in the CSA, and the slavers were just trying to do so gradually while the North was filled with "radicals." It's a pretty easy one to discredit once you get into the history of antebellum southern political policy regarding slavery, particularly in regards to Manifest Destiny into Latin America and intense advocation for the expansion of the institution into new states.
The north wasn’t filled with “radical” in fact they were very racist to blacks and the majority of those who did want to end slavery wasn’t to help blacks but to get a better market on white labor hence the keep slavery where it is and leave the west for whites only mind set most republicans had at the time hell Lincoln wanted to deport them all yes the south wanted to keep slavery is that the sole and only reason they left the union of course not
There were attempts to bring Central American into the slaving world even after slavery was abolished in Mexico (debt peonage continued) and in Central America. William Walker, an American freebooter, reestablished it in the 1850s. Texas seceded from Mexico because Mexico free slaves, too. and all of the former Mexico was supposed to become slave states. Civil War was not long after the William Walker forces invaded Nicaragua.
If someone defends slavery, then apply the golden rule: they are fine with slaves, so they must be fine with being a slave themselves. Them being the slave owners instead of slaves would be a wild fantasy at best anyway
Thank you so much for this channel! It feels like Im living in an alternate reality where so many people think slavery wasn't that bad and Abolitionists and slaves were wrong to fight against it
“Equality is for the weak. Victory is for the strong.” - that comment you showed in support of slavery is so stupid because the guy doesn’t realise that the strongest are the ones who can hold cohesion in an equal society to push forward to victory without infringing on the rights of people. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Slavery is wrong and completely unnecessary. Workers are more productive when they have time and money to live their own lives happily. People also willingly put their lives on the line to defend that when someone comes to try and enslave them in turn making a stronger and more resilient society. The south lost to the guys using freed slaves to help fight against them. Don’t ever forget that. If the south was so strong because of slavery then why did they lose?
Just a reminder that slavery officially exists in the USA. Having the highest incarcerated population as a policy to keep up finding poor workers to be enslaved: AMENDMENT XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I think there were laws past later, possibly on the state level, to limit the use of prison labor or at least do away with the chain gangs, but I could be wrong.
I watched your video on the worst argument about slavery literally last night, so I'll say here what I said there, "My best counter against these arguments for slavery is simple, 'They are still people.'"
That's why in history, slavery supporters made a excuse that some races or slaves were not human, subhuman, or closer to animals and therefore it was ok to subjugate them like animals.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c And there are many even now who argue that some races are inherently less intelligent, a disgusting argument I've unfortunately heard put forth more times than I would like.
That is a pretty weak argument, because the value of people was much less in any society in the past than it is today. Most people in the Middle ages were serfs, which is only slightly better than slavery. In that time, slavery was just another social relationship. In many places of the world, a slave of a rich person could have a better life than the average person. Sabuktigin, the first Emperor of the Ghaznavid dynasty, who ruled from Persian to northern India, was once a slave. That is why it is so important to understand the historical facts rather than make emotional or "moral" arguments about the past.
Away down South in the land of traitors Rattlesnakes and alligators Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Where cotton's king and men are chattels Union boys will win the battles Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie I wish I was in Baltimore I'd make secession traitors roar Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) We'll put the traitors all to route I'll bet my boots we'll whip 'em out Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie! Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie Oh, may our Stars and Stripes still wave Forever o'er the fee and brave Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Right away (right away) Come away (come away) And let our motto ever be Forever Union and for liberty Right away (right away) Come away (come away) Ride away (ride away) Come away (come away) We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie Away (away) Away (away) We'll all go down to Dixie
@@TexasNationalist1836 Bring the good old bugle boys, we'll sing another song! Sing it with the spirit that will start the world along! Sing it as we used to sing it, 50, 000 strong! While we were marching through Georgia! Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee! Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free! So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea! While we were marching through Georgia! There were many Union men who wept with joyful tears! When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years! Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers! While we were marching through Georgia! Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee! Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free! So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea! While we were marching through Georgia! So we made a thoroughfare for Freedom and her train! Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the Maine! Treason fled before us for resistance was in vain! While we were marching through Georgia! Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee! Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free! So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea! While we were marching While we were marching While we were marching through Georgia!
“Who sold the slaves?” kind of misses the point. “Why did they have a market to sell them to?” helps to bring the discussion closer to the heart of the matter. That is one way to respond to that question. Sure, it is responding to a question with a question, but it is responding to an irrelevant question with a relevant one.
Because along the silk road and in the caliphates the market persisted throughout the ages. The whole idea of slavery being bad never colonized extraeuropean territories until much later. See also the quite one-sided dynamics of slavery between European coastal states and eastern Europe vs the barbary coast/ottoman empire.
@@robertmartinu8803 most impressive, sir. A very intelligent and knowledgeable response. Though it may be a gross oversimplification, the simple fact is that some people and cultures do not view their fellow man as equals, as our Declaration of Independence asserts. When a person is aware of a distinction between themselves and all other forms of life presently known, including within the fossil record, the idea of enslaving such a creature becomes intolerable. What is that distinction? Creativity, willfully expressed. This attribute is most readily identified in our willful and controlled use of fire to perform work, including heating our food. It is further expressed in our ability to take raw material resources, and through the interaction of the skilled labor of an individual knowledgeable in physical principles, that material is transformed into something which never existed before and never would have existed without our intervention as His moral, mortal agents in Creation. It is identified at a still higher level in our ability even to discover such principles, such as the Principle of Least Action, for example. Thank you for your response, sir! Very good! Edit: The distinction is between *man* generally and all other forms of life. Not between an individual human and all other forms of life, just for clarification.
Ever notice how people who give the “but what about modern slavery” argument never bring up modern slavery in any other context? It’s just a tool for defending chattel slavery. Which is just pathetic, frankly.
The people from the Bronze and Iron Age were not under the delusion that slavery was good or noble. They knew very well that slavery was something cruel and terrible to inflict upon others. That's why slavery was used as a punishment for crimes for example. If that's what you do to bad people, you consider it a bad thing. Nobody is under the delusion that being sent to prison today is a good thing for the prisoners. At best it's considered as a just punishment or a security measures for the rest of society. Slavery was something terrible you inflicted on people you did not like and/or considered inferior in the Ancient world, in other words your defeated enemies, criminals, people who had accumulated debts they could not repay. It was "a just punishment" at best. Nobody in Antiquity thought "these people are better under slavery than free" that's a modern non-sense used by racialists a lot later.
A lot of ancients genuinely did believe that their slaves were better off serving them, though. Slavery isn’t good, but people believed that some people were natural slaves and it was therefore good for them to be serving a “good” master who fed them and “took care of them” etc.
For an overview of the Atlantic slave trade with a focus on West and West Central Africa, ‘A Fistful of Shells’ is a really interesting book. Goes into the process whereby those groups in the region who were most willing and able to trade slaves became the richest; wealth which they used to conquer other groups and export more slaves, and so on.
From my Africa History course, one chief tried to stop the gun acquiring wars by saying they were destroying each other and each other's culture, and would end up badly. He wasn't listened to.
He was probably shot hah. But really the tribes on the coast bought guns from the european and conquered and sold other africans to europeans to buy more guns and repeat. Interestingly the subsaharan africans have the most genetic diversity of any humans on the planet. Sort of like a wolves to dogs situation where all dogs came from just some wolves. Could explain why polynesians and amerindians who had the least genetic diversity were the most susceptible to diseases and africans were the least susceptible. Amerindians have got to be the most genetically different people to subsaharan africans out of any groups. Along with amerindians and polynesians not having many disease carrying domesticated animals to catch diseases from aswell though.
I’m kind of disappointed that “but the slaves got fed” isn’t on here. Reading that (paraphrased) in the comments of your other vid was the most brain dead take I’d seen in a while.
“At least I gave the kidnapped hostage in my basement I make run a hamster wheel basic human needs” Wtf is wrong with some people to think slavery is justified cause you have with food.
Another horrible argument I heard them say is that the slaves descendants have it great today and they should be thankful their ancestors were brought over here as slaves. It sickens me.
That's another really BS argument. Most plantations had cash crops (cotton, rice, indigo, or tobacco) and the slaves also raised the food for the plantation and built the plantation houses. The numbers of plantation owners making serious money from the cash crops who could afford to buy rice and beans for the hands was tiny. Jefferson didn't spade his own gardens. Washington had a flax mill and weavery. Most of the clothes in plantations were made by slaves. The slaves, like some landless farm workers today, got to eat what they grew. And if the cash crop failed, the landlord borrowed money against his human property.
When it comes to the first argument, I’ll never understand how people will essentially just say “slavery is bad” and then think that that is a good justification for slavery
I think another good topic to this video series would be the so called "Irish slaves in America" and the difference between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. This seems to come up alot when arguing about slavery
I had an ancestor who was an indentured servant. Shipped over to colonial Virginia after a heist gone bad. He impregnated his boss's daughter (their child was born 5 months after their marriage) and he was given several acres of land at the end of it. Definitely not an outcome if he had been from Africa.
Yes and no depends on how you define everything was a surf a slave or a crop sharer if your servant was brought by force ( and a lot of Irish where forced into it) and it lasted for say 30 years it would have been your whole adult life kinda like some slave court cases stating the man is free but you own all his labor and property of his labor gets weird how they worded things back than but remember this everyone was a slave to someone else at one time in history
@@josephmitchell3507It was not generational slavery. Their wives and children could not be sold away from them, and the women could not be legally raped and forced to bare the child. I could go on.
Yes it was not generational but still a form of slavery and yes from what I have read woman under I S. could legally be raped but if she had a kid the kid would be free and I S still could legally have been beaten and whipped just like a slave the only difference being to was not generational and hopefully your service would end before you die I am curious how mean where beaten to death right before there time served was up….
@@josephmitchell3507 Indenture was for seven years. One thing the ruling class had utter fits over were indentured servants and black slaves all running away to the frontier and having integrated cultures. See Bacon's Rebellion.
@@TheReformedCatholicI take it you mean that sharecropping was cheaper for plantation owners. Literally that's the only way I could see slavery somehow being "better" for the freedmen
@@TheReformedCatholicI wonder how many people would suffer a life of torment contuing generation by generation in a much lesser form to this very day so they could have iPhones and sometimes consistently have food on the table while growing up, that's your argument right?
@@stevencooper4422 My grandfather was a white sharecropper who worked his way out of that. Best deal is out and out rent if you could make a crop better than the other folks. Shares range from 1/3 to the landlord if the tenant provides traction, fertilizer, and seed to fifty/fifty if the landlord does.
@@RebeccaOre Fort Pillow comes to mind. The black union soldiers were unsure if they should surrender or not, but when the confederate forces entered the fort it didn't make a difference...
one of my favorite arguments is that the north had slaves too, so the confederacy wasn't bad. The people who do this always throw in states that were admitted to the confederacy as northern states (iv seen them claim Louisiana and Tennessee to be northern states.), and West Virginia (who joined the union on the promise of gradual emancipation, and was one of the first border states to get rid of slavery entirely) Granted, the north had slaves (in much smaller amounts than the south) and it is wrong, but they actually got rid of their slaves willingly (with very few exceptions) and not by force. They also didn't say that their government was built upon slavery, but who am I to judge?
One of the reasons that it is important to point out that in Africa itself the slave trade was mostly the work of African nations themselves is to show exactly how insidious the colonial efforts of the European powers were: Before European colonial companies got involved in the West African slave trade it existed and was bad, but it was a cultural practice, not an industry. It was a way to integrate war captives into society that was brutal and oppressive, but not aimed at creating a permanent class of people economically exploited for free labour. The few nations that did try to turn the West African form of slavery into that were either quashed by their neighbours or collapsed to slave revolts. It was the involvement of European colonial companies who eventually started propping up these nascent slaver empires and aiding them in conquering their neighbours, all in order to increase the supply and reduce the price of slaves, that changed slavery from a cultural practice to a cornerstone of the West African economy. And the only reason why the colonial companies relied on trading with West African nations for slaves instead of just setting up shop is and doing the slave taking themselves (as they'd done nearly everywhere they set up colonies) is that they couldn't. Unlike in other areas, Europeans didn't have much success in their attempts to outright colonise Sub-Saharan Africa. (Even the Cape Colony that would eventually develop into South Africa was only possible because the area had almost no permanent inhabitants and the Dutch built a fort there during the period where the Khoena nomads who used it as grazing land were away.) The big African nations on the East and West coasts of the continent were on technological and military parity with Europeans right up until the mid 19th century. This is extra relevant because of what happened when the various colonial powers nationalised their colonial companies and turned their colonies into official territories of the state. When they were still private enterprises (backed and part-owned, but not directly operated, by the state), the colonial companies had been limited in how many people they were allowed to recruit to work for them and the slave trade was a way for these companies to increase the amount of labour available in their mines and plantations without touching their allotted headcount. When they were nationalised, the colonial territories suddenly had access to a lot more workers from their home country. Particularly since this coincided with the start of the industrial revolution and therefore a massive influx of unemployed rural workers seeking employment into the cities. The national governments of the colonial powers saw encouraging these people to migrate to the colonies as an excellent way to both reduce the pressure on urban centres in Europe and a way to strengthen their hold on their territories... _And it was this, far more than any moral considerations_ that led them to ban the slave trade. They thought that depriving the colonial plantation owners of their steady influx of slaves would force them to employ Europe's urban poor. Instead the plantation owners fixed their labour problem in a different way by setting up, and excuse me while I swallow down the bile I just heaved up, breeding camps for their existing slave population. Banning the slave trade did have a... positive... effect (if only for the colonial powers) though, since it led to the total economic and social collapse of the West African nations that had become completely dependent on the slave trade. Turns out that when you pivot your society towards a system where half the male population are soldiers who raid your neighbours for slaves and expect to be paid handsomely for it and then people no longer purchase those slaves, you now have both a lot of pissed off neighbours *and* a whole bunch of soldiers who refuse to fight for you because they're no longer receiving the massive pay they've become used to (and also when those soldiers are then forced to fight out of self preservation, they turn out to be horribly inadequate at it because they've spent two centuries focussing on learning how to conduct raids on vulnerable communities in a way that does minimal damage to 'the merchandise', not fighting an actual war). And that collapse, combined with the spill-over into the Central and East areas of the continent is what finally softened it up enough for the Scramble for Africa to kick off.
Yeah, and all the consumers of child porn are the true monsters while the people actually recording themselves violating children are victims of their pernicious buying habits. Why, back before the internet provided a way for me to make a ton of money doing it, my finger-banging kids was just a hobby. But they turned my quaint custom into an industry. Because of them, I actually need to hurt kids.
Sorry your view of pre European involvement Africa with slavery is very wrong. You can check out ibn battuta account of Mali to see that they did have cattle slavery
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Ibn Battuta's account of Mali is mostly him being a complete Karen and complaining about not being showered in gifts when he arrived and doesn't actually describe anything like Chattel slavery. In fact the main thing he mentions about slaves in Mali is that the female slaves weren't clothed enough for his taste (but then, neither were the free locals). At any rate West African slavery before European involvement was not Chattel slavery, because originally the children of slaves were born free. We know this because we have records of roughly when this changed (in the 17th century, after the European hunger for an ever larger supply of fresh bodies led to a controversial decision by some slaving nations to do away with this, which led to a period of unrest and revolts that Europeans helped put down).
@@RvEijndhoven yeah you certainly lack the historically context to understand ibn battuta behavior His 'Karen' act is normal by standards of that time. Because rulers were expected to financially support islamic scholars with lavish gifts especially newly arrived wondering scholars like him so they can establish themselves {because Islam doesn't have a church to support it's clergy} And my point is that no you can see cattal slavery in his recounts that the local inhabitants vied with each other in the number of slaves and servants they had, and was himself given a slave boy as a "hospitality gift." and he mentioned that the sultan gave a tribe of cannibals a slave woman to eat as a good hospitality And mention of gold mines being worked by slaves And no you can be born a slave The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters. Custom, however, has established certain rules with regard to the treatment of slaves, which it is thought dishonourable to violate. Thus the domestic slaves, or such as are born in a man’s own house, are treated with more lenity than those which are purchased with money. ... But these restrictions on the power of the master extend not to the care of prisoners taken in war, nor to that of slaves purchased with money. All these unfortunate beings are considered as strangers and foreigners, who have no right to the protection of the law, and may be treated with severity, or sold to a stranger, according to the pleasure of their owners." Travels in the Interior of Africa, Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior of Africa v. II, Chapter XXII - War and Slavery And in islamic parts of Africa you can be born a slave if both of your parents are slaves I know that because as a Muslim I am familiar with islamic law
This is fascinating stuff! Do you have sources I could check out to learn more, by any chance? I’d love to read up more on African history and precolonial society, but it’s always a pain to find good sources.
Pausing at 5:30 just to say: i think the people who point out that africans had slavery as well are reacting to their own tendency for essentialist thought. They see black people committing crime, and believe it to be a trait of that racial group. In the same spirit, i think maybe their typical reaction to being reminded of the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade is to defend their whiteness, because of their inclination to see everything in black and white or good and evil.
Every time i see neo-confederate cope i have an innate desire to send them a collection of memes from Atun-Shei's fantastic 'Checkmate Lincolnites' series. It's what's deserved. Very good video and response Brandon
@@josephmitchell3507 Videos "discrediting" him are other neo-confederate chumps. Please read some history texts sometime and you will realize how pervasive the lost cause myth is. Fortunately, their unbelievably stupid beliefs are on the way out. Everybody just laughs at the neo-confederate, neckbeard shut-ins now.
One dumb video I watched about "what schools didn't teach you about slavery" said a really dumb thing: slavery isn't about racism, it's about the strong dominating the weak. That's not exactly any better of a way to make slavery look good. And if you look at written records throughout history, there will always be racial prejudice against enslaved people.
@@superforresttie1032 It's a video about slavery from Thomas Sowell. It's a video from a channel that does text to speech excerpts of his books. The guy has a lot of shitty takes
Would love for you to take on an argument my teacher made, "those people are better here in America than they would be in Africa." He than turned to me and asked "would you rather be a slave in America or living in a hut in Africa?" To which I replied, " I'd rather be free".
It would certainly be interesting to track down 100 people descended from slaves, and 100 descended from the same ethnic group but which were not kidnapped and sold as property and compare the comfort of their lives....
@@CowMaster9001 we actually are able to do that, and overall, those who were allowed to build generational wealth without the being hindered by slavery or laws similar to Jim Crow, they typically have a better standard of living
@@CowMaster9001 they may see the building of generational wealth as evil, bit I do not. Furthermore, everyone has their own combination of beliefs. But you did bring up reparations, so I wonder what your opinion is on providing pay back programs to those decended of enslaved people
It's a simple but overlooked horror of slavery. Imagine how traumatizing it would be if aliens came to earth and your own leaders sold you off to them. Along the trip your family dies of beating or sickness. You now live in a foreign world and are treated horrifically. But hey, along the line, things get better for you, better than they have ever been. Even if this world wasn't designed with you in mind, you've still managed to slip through the cracks. But you never see earth again. Gradually, this nightmare you've lived starts to feel like reality and your life before starts to feel like a dream. Even if you were treated horrifically back home, you would rather be home. And if you're talking about people who were born here, well then it's a classic "other people have it worse" argument which completely discredits all the challenges both psychologically and materially that black people face today.
A point I've always made when pro-sl@very people talk about Africans participating in the trade; the big difference was that European traders came from cultures in which they had already established a distaste and a philosophical framework opposed to slavery and chose to capitalize on it anyway. Which is why people in Europe started inventing moral loopholes, like africans "not actually being people" so they could live with the cognitive dissonance.
Go to ground.news/brandon to stay fully informed on breaking news. Try it out or subscribe through my link before August 15, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access to avoid propaganda and bias in the media.
I just marathoned Vinland Saga and 37 episodes of it in 36 hours this week up to the end of the second arc, the second being the one focusing on the main protagonist being a slave in Denmark almost exactly 1000 years ago in the Viking era. Racism isn´t a problem but slavery as an idea is more explored. It also provides a good demonstration of why people you might think are relatively enlightened for their day are still very problematic people, and that slavery itself is an inherent flaw no matter if they still have some quality of life by their own efforts like the lack of legal protection they have as legal property. Some masters might be fine with some of their slaves but they don´t have to treat them equally, they can feel possessive of some slaves to the point of active jealousy and believing that they are owed things from them that they aren´t.
It´s a very good show if you ever wanted to see for yourself.
Oh, and it does a lot to humanize slaves. It even shows one of the slave women who was separated from her husband in a war, him being captured separately and sold to different people, and when she finds him again, she immediately calls him husband, even though she herself is often used as a sex slave, the focus isn´t on anything of tarnishing or denial of her ability to still love people who mattered to her, and their drive to find their child again.
It doesn’t matter who was it’s first practitioner. It doesn’t matter who did and didn’t condemn it. What matters is that slavery is a terrible thing, and we should all be against it. We shouldn’t try to support the confederacy, or any slave owning state for that matter, because they may or may not have treated slaves better. People need to stop trying to believe this falsity that slavery wasn’t all that bad, or that since everyone else did it, it was ok. Simply put, it never was, never has been, and never will be. I certainly hope one day, we will live in a world where that is the case.
Just note I haven’t watched the full video yet, but I’d like to say that in my experience, the first argument is generally used to counter the proponents of critical race theory who believe that whites are collectively responsable for the slave trade and that blacks are collectively innocent. Also, you’re sure that there are some people who think that Africans weren’t involved? I’d wager that most people in the United States think that Africans weren’t involved.
@BrandonF I really cannot wait until the Founding father argument. How does one juxtapose the fact that the founding fathers did incredible good (that is at least my opinion) for the world while acknowledging the elephant in the room that they were slaver holders. (I think that is the argument, do I misunderstand?)
"If slavery returned, crime would drop significantly"
If Crimes were legal, crime would drop significantly
its funny how that racist notion doesnt even take into account the history of police in America in the first place. Or just the history of the jail system in America. Reagan did a number
Modern american prison system is already slavery basically. Once you commercialize prisons you will find any excuse to get more people imprisoned...
Yeah, saying that crime would go down because black people are being subjugated is definitely one of the takes of all time.
Crime would definitely increase. The majority of the population would be abolitionist and would commit property crimes against slaveholders.
“If we put everyone in jail crime would go down” no shit
'Slavery is bad.'
"Yeah but African people had slaves too."
'Yeah, and that was bad too.'
yeah i dont get why people always throw this out i think its mostly people who have white persecution persepectives "stop saying all white people are bad the africans did it to see were not evil YOU HATE WHITE PEOPLE YOU DUMB WOKE LIERAL" something like that i think (the last part was a bit exagerated)
No. That makes it GOOD! Imagine lol?
Argument totally destroyed 🤯
“But the black people sold their own to the white people.”
“And that was also bad.”
I find people like that always fall back into the whataboutism as if that is a worthwhile response
Pro tip: you'll never find the dumbest pro-slavery argument. They've had hundreds of years to refine their craft and at this point there are too many beautifully stupid contenders to sort through. Give em all participation medals, preferably made of lead.
@@TheReformedCatholicno, he not, TAytaymakebeat know exactly what he is talking about
@@TheReformedCatholic 🤡
@@TheReformedCatholic he is objectively correct
How about a ceremonial goblet made of lead?
@@omidm.935and one that is very flaky and rusty at that
My response to the "it was part of the human experience for thousands of years" was honestly "So was Smallpox"
So is murder, or rape, or poverty, or cancer. Plenty of horrible things have been part of the human experience; the reason is the human experience is broken. I don't see anyone lining up to defend those things, so why is this one so hard to grasp?
@@artsman412 Many defend both death and taxes, evils at least as great as any you list. Some of those arguments might apply to your stuff.
@@ShankarSivarajan death and taxes don't remotely equate to anyone but the most brain fried
@@EvsEntps "Glorification of war"... the time where he clearly told that Musketry is dangerous endeavour, Marching is insanely arduous, Weather, sickness and Low provision will more likely to kill you
and Executions in war should never be romanticized...
Very glorious indeed
@@ShankarSivarajandeath is unavoidable. No one defends it. Taxes aren’t inherently evil.
This channel is older than the Confederacy 💀
Brandon is now my heritage. 🫡
Rest assured there will be historical reenactments.
@@MikaelKKarlsson So reenactments of reenactments? Will there be reenactments of reenactments of reenactments, and so on, or does the recursion stop at some point?
@@MikaelKKarlssonI'll take dibs on re-enacting Brandon re-enacting being Military-disciplined and had to chew on one of his coat's loose button
Strongest burn the rebs have gotten since Atlanta.
The first argument is like saying, "It's okay to have this girl as a slave because a woman sold her to me!"
Which they actually think is ok, they bring it up all the time
No you see guys ! It's progressive slavery ! 😮
@@danielomar9712 well spoken, el presidente
-Jeffrey Epstein about Ghislane Maxwell, probably
That's not the argument at all. It's like you've never listened to western media and seen people promoting collective white guilt for slavery or racism, while ignoring that every other society on earth had institutional slavery at some point. Some still do, but they aren't in Europe
I genuinely don't understand how people are willing to publicly defend slavery.
Or at all, really
Exactly, this is a non-political, non-partisan issue. It's just plain and simply evil to enslave people.
Yeah, the US is a crazy place. Especially the prison ones
It´s a great way to make people who own them richer.
Nobody does that, that's why he won't show the actual arguments. They're refuting the dominant progressive worldview that the only ones ever to blame for slavery are white Christians.
I think a issue with American politics is there is a lot of people who make arguments in bad faith. they don't go into debates wanting to potentially change their mind.
Bad faith and many arguing are just uninformed completely on the history
Turns out the point of argument is not to change the mind of you opponent, but to belittle their position so others reading won't side with it.
@@stevecooper7883 exactly!
atleast in debattes!
God bless not-america
Spot on! IMO it’s the whole problem with modern political discourse.
"It was the 19th century, nobody knew it was bad!" Yeah, except for John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, the enslaved persons themselves, all the Union soldiers who didn't really think about slavery and saw the horrors for the first time during the American Civil War, and so on and so on and so on...
And the little detail that the US was among the last states to abolished in the Americas
@@ShinigamiInuyasha777I feel like i need to argue but then I realize I can only think of Brazil
@@brianstabile165 And Cuba
@@brianstabile165 Brazil and Cuba, that's about it, and both of them were arguably even more dependent on slavery on an economic level than the US south.
John Brown is the best american. up there with smedley butler. we should aspire to be half as great.
Okay everybody, say it with me, "Just because somebody is selling people, it is never okay to buy people, under any circumstances. People involved in slavery are evil, no exceptions. No, put your hand down, this is not a discussion."
I would say the _action_ is evil. The evilness of those people involved varied. I don't say this to provide cover for enslavers or any people who do horrible things. Rather when we demonize people with a broad brush of "they were evil" it blinds us to the fact that road to evil actions and just as importantly the acceptance of evil actions is nuanced. It makes it harder for us to spot when we imagine that evil doers are obvious, single-faceted, and in all ways contemptible.
You can be involved in slavery just by coincidence, e.g. by inheriting slaves. It might be possible to simply free them but this might be prevented or at least impeded by law, and the slaves _might be_ better off with you as their master who can protect them if necessary than being on their own.
George Washington was such a case. Eventually he testamentary freed his slaves who then adopted his surname.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 George Washington did NOT free his slaves on his death. In fact, they passed on to his wife who also didn't free them. The Washington's had an enslaved person run away and they spent years in efforts to get her back. Wonderfully, they never succeeded and she lived a long, successful and FREE life... no thanks at all to the Washingtons.
Imagine if buying child porn was illegal but the people actually making it faced 0 moral or legal consequences.... 😂
Without discussions slavery would be just as popular today, understand that.
Even in times when "Everyone" thought slavery was OK, I bet the enslaved people knew they were getting a bad deal.
The really dumb thing about asserting "everyone" thought it was okay (I know that's not what you are saying) is it ignores lots of historical evidence that people knew various practices were wrong, to varying degrees. It's just that in most societies of the past, people had very little ability to effect major change. Most societies in the past had barbaric punishments for those that tried to speak against the status quo, not to mention they were usually some form of autocracy and/or feudalism
@@olanmills64 Yeah that's true. Like during certain periods in European history it was effectively illegal to not be Christian, depending on the country or regime. There were exceptions but these were almost always with regions which were difficult to administer, or with people so rich and powerful that they could effectively get away with anything.
Many people were Christian back then through fear, because being anything else would get you ostracised at best and executed or tortured to death at worst. That is traditionally how powerful people maintain their power, through a climate of fear and restricting freedoms.
The enlightenment was the beginning of this change because it's hard to tell people all the time to disbelieve the evidence of their eyes and ears. However I think it's now getting easier to convince people of lies because the internet has the ability to create false narratives.
I have friends for example who live in the countryside that believe things I know are categorically untrue living in the City, but they believe them because a podcast or RUclips video told them otherwise, and they are never going to seek the truth because they can create their own truth on their computers and other devices.
@@olanmills64 I don't think anyone says that "everyone" thought slavery was OK. The argument is that was an generally accepted phenomenon, socially and legally. That doesn't mean no one questioned it. The main point is that it's wrong and stupid to judge actions of people living hunderets of years ago by today's moral, societal and legal standards. And predicting the argument that surely slaves didn't thought slavery was OK - I guess slaves didn't enjoy being slaves, but that's completely different from having an 21st century view on slavery as an institution.
No sane slave owner would have wanted to be a slave, they knew it was wrong but just didn't care. They saw it as a neccesity that made their lives easier.
I made a similar comment on the original video and I'm still getting chuds chiming in to 'well actually' me even now lol
Confederate apologists: People didn't know slavery was bad back then!!! It's not fair to judge them for it!!!
Also Confederate apologists: Did you know that Robert E. Lee said slavery was bad??
Europeans knew it, and European monarchists and absolutists made fun of American Democracy because of slavery, "sure, you can have Democracy, if you got slaves to do the work"
They are the same person
Based Robert E. Lee
@@infantry4lyfe252I think he was honestly the only one you could give that label to.
Edit: Nope, nope! I was wrong! I double-checked and no he isn’t!
@@justin2308 un-based Robert E. Lee 😔
American slavery was wrong.
‘But Africans enslaved people too!’
That was wrong too.
‘But slavery existed in the ancient world, look at Rome!’
That was wrong too.
‘But slavery still exists today!’
That is wrong too.
That’s not the point though😂😂they say that in response to ppl saying “white ppl are the devil, white ppl have never been enslaved, we need reparations” don’t act like you don’t know that
@@alecjoncas7764 Reparations are owed because of the systemic disadvantages afflicted on black people since slavery.
You're an idiot.
Exactly
Yeah but there are a ridiculous amount of people who act like Americans are the only ones to ever have slaves and single the American slave market out. People making the first point in this video aren't arguing against slavery bad, they're arguing against a suprisingly large amount of people who think slavery = America.
It's like if people acted like only one side used chemical warfare in ww1 and constantly said "the french were so evil to use poison gas"
@lukasg4807 Could it be because those people are... *American* and therefore the *American slave trade* may have had ripple effects that directly impact them? It's not super useful for America to reflect on how the policies of various African nations have impacted those various nations when America has their own policy issues to sort out. Now, is it? Pointing out that other nations did bad too doesn't, in any way, help solve the issues that people are usually attempting to address when bringing up the American slave trade. Your argument is like complaining that the families of the victims of a serial killer never talk about how a different serial killer did bad stuff, too. It's a completely asinine and, quite frankly, kind of offensive ploy to silence those who have very real grievances about our history and how that history has impacted us today.
Editing this in: it's not that you don't have a valid point about how other colonial nations kind of just... ignore their own history of human rights violations to point at America and go "Wow, look at them, they're so racist", but the context of this discussion completely changes the meaning of that argument. It's exactly the same as people who talk about "all lives matter" in response to BLM. Yes, that is true and a valid point, but given it is being held in *opposition* to BLM, it kind of becomes a really fucked up thing to say. And, to use my earlier example, it's fucked up in the same way responding "Yeah well, X serial killer killed more people" to someone grieving at the loss of their family member to serial killer y.
“If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.”
-MALCOLM X
Ain't that the truth
Let's not quote the guy who was a blatant black supremecist and believed white people to be a failed experiment by evil scientists in biblical times.
Everytime someone says "Nobody thought slavery was evil back then!" to justify slavery, I always have to ask... What do you think the slaves think of slavery? Do you think it was normal and acceptable to them? Do their opinions not matter?
In every society that has had slavery throughout history, there have been abolitionists within that society.
Its also very telling that they must not have considered the enslaved's opinion when they say smth like that. Reveals they view slaves as slaves and not human people with a real life real thoughts and feelings. It portrays a deep lack of empathy.
Not even a great argument for the American civil war as a lot of major European poweres had outlawed slavery by the 1860s
There have been a lot of abolitionists through history, but to be fair, didn’t a lot of slaves in ancient times think that slavery was part of the natural order and they were just unlucky? I know a lot of former slaves bought slaves, themselves. I’m not a Lost Causer, I just don’t want people to get the false impression that 18th/19th century Abolitionism was an opinion that existed everywhere throughout history.
@@laughingseagull000it depends on which civilization really.
To be fair, nothing guarantees those people weren't okay with enslaving others for their own benefit. Normality and social acceptability are not necessarily in line with whether you think a given set of atrocities (e.g. the enslavement of YOUR people) is just.
All that said... That in no way helps the actual argument they're making because generally speaking if most everyone agrees something happening to themselves is terrible and unacceptable... Then maybe just maybe everyone should just agree to stop everyone else from engaging in the practice...
One might even be tempted to call it a (gasp) moral imperative...
No sane slave owner would have wanted to be a slave, they knew it was wrong but just didn't care. They saw it as a neccesity that made their lives easier.
Moral laziness is often responsible for more evil than outright malevolence. TRULY evil people who do harm simply to do harm? Quite rare. People who do evil because they're too lazy to stop? Sadly, quite common in humanity.
The views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people of the North (Abolitionists), to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly Set forth, and they must also be aware, ... (That it's) only be accomplished by them through the agency of a civil and servile war...
*The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, and I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.*
... *Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity* ... The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to Convert but a small part of the human race, and even Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, and we give it the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who Sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences.
Robert E. Lee's letter to Mary R. C. Lee - December 27th, 1856
They knew it's morally evil, but they don't care. Even worse, Most prominent members of the confederacy like Marsh Roberts think that this is "their duty to make Blacks servile" and Slavery is nothing short of Proselytization. It's better for them to be bonded, becoming a Subservient race and "taught to be Christian" than for them to be free and have an agency of their own
No sane employer would want to be an employee either. Where do you get your morals from though. You have the benefit of hindsight. Maybe someday we'll discover that animals have as complex thoughts as humans. Then you may be considered a monster. Or global warming will kill everyone and people will consider you worse than a slave owner.
And no sane slave would rather be a negro than a poor white man.
@@louthegiantcookie Only second to the people who do evil because they think they're morally in the right because their dogma says so and they're programmed to never question the dogma and see if it holds up to critical examination.
Though I guess you could make an argument that trusting authority to spoon-feed them what is moral instead of assessing it themselves is a form of moral laziness, too; it's easier to believe you're (general you) saving your poor slaves from insert-argument-from-religion-slash-racial-superiority-slash-noblesse-oblige than to wonder if you've been taught something that may not be the truth.
Some years ago I really deep dived into the history of American slavery. How ever awful one imagine slavery, it constantly gets much worse by magnitude the deeper one goes.
Citation needed
@@pointmanzero No, a citation is not needed for opinions and observations.
I went into that rabbit hole recently too. Awful. Then there are White nationalists like Ron DeSantis who publicly say "slavery was good for black people".
@@pointmanzero citation needed
@@rennnnn914 “I like Vanilla ice cream”
commenters: citation needed
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Abraham Lincoln
"Slavery has existed for thousands of years"
So did smallpox, until we put a stop to it.
Ah, the white man's burden.
@@CowMaster9001No, humanity put a stop to it.
Until all the antivax people bring it back.
@@waterandaftersmall pox only exists in labs, so technically no but you are right that if small pox does get out of those labs then all those people are fucked.
@@waterandafterThere's two samples of it left, it's not coming back.
Slavery still happens today. The people who defend slavery back then, I feel they unintentionally defend modern-day slavery.
Real comforting to know people still defend the buying and selling of people.
"It's not slavery if they aren't people"
@@denifnaf5874 Those people deserve to be smacked.
Its because people fail to see others as just as important as themselves. Some people see their needs and wants as more important to others. Look at how people are just plain rude to one another. Consider the most famous communists in history Lenin, Stalin, Mao. They talked all the time about equality and what they offered was equality of misery -well for most people, not their chosen few.
I agree. In fact, it'd probably be no bad thing for U.S groups who fight for justice for the historical wrongs done by/for slavery to combat modern day slavery if they aren't already doing so.
There were engineers in Rome that actually created working but obviously very rudimental steam engines and even vending machines however none of them took off because it was way cheaper and easier to rely on slaves than it is to invest in machinery or other form of automation. Slaves were plentiful and no one saw the need to rely on anything else but slaves.
Of course we all know that not returning the cart at the grocery store is far worse than slavery or genocide
Truly the bane of our time
The horrors are truly unspeakable
No. Even as a joke that's messed up for you to say.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c file a complaint
As a shopping cart I think that take is reductive. You can never truly quantify oppression, it must be opposed in all forms. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
You know the Southerners that I feel pride for?...
The Southern Unionist.
The near 100,000 White Southerners who went North to Join the Union army and save the United States, the 90,000 Ex-Slaves whom escaped the Confederate States to join the Union Army and free their families, and people like General George H. Thomas, the Virginia Unionist, who was one of the greatest and most forgotten Generals of the Civil War.
They're the one's we should really have Southern Pride in.
Tell me why was the union worth “saving”
@josephmitchell3507 because of everything the United States has invented and given the world today.
All the achievements in science, as well as all the political and religious freedoms promised by our Constitution that still inspire freedom fighters across the globe today.
Best case scenario for the Confederates, they exist long enough to be reconquered by the U.S. in WW1.
@@josephmitchell3507 Because the Confederacy was anti-free press and proto-fascist, anti-democratic, and had stolen tracts of land from Mexico and the Civilized Indian Tribes.
@@dilloncrowe1018 I' have been happy to let Mexico take back all former Spanish possessions.
@RebeccaOre why?... no one living there wants to be part of Mexico, including the Mexican-Americans that live there.
What's interesting is when I was doing my Senior Thesis on the Historiography of the American Revolution, I came across a little fun fact. The first Anti-Slavery societies started in 1774-1775, completely alongside the American War for Independence.
The american revolution had the seeds sown since the english first fought for their rights.
@@davidmason4244 Who exactly do you mean by the English? Colonial governments did a lot of work to split apart the giddy multitude long before the revolution.
@@wildfire9280 the english and the their ancestors. From the Anglo Saxons to the English puritans, and the first english nationals to make a living in the new world.
_... Historiography?_
Like, that's an actual word...?
@blackheartzerotheundergrou3225 It is!
It refers to the history of a history. Historiography in general is the history of history as a subject/discipline.
The Historiography of something like the Roman Empire would be a history on how we've studied and viewed the Roman Empire, rather than the history of the Empire itself.
I am utterly unsatisfied with what my school teaches me about slavery. It’s either not enough or is downright fraudulent. I’m glad your channel is still up and running!
your*
lol. “You’re” is “you are”. “Your” is possessive.
@@nicknayl0rwhat does *raw* mean true? “Right leaning”? I feel like I need more context
Could you tell us more about your classes?
I just saw these replies-!
1. I just noticed my grammatical error.
2. Since I’m no longer a sophomore, we might be able to learn more about slavery, I’m not certain. We only ever had it glossed over, and the civil war wasn’t brought up, we went straight the Great Depression.
@@freddythebandbear yeah it sucks how everyone makes a big deal of the Great Depression it was just a reaction to a crash of the stock market I believe
I didnt grow up in America and in the West Indies they teach you exactly what slavery was like, down to "buck breaking" and all that. One of my History teachers cried when he explained this to us, and I always remember him for that. So hearing Americans defend slavery just blows my mind.
Buck breaking is a myth made up by some black guy with a humiliation kink
@@JackRogers-x9e Oh it was a thing, just not the way is described today. It involved 2 horses and fire.
@@TheReformedCatholic Youre a catholic........
@@TheReformedCatholichey you know the modle for Modern white Jesus comes from a panting by Leonardo Divinchie of his gay lover who was also the popes sun
@@asherroodcreel640I've also heard it was based on Cesare Borgia
Fact: General Sherman taught the Confederates many valuable lessons that they could apply for their own personal benefit.
Yeah, like how to really embrace and set fire to things.
Like the value of having good coal, lest someone uses your house as fuel
🤣😂🤣😂
He definitely taught them how to do a bowtie.
@@olezaku3469 legendary comment
I don't know if you drink, but if you do, have some on me. Going over defenses of slavery has to do a number to one's mental health.
Hah, much appreciated! That is very generous of you.
@nrein89
It’s a good thing Brandon isn’t actually going over defences of slavery then.
He’s going over nuanced facts about slavery then falsely claiming they’re defending slavery.
BrandonF is not the most honest person.
@@liamscott1905 no Liam, this is a brain dead take
@@bethanyreynolds7270
Yep brandonf take is braindead.
@@liamscott1905 ok grandpa lets get you to bed
If you defend slavery five times in the mirror you'll be isekai'd into the set of Checkmate Lincolnites of Atun Shei Films 😂
I got a prager U “the history of slavery” ad on this video 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Think about it this way- if you watch the ad, you take money from them and give it to me...eh? Eh?
@@BrandonFand da money can allow for trade between people, and trade allows for complex systems to run! Oh my god! We discovered one of the major pillars of civilization! Trade!
@@THECHEESELORD69 Yes, THECHEESELORD69, thank you, very cool
Defending slavery is like defending cannibalism.
I concur.
I will defend the Donner Party though 😅
It's way worse lol. Cannibalism has many different incarnations. Desperation, eating bits of people without killing them, eating already dead people... And killing people to eat them. The last one being the only objectively bad one and it's because it involves murder. Murder was the least horrifying part of slavery.
But people do be tasty tho
The imperative against slavery is a moral one.
I do not want to live in a world where sentient beings *like myself* are stripped of all the good parts of sentience. It's inefficient.
The mind must tell the body: No breaking the bones and wills of the disobedient.
The imperative against cannibalism is a _biological_ one. We find it disgusting because _eating humans makes us ill._ Therefore the body tells the mind: No. You'll get sick.
‘What about modern day slavery?’
“Its wrong and immoral. Topic seems to be closed on that.”
Meanwhile China remains unblockaded.
Also even economically its an innefecient system, it was made obsolete by western capitalism
The pro slavery people really try their best to distance themselves from blame while also promoting Slavery.
Its like saying Cigarettes are bad for you and they are blowing cigarette smoke right in your face.
Its Hypocrisy at its highest level
For the first argument-
If someone builds a puppy shredder, then sells it to you, does that make your use of it any less immoral then if you had built it yourself?
If someone from a village sells you a button to release a wasp storm on their village does that make it okay somehow to push?
If someone hires you as a hit man does that make your murder any less awful?
No. No. and No.
But if everyone back then used the puppy shredder every day, and my grandfather was the last one to give it up, is it ok for my family to be vilified for generations?
There is a huge double standard where slavery by white europeans is treated like the ultimate, irredeemable sin, while slavery by any other society is simply waves away or ignored.
@@95DarkFire Yes. sure you and you're father should not be vilified but you're grandpa should be and you're second point is dogshit yes slavery is BAD no matter who doing and those were BAD too you're point
@@95DarkFire
It’s because the enslavement of black Africans by White Europeans accounted for 99.99% of slavery in the United States. In regards to the American experience, slavery anywhere else is irrelevant to the topic.
@@chinsaw2727 yet the US only had slavery for 89 years. The shortest for any country to ever have the practice as far as I know.
@@95DarkFireok
But did you or your grandfather defend slavery? If yes, that’s why. Lol stop defending child rape and people won’t hate you for defending child rape…
😂
All races have been enslaved. Even the Caucasian race. My ancestors who were Slavs were enslaved by Muslims. But slavery on every side is horrible.
The interesting thing about slavery apologia is that it misses why slavery persisted. We can make moral arguments all day but what really was the reason it persisted was selectorate theory-there was a small, rich group of southerners who owned slaves who could lobby institutions and who could promote culture due to their wealth. Because of their influence and the need for others to have their backing to stay in power their influence was overly represented despite the fact most of the south did not own slaves. The morality of the situation was secondary
Correct
Small rich group using their power and wealth to influence people into believing that doing obviously wrong, immoral and horrible things to a group of marginalized people are justified and necessary?!?!
Wow, glad that doesn't happen anymore (I say with a lot of sarcasm).
And let out a sigh of sadness.
If that's the case, why did the rank and file fight for them? How did they see something as vile as slavery as a "good" thing worth fighting and dying for?
The last African country didn't abolish slavery until 1981, a near century after the US civil war. Let's hear your moronic dot connecting on how muh white southerners caused that..
@@invisibleman4827 So I am going to assume that you want a genuine answer.
There are many reasons why poor white men join Confederate army. Fierce local patriotism, a sense of adventure, loyalty, etc. While all of this are true, they is also this under-current that was true then as Lydon B Johnson said it off the cuff remark about a century later
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Also, the draft. People forgot that the South started conscription months in the war.
Hi brandon, one additional point I would like to make to the first point is, the reason many people bring up "Well africans enslaved africans too" etc. is to act as a counter argument against the claim that The trans-atlantic, or slavery in general, was a racial institution as much as it was an economic. Whilst this is not the case for many European, asian, or african systems, it definitely became the case in US slavery, as the system of race was heavily encoded into many state legislature. The reason they keep saying "well slavery has existed for thousands of years by other races" is because they want to dismiss the claim that American slavery was racially motivated, and not just an economic/political platform other previous empires had built it on.
By claiming that africans also enslaved africans, they are implying that slavery is not a racial institution/racist, and by extension, neither was the transatlantic slavery, American south slavery, and the reasons for the civil war. A false equivelancy at best, downright stupidity at worst.
I'm guessing you typed this up before you were finished, because he literally says that lmao
@@Oldass_Deadass_dumbass_channel Oh yeah, got ahead of myself lol
@@Killerbee4712no biggie, we all do it sometimes
Extremely well said
The "slavery has existed for thousands of years" argument could very well be an Appeal To Antiquity fallacy. The idea that just because something is "the way it's always been" means that either it shouldn't be changed or, in this case, one shouldn't be judged for not changing it.
Bloodletting, slavery and circumcision have existed for thousands of years but now do liberals all of a sudden just change things. Society is no longer what it once was. Women, children and slaves no longer respect me after I can no longer legally beat them.
Quick reminder on the side that medicine in anyway that we recognise wasn't even a thing pre WW1
So i guess just dying of typhus with nothing to do against it also existed for millennia
And yet people still argue against this even though they can actively feel the outcomes of modern medicine
So why expect people to not be idiots about something that is based in racism with a nice sprinkling of blissful ignorance as it feels so removed today (especially for the descendants of the planter class who aren't taught or willing to learn about their own ancestors crimes against humanity because knowing your grandpa was a terrible human is hard to face)
Agreed, appeals to the past to justify any stance on modern history, or justification for actions taken nowadays or in the past is weird to me. Especially because people act like it is such a 'gotcha I've won' arguement.
Few are the things where their antiquity is a point for their cause, and unfortunately the (systematic) treatment of humans by other humans is very rarely it. Mostly because the death and suffering of one group did give advantage of another group in atleast the short term, but we recognize this to be utterly inhuman.
Sidenote: Nice pfp. Glory to Translesbianotzka.
I think people use that argument because people are quick to demonize the south for slavery but not other societies that used slaves
Einstein apparently said, that two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; but he's uncertain of the first one.
Fun fact
This video was actually interrupted immediately after the first point by a PragerU ad about slavery
In this ad Candace Owens says "Did you know White people did not actually invent slavery?"
😐😣🤦
LMFAOOOOO
I don't see people who say "slavery isn't bad" willingly becoming a slave
I wonder why… 🤔
They’re clowns defending a lost cause. 🤣
People being stupid back then, but somehow were able to write about the freedom of the individual. 😂
As someone with more Confederate veteran ancestors than Union (as far as I know), I do feel some pride in them for the inherent bravery that is to march off to war, to defend you homes and/or fight for what you believe in, however I do recognize my Confederate ancestors were on the wrong side of history, and ultimately, I'm glad they lost.
Get outta here with that nuance, that doesn't belong on RUclips!
@BrandonF then neither does your kicking of a long-dead horse.
@@LivingCrusader Unfortunately this discussion isnt long dead yet.
Sarcasm, friend.
@@BrandonF don't worry, I know!
It's also worth pointing out that most other forms of slavery weren't built on a policy of brutal racial subjugation. Most other historical forms of slavery did not regard the people it enslaved as being inherently servile to their enslavers, it was more of a "right of conquest" thing. TO BE CLEAR, this does NOT mean we can entirely crowbar Anglo-American racial slavery apart from other forms of slavery, nor does it mean that those other forms of slavery were somehow ok. It only means that they were not exactly the same in their rationalization or implementation.
"Even for slavery, the ethnic chattel slavery in America was _especially_ bad."
I mean who in history was worse? Mongolians? Though that straddled the line between slavery and execution-by-march.
Actually they often were. It's just that "races" were smaller before. The Gauls thought of the Latins as a separate race. The English called the Irish and French different "races". In many languages the word for "people/human" and the name of ones ethnic group were the same word. So if someone wasn't a Mongol, they weren't the same race or really human. It goes on back to the tribal level even to the hunter gatherer group.
Any "other" group is not the same race or even human. And therefore their subjugation was acceptable, as was eating them, using them for human sacrifice, and or massacring them wholesale for ethnic cleansing or genocide.
If it makes dehumanization, abuse, and accumulating power easier, any and every difference is called out to make someone a "other" of some type, color based racism is just one form of "othering".
That's Culture, not Race
@@utubenewb1265
@@JoshSweetvale Who in history was worse? How about the Norse who usually picked their human sacrifices from among their slaves. Just as many of the slave holding societies of Central Africa, the Dahomey held many slaves and sacrificed them during their different "festivals", some years they would execute hundreds for one celebration. The Aztecs enslaved, sacrificed and ate hundreds of thousands of their conquered neighbors. When Ireland was filled with slaves (held by the Irish) it is very likely some were sacrificed or maybe eaten.
Slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism were very common throughout many/most regions of the world.
Like almost all things in society, as societies got wealthier and less close to death by starvation or exposure, after centuries systems often became less brutal. To claim that American slavery was more or less brutal depends on what other societies you compare it with.
@@utubenewb1265 arabs were worse
"But the Union had slaves, too!"
Yes. And that was ALSO wrong.
@@MKUltraVictim-sw5qsWhat? 😒
@@MKUltraVictim-sw5qs your serious?
@@MKUltraVictim-sw5qs alright then, I’ll bite.
Slavery is bad because it inherently leads to the abuse and mistreatment of those who are enslaved. It’s a practice that treats people like property rather than, well, people. Simple as.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. These people can’t see that slavery itself is wrong.
@@iamwonkaunles multiplication -1×-1=1😮😢😢😂😂😢😮😅😊😊😊😅😮😢😢🎉😂in Super die hat den den den den den den die hat den den den den die hat den den den den die hat den den den den die
Ok but fr I guarantee the people who defend slavery never put the shopping cart back
They also sit front facing on the toilet.
They be one of those people that leave the restaurant table a total pigsy and leave condescending notes about how you should have served better to get better tips.
Damn monsters
@@EyeonthePrize247LMFAOOO
That first argument kills me every time I hear it.
"Your honor, other people have committed murder. Therefore it is unfair to single my client out, and he should be free to go."
That's about the level of logic we're at with this one.
Why are people so desperate to defend such obviously monstrous behavior?
Edit: you gave the same silly example I did lol
Racism, like all bigotry, is illogical, vicious laziness. Folks with even a modicum of self-awareness don't want to admit to holding these views. Hence, mental gymnastics ensues.
No, the argument is "This guy gave my client the knife and told him to kill the victim, but instead of being charged, he's being rewarded for being a murder victim."
@@filmandfirearmsnot really but keep trying to justify it.
Same way the USA justifies its war crimes
« Guysse there’s a totally bigger baddie around stop looking at me 😡😡😡 »
@@filmandfirearms The Buyer told the seller to sell, not vice versa. And at wich point where african slave sellers rewarded after the freeing and abolishing of slaves?
As always, it seems Florida wants to out-do the stupid by teaching that "but slaves learned valuable work skills!". Yes, they did. And that's not what people hate about slavery. It's more the fact that slaves weren't free to apply their skills to their own benefit and build a future for themselves. They'd have to spend the better years of their lives working to a planter's benefit until they were too old or too injured to gain any meaningful benefit from their abilities. They got all the downsides of slavery, and never received these supposed benefits.
People hate the American form of slavery because of its effects, which is called racism. Not Xenophobia (my god, the amount of people confusing Xenophobia and Racism is impressive, although they can be used at the same time), racism, which still affects us to modern day
Florida is wild 😂😂😂
Florida is crazy 😂😂😂
Specifically singling out florida is strange, is this from something recent or?
It’s the internet, when you think you’ve hit the bottom of the barrel, there’s always another barrel factory to get through.
If you have to say "People would never defend that!", there is at least a moderately sized group of people who will, indeed, defend that.
When you hit the bottom of the barrel and to your surprise the bottom pops off and reveals a bottomless abyss
Upon hitting the bottom of the barrel it caves out from under you and you fall straight into hell.
A worm barrel factory....
@@menschman1464it's not awlays a barrel other sizes of cask are used as well
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” -- Upton Sinclair
"There were hundreds of thousands of Americans in the south who had a problem with slavery" is an important thing to say, because often these people act as though slaves weren't people.
WHY IS THERE A FUCKING BIRD CHIRPING IM GOING TO LOSE IT
He had to go to a zen garden to avoid yelling
That opening monologue has me raving. Respectfully hilarious. If anyone defends slavery, perhaps they should experience chattel slavery until they stop defending it. I think that would be a suitable punishment, but that's just me.
Yes, feel the objectification of the *SLAVER!*
Lincoln was of a similar mind, stating that whenever he'd hear anyone speak in favor of slavery, it would ignite inside him a strong desire to see it tried on that person themselves until they truly understood its horrors.
Wow so stunning and brave youre really showing them with your radical beliefs
@@knownothing3364 Lincoln sure did. He kicked slaver ass with his radical views alongside Grant, Sherman, Thomas, and Meade.
Fuck slavers, give em a taste of their own "superiority".
@@knownothing3364 cope in silence bud
Slavery is gay. You are owning another person.
Is pretty gay owning another man
True true
Here's a fun fact for Neo-Confederates and Neo-Nazis (or am I just repeating myself):
Barack Obama's presidency lasted twice as long as the Confederacy did. 😂
Not really there have been multiple confederation throughout history now if you are solely talking about just the southern 1860 one yes he did
Might be helpful to point out that my state of Massachusetts had banned slavery even before 1776
Well yes, but the actual removal of the system in the north, especially in New England, took quite a while. A census from the 1850s shows that there were thousands of slaves in New England. So while the gesture is good, it didn’t really get put into effect until way later.
@@theodoreroosevelt2154true enough, though I believe most of the slaves further north were in New York (might be wrong tho). And let’s not forget how completely racist and I empathetic all of those northerners had always been to the native Americans (who were the inspiration for the name Massachusetts in the first place, some irony there)
@@calvinpell1738 Most were in New York, I’m pretty sure Pennsylvania had the 2nd highest count.
New Jersey allowed selected blacks (with land/money) and women (with land/money and perhaps no husbands) to vote from the Revolution until 1805.
Correcting myself. New Jersey was 2nd, Pennsylvania was 3rd. New Jersey had 7,000-8,000 slaves, New York breached 10,000
Why can't we all agree slavery no matter what form or who's the master is evil.
But we must justify the idea of owning human beings !!!! 😢😢😢
You can't just tell me my ancestors were bad !
@@danielomar9712im sorry to tell you this presidente but your ancestors were bad
Because then we'd have to bulldoze Dubai into the sea.
@@CowMaster9001 What a shame that would be...
There's too much to gain by justifying the actions of your ancestors politically
Lmao after you covered the fact that just because the slaves were sold by African’s doesn’t justify slavery. I got an add for PragerU saying how slavery in America wasn’t that bad because slavery was around way before people were in America.
yeah prageru is retarded
5:00 YO THAT BIRD IS SPITTIN BARS 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
Thanks for delivering the real history, Brandon. The truth will win out eventually.
"Ancient world didn't think slavery was bad! Look at Rome! Their slaves were docile and content!"
Hey, statue pfp with "Retvrn" in your name, ever heard of a guy called Spartacus? The guy who made Rome shit themselves and they needed heavy hitter like Crassus to take him down, with Pompey finishing off what remained?
"The human experience" is a good one. Smallpox were part of the human experience for a long time as well, and I still don't regret missing out on them one bit.
On the first point Portugal oddly enough has some of the best recorded history of this, having traded with many of the African slave empires and even inviting quite a few of their nobility to visit their own kingdom. Heck, quite a few Portuguese castles even have old portraits of these visiting African nobles.
Oddly enough in school we never learn about portuguese piracy in the indian ocean but we learn about the slave trade
@@ZinvictanGamer we do (I’m Portuguese), but we don’t call it piracy. Mare Clausum (Closed Sea), the policy that, in order to sail the Indic Ocean, you needed a navigation permit from the Portuguese Crown, this in the 16th century, mostly. Woe onto you, if you were intercepted by a Portuguese patrol and didn’t have said permit. This practice was sanctioned by the papacy, on the same line as the Treaty of Tordesillas.
Fun fact: one of the two surviving ships of the Magellan Expedition attempting to return to Spain after the Philippines debacle was captured by a Portuguese patrol while attempting to sneak through the Indic, in what is now Indonesia. We set fire to the ship, brought the crew ashore, and crucified them.
There's a good book by Mark Hughes(Slave Trade 1440 to 1860) which starts off with voyages of exploration down the West African coast. It's a bit of an eye opener.
Under British colonial rule, a few princes were freed because one aristocratic society didn't own other aristocrats.
@@RebeccaOre that doesn't sound very familiar, which part of the world was this?
The same thing happens when talking about the genocide of the native Indians.
“They were killing each other in tribal wars for centuries” well….so were Europeans. Does that mean murdering the Indians was justified? Absolutely NOT!
I think I know what you're alluding to with the "Thomas Jefferson arguments." One I've often heard is that slavery was intended to be phased out in the South or in the CSA, and the slavers were just trying to do so gradually while the North was filled with "radicals." It's a pretty easy one to discredit once you get into the history of antebellum southern political policy regarding slavery, particularly in regards to Manifest Destiny into Latin America and intense advocation for the expansion of the institution into new states.
The north wasn’t filled with “radical” in fact they were very racist to blacks and the majority of those who did want to end slavery wasn’t to help blacks but to get a better market on white labor hence the keep slavery where it is and leave the west for whites only mind set most republicans had at the time hell Lincoln wanted to deport them all yes the south wanted to keep slavery is that the sole and only reason they left the union of course not
There were attempts to bring Central American into the slaving world even after slavery was abolished in Mexico (debt peonage continued) and in Central America. William Walker, an American freebooter, reestablished it in the 1850s. Texas seceded from Mexico because Mexico free slaves, too. and all of the former Mexico was supposed to become slave states. Civil War was not long after the William Walker forces invaded Nicaragua.
Annoying Orange has been around longer than the confederacy.
Slavery is bad. There is no valid disagreement with that statement
@reesf743
It’s a good thing nobody was disagreeing with that statement.
@@liamscott1905 "nobody"
You must be new to the internet
@@liamscott1905sort comments to new mon frere
If someone defends slavery, then apply the golden rule: they are fine with slaves, so they must be fine with being a slave themselves. Them being the slave owners instead of slaves would be a wild fantasy at best anyway
Thank you so much for this channel! It feels like Im living in an alternate reality where so many people think slavery wasn't that bad and Abolitionists and slaves were wrong to fight against it
“Equality is for the weak. Victory is for the strong.” - that comment you showed in support of slavery is so stupid because the guy doesn’t realise that the strongest are the ones who can hold cohesion in an equal society to push forward to victory without infringing on the rights of people. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Slavery is wrong and completely unnecessary. Workers are more productive when they have time and money to live their own lives happily. People also willingly put their lives on the line to defend that when someone comes to try and enslave them in turn making a stronger and more resilient society.
The south lost to the guys using freed slaves to help fight against them. Don’t ever forget that. If the south was so strong because of slavery then why did they lose?
I wonder what a world where everyone was this thoughtful would look like
Just a reminder that slavery officially exists in the USA. Having the highest incarcerated population as a policy to keep up finding poor workers to be enslaved:
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I think there were laws past later, possibly on the state level, to limit the use of prison labor or at least do away with the chain gangs, but I could be wrong.
I watched your video on the worst argument about slavery literally last night, so I'll say here what I said there,
"My best counter against these arguments for slavery is simple, 'They are still people.'"
That's why in history, slavery supporters made a excuse that some races or slaves were not human, subhuman, or closer to animals and therefore it was ok to subjugate them like animals.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c And there are many even now who argue that some races are inherently less intelligent, a disgusting argument I've unfortunately heard put forth more times than I would like.
That is a pretty weak argument, because the value of people was much less in any society in the past than it is today. Most people in the Middle ages were serfs, which is only slightly better than slavery. In that time, slavery was just another social relationship.
In many places of the world, a slave of a rich person could have a better life than the average person. Sabuktigin, the first Emperor of the Ghaznavid dynasty, who ruled from Persian to northern India, was once a slave.
That is why it is so important to understand the historical facts rather than make emotional or "moral" arguments about the past.
@@95DarkFire Cool story. Still slavery. Still people.
@@95DarkFireThe value of a human life never changed. Only people’s worldviews changed.
0:43 - Can't tell if troll or if blaring foghorn instead of a dogwhistle, because oh boy they're not trying to hide anything with that sentence lmao
I genuinely had a guy say "slaves where better off then free people"
Away down South in the land of traitors
Rattlesnakes and alligators
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Where cotton's king and men are chattels
Union boys will win the battles
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away
Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam
Away (away)
Away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Away (away)
Away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
I wish I was in Baltimore
I'd make secession traitors roar
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
We'll put the traitors all to route
I'll bet my boots we'll whip 'em out
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away
Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam
Away (away)
Away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie!
Away (away)
Away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Oh, may our Stars and Stripes still wave
Forever o'er the fee and brave
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
And let our motto ever be
Forever Union and for liberty
Right away (right away)
Come away (come away)
Ride away (ride away)
Come away (come away)
We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away
Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam
Away (away)
Away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Away (away)
Away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Very good song but I prefer the confederate version of Dixie
@@TexasNationalist1836factually incorrect
@@TexasNationalist1836Because glorifying insurrection and rebellion is objectively a Texan tradition.
@@squeaky206Somebody needs to sing the Anthem of Losers and Failure
@@TexasNationalist1836
Bring the good old bugle boys, we'll sing another song!
Sing it with the spirit that will start the world along!
Sing it as we used to sing it, 50, 000 strong!
While we were marching through Georgia!
Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea!
While we were marching through Georgia!
There were many Union men who wept with joyful tears!
When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years!
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers!
While we were marching through Georgia!
Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea!
While we were marching through Georgia!
So we made a thoroughfare for Freedom and her train!
Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the Maine!
Treason fled before us for resistance was in vain!
While we were marching through Georgia!
Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
Hurrah! Hurrah! The flag that makes you free!
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea!
While we were marching
While we were marching
While we were marching through Georgia!
“Who sold the slaves?” kind of misses the point. “Why did they have a market to sell them to?” helps to bring the discussion closer to the heart of the matter. That is one way to respond to that question. Sure, it is responding to a question with a question, but it is responding to an irrelevant question with a relevant one.
Because along the silk road and in the caliphates the market persisted throughout the ages. The whole idea of slavery being bad never colonized extraeuropean territories until much later. See also the quite one-sided dynamics of slavery between European coastal states and eastern Europe vs the barbary coast/ottoman empire.
@@robertmartinu8803 most impressive, sir. A very intelligent and knowledgeable response. Though it may be a gross oversimplification, the simple fact is that some people and cultures do not view their fellow man as equals, as our Declaration of Independence asserts.
When a person is aware of a distinction between themselves and all other forms of life presently known, including within the fossil record, the idea of enslaving such a creature becomes intolerable. What is that distinction? Creativity, willfully expressed. This attribute is most readily identified in our willful and controlled use of fire to perform work, including heating our food. It is further expressed in our ability to take raw material resources, and through the interaction of the skilled labor of an individual knowledgeable in physical principles, that material is transformed into something which never existed before and never would have existed without our intervention as His moral, mortal agents in Creation. It is identified at a still higher level in our ability even to discover such principles, such as the Principle of Least Action, for example.
Thank you for your response, sir! Very good!
Edit: The distinction is between *man* generally and all other forms of life. Not between an individual human and all other forms of life, just for clarification.
Ever notice how people who give the “but what about modern slavery” argument never bring up modern slavery in any other context? It’s just a tool for defending chattel slavery. Which is just pathetic, frankly.
Thanks! I always enjoy your videos, but you REALLY earned a tip today, my brother!
This is very generous of you, thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed!
Edit: Fun fact, this tip is worth roughly 5k video views!
@@BrandonF 😁😁😁
@@BrandonFI love the smell of money in the morning!
The people from the Bronze and Iron Age were not under the delusion that slavery was good or noble. They knew very well that slavery was something cruel and terrible to inflict upon others. That's why slavery was used as a punishment for crimes for example. If that's what you do to bad people, you consider it a bad thing. Nobody is under the delusion that being sent to prison today is a good thing for the prisoners. At best it's considered as a just punishment or a security measures for the rest of society. Slavery was something terrible you inflicted on people you did not like and/or considered inferior in the Ancient world, in other words your defeated enemies, criminals, people who had accumulated debts they could not repay. It was "a just punishment" at best. Nobody in Antiquity thought "these people are better under slavery than free" that's a modern non-sense used by racialists a lot later.
A lot of ancients genuinely did believe that their slaves were better off serving them, though. Slavery isn’t good, but people believed that some people were natural slaves and it was therefore good for them to be serving a “good” master who fed them and “took care of them” etc.
@@laughingseagull000under specific circumstances and boundaries, not the whole concept.
love to imagine bob the tomato is telling me this
For an overview of the Atlantic slave trade with a focus on West and West Central Africa, ‘A Fistful of Shells’ is a really interesting book. Goes into the process whereby those groups in the region who were most willing and able to trade slaves became the richest; wealth which they used to conquer other groups and export more slaves, and so on.
From my Africa History course, one chief tried to stop the gun acquiring wars by saying they were destroying each other and each other's culture, and would end up badly. He wasn't listened to.
@@RebeccaOre The person who want to prevent wars were those who were always ignored.
He was probably shot hah. But really the tribes on the coast bought guns from the european and conquered and sold other africans to europeans to buy more guns and repeat. Interestingly the subsaharan africans have the most genetic diversity of any humans on the planet. Sort of like a wolves to dogs situation where all dogs came from just some wolves. Could explain why polynesians and amerindians who had the least genetic diversity were the most susceptible to diseases and africans were the least susceptible. Amerindians have got to be the most genetically different people to subsaharan africans out of any groups. Along with amerindians and polynesians not having many disease carrying domesticated animals to catch diseases from aswell though.
I’m kind of disappointed that “but the slaves got fed” isn’t on here. Reading that (paraphrased) in the comments of your other vid was the most brain dead take I’d seen in a while.
“At least I gave the kidnapped hostage in my basement I make run a hamster wheel basic human needs”
Wtf is wrong with some people to think slavery is justified cause you have with food.
They also weren't always fed. So factually incorrect on multiple points.
I HAD A HISTORY TEACHER TEACH US THAT. BRO WTF
Another horrible argument I heard them say is that the slaves descendants have it great today and they should be thankful their ancestors were brought over here as slaves. It sickens me.
That's another really BS argument. Most plantations had cash crops (cotton, rice, indigo, or tobacco) and the slaves also raised the food for the plantation and built the plantation houses. The numbers of plantation owners making serious money from the cash crops who could afford to buy rice and beans for the hands was tiny. Jefferson didn't spade his own gardens. Washington had a flax mill and weavery. Most of the clothes in plantations were made by slaves. The slaves, like some landless farm workers today, got to eat what they grew. And if the cash crop failed, the landlord borrowed money against his human property.
“They did it too”, the undying god-king of all lame excuses and eternal refuge of the morally confused.
“But slavery has been around forever!”
So has misogyny, beating up women, and corporate punishment but we view that as bad now don’t we?
When it comes to the first argument, I’ll never understand how people will essentially just say “slavery is bad” and then think that that is a good justification for slavery
I think another good topic to this video series would be the so called "Irish slaves in America" and the difference between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. This seems to come up alot when arguing about slavery
I had an ancestor who was an indentured servant. Shipped over to colonial Virginia after a heist gone bad. He impregnated his boss's daughter (their child was born 5 months after their marriage) and he was given several acres of land at the end of it.
Definitely not an outcome if he had been from Africa.
Yes and no depends on how you define everything was a surf a slave or a crop sharer if your servant was brought by force ( and a lot of Irish where forced into it) and it lasted for say 30 years it would have been your whole adult life kinda like some slave court cases stating the man is free but you own all his labor and property of his labor gets weird how they worded things back than but remember this everyone was a slave to someone else at one time in history
@@josephmitchell3507It was not generational slavery. Their wives and children could not be sold away from them, and the women could not be legally raped and forced to bare the child. I could go on.
Yes it was not generational but still a form of slavery and yes from what I have read woman under I S. could legally be raped but if she had a kid the kid would be free and I S still could legally have been beaten and whipped just like a slave the only difference being to was not generational and hopefully your service would end before you die I am curious how mean where beaten to death right before there time served was up….
@@josephmitchell3507 Indenture was for seven years. One thing the ruling class had utter fits over were indentured servants and black slaves all running away to the frontier and having integrated cultures. See Bacon's Rebellion.
Not gonna lie, if someone ever used any of these arguments with me I'd probably just say "OK..." and just not interact with them again.
That's how they think them winning an argument looks.
Lmao and the absolute worst argument is that it somehow benefited the slaves.
@@TheReformedCatholicI take it you mean that sharecropping was cheaper for plantation owners. Literally that's the only way I could see slavery somehow being "better" for the freedmen
@@TheReformedCatholicI wonder how many people would suffer a life of torment contuing generation by generation in a much lesser form to this very day so they could have iPhones and sometimes consistently have food on the table while growing up, that's your argument right?
The Union Army was 10% escaped slaves. They knew how they'd be treated if captured alive.
@@stevencooper4422 My grandfather was a white sharecropper who worked his way out of that. Best deal is out and out rent if you could make a crop better than the other folks. Shares range from 1/3 to the landlord if the tenant provides traction, fertilizer, and seed to fifty/fifty if the landlord does.
@@RebeccaOre Fort Pillow comes to mind. The black union soldiers were unsure if they should surrender or not, but when the confederate forces entered the fort it didn't make a difference...
I do love that we have examples of antislavery movements as far back as Ancient Greece. Like Abolitionists aren't a modern thing.
It probably predates Ancient Greece, we just lack records of those efforts.
one of my favorite arguments is that the north had slaves too, so the confederacy wasn't bad. The people who do this always throw in states that were admitted to the confederacy as northern states (iv seen them claim Louisiana and Tennessee to be northern states.), and West Virginia (who joined the union on the promise of gradual emancipation, and was one of the first border states to get rid of slavery entirely) Granted, the north had slaves (in much smaller amounts than the south) and it is wrong, but they actually got rid of their slaves willingly (with very few exceptions) and not by force. They also didn't say that their government was built upon slavery, but who am I to judge?
One of the reasons that it is important to point out that in Africa itself the slave trade was mostly the work of African nations themselves is to show exactly how insidious the colonial efforts of the European powers were:
Before European colonial companies got involved in the West African slave trade it existed and was bad, but it was a cultural practice, not an industry. It was a way to integrate war captives into society that was brutal and oppressive, but not aimed at creating a permanent class of people economically exploited for free labour. The few nations that did try to turn the West African form of slavery into that were either quashed by their neighbours or collapsed to slave revolts.
It was the involvement of European colonial companies who eventually started propping up these nascent slaver empires and aiding them in conquering their neighbours, all in order to increase the supply and reduce the price of slaves, that changed slavery from a cultural practice to a cornerstone of the West African economy.
And the only reason why the colonial companies relied on trading with West African nations for slaves instead of just setting up shop is and doing the slave taking themselves (as they'd done nearly everywhere they set up colonies) is that they couldn't. Unlike in other areas, Europeans didn't have much success in their attempts to outright colonise Sub-Saharan Africa. (Even the Cape Colony that would eventually develop into South Africa was only possible because the area had almost no permanent inhabitants and the Dutch built a fort there during the period where the Khoena nomads who used it as grazing land were away.) The big African nations on the East and West coasts of the continent were on technological and military parity with Europeans right up until the mid 19th century.
This is extra relevant because of what happened when the various colonial powers nationalised their colonial companies and turned their colonies into official territories of the state.
When they were still private enterprises (backed and part-owned, but not directly operated, by the state), the colonial companies had been limited in how many people they were allowed to recruit to work for them and the slave trade was a way for these companies to increase the amount of labour available in their mines and plantations without touching their allotted headcount. When they were nationalised, the colonial territories suddenly had access to a lot more workers from their home country. Particularly since this coincided with the start of the industrial revolution and therefore a massive influx of unemployed rural workers seeking employment into the cities.
The national governments of the colonial powers saw encouraging these people to migrate to the colonies as an excellent way to both reduce the pressure on urban centres in Europe and a way to strengthen their hold on their territories... _And it was this, far more than any moral considerations_ that led them to ban the slave trade. They thought that depriving the colonial plantation owners of their steady influx of slaves would force them to employ Europe's urban poor. Instead the plantation owners fixed their labour problem in a different way by setting up, and excuse me while I swallow down the bile I just heaved up, breeding camps for their existing slave population.
Banning the slave trade did have a... positive... effect (if only for the colonial powers) though, since it led to the total economic and social collapse of the West African nations that had become completely dependent on the slave trade. Turns out that when you pivot your society towards a system where half the male population are soldiers who raid your neighbours for slaves and expect to be paid handsomely for it and then people no longer purchase those slaves, you now have both a lot of pissed off neighbours *and* a whole bunch of soldiers who refuse to fight for you because they're no longer receiving the massive pay they've become used to (and also when those soldiers are then forced to fight out of self preservation, they turn out to be horribly inadequate at it because they've spent two centuries focussing on learning how to conduct raids on vulnerable communities in a way that does minimal damage to 'the merchandise', not fighting an actual war). And that collapse, combined with the spill-over into the Central and East areas of the continent is what finally softened it up enough for the Scramble for Africa to kick off.
Yeah, and all the consumers of child porn are the true monsters while the people actually recording themselves violating children are victims of their pernicious buying habits. Why, back before the internet provided a way for me to make a ton of money doing it, my finger-banging kids was just a hobby. But they turned my quaint custom into an industry. Because of them, I actually need to hurt kids.
Sorry your view of pre European involvement Africa with slavery is very wrong.
You can check out ibn battuta account of Mali to see that they did have cattle slavery
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Ibn Battuta's account of Mali is mostly him being a complete Karen and complaining about not being showered in gifts when he arrived and doesn't actually describe anything like Chattel slavery.
In fact the main thing he mentions about slaves in Mali is that the female slaves weren't clothed enough for his taste (but then, neither were the free locals).
At any rate West African slavery before European involvement was not Chattel slavery, because originally the children of slaves were born free. We know this because we have records of roughly when this changed (in the 17th century, after the European hunger for an ever larger supply of fresh bodies led to a controversial decision by some slaving nations to do away with this, which led to a period of unrest and revolts that Europeans helped put down).
@@RvEijndhoven yeah you certainly lack the historically context to understand ibn battuta behavior
His 'Karen' act is normal by standards of that time.
Because rulers were expected to financially support islamic scholars with lavish gifts especially newly arrived wondering scholars like him so they can establish themselves {because Islam doesn't have a church to support it's clergy}
And my point is that no you can see cattal slavery in his recounts that the local inhabitants vied with each other in the number of slaves and servants they had, and was himself given a slave boy as a "hospitality gift." and he mentioned that the sultan gave a tribe of cannibals a slave woman to eat as a good hospitality
And mention of gold mines being worked by slaves
And no you can be born a slave
The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters. Custom, however, has established certain rules with regard to the treatment of slaves, which it is thought dishonourable to violate. Thus the domestic slaves, or such as are born in a man’s own house, are treated with more lenity than those which are purchased with money. ... But these restrictions on the power of the master extend not to the care of prisoners taken in war, nor to that of slaves purchased with money. All these unfortunate beings are considered as strangers and foreigners, who have no right to the protection of the law, and may be treated with severity, or sold to a stranger, according to the pleasure of their owners."
Travels in the Interior of Africa, Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior of Africa v. II, Chapter XXII - War and Slavery
And in islamic parts of Africa you can be born a slave if both of your parents are slaves
I know that because as a Muslim I am familiar with islamic law
This is fascinating stuff! Do you have sources I could check out to learn more, by any chance? I’d love to read up more on African history and precolonial society, but it’s always a pain to find good sources.
Pausing at 5:30 just to say: i think the people who point out that africans had slavery as well are reacting to their own tendency for essentialist thought. They see black people committing crime, and believe it to be a trait of that racial group. In the same spirit, i think maybe their typical reaction to being reminded of the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade is to defend their whiteness, because of their inclination to see everything in black and white or good and evil.
This video is great, but it's sad that stuff like this even needs to be said.
Every time i see neo-confederate cope i have an innate desire to send them a collection of memes from Atun-Shei's fantastic 'Checkmate Lincolnites' series. It's what's deserved.
Very good video and response Brandon
Odd being every “point” atun makes is false and miss leading and there is a lot of videos out there discrediting him
@@josephmitchell3507 Videos "discrediting" him are other neo-confederate chumps. Please read some history texts sometime and you will realize how pervasive the lost cause myth is. Fortunately, their unbelievably stupid beliefs are on the way out. Everybody just laughs at the neo-confederate, neckbeard shut-ins now.
@@josephmitchell3507sure 😂😂😂
@@LewisB3217 These guys you are believeing are low tier lefties, trying to rewrite history. Even in this video this guy strawmanned a few arguments.
Send them pics of General Sherman
It always gets me when people bring up what I like to call "so-what details" and then just sit back grinning like they won the debate...
The Netherlands are pretty much the only country in Europe, where a majority is mostly proud of their nation's colonial history...
The VOC are a huge inspiration for early modern period murderhobo adventures.
One dumb video I watched about "what schools didn't teach you about slavery" said a really dumb thing: slavery isn't about racism, it's about the strong dominating the weak. That's not exactly any better of a way to make slavery look good. And if you look at written records throughout history, there will always be racial prejudice against enslaved people.
Bro can you put the link, in too curious
@@superforresttie1032 It's a video about slavery from Thomas Sowell. It's a video from a channel that does text to speech excerpts of his books. The guy has a lot of shitty takes
@@boxdynomite3 thx
Maybe the true Confederacy was the friends we made along the way...
Bless your soul, Brandon F.
The quest for truth continues.
What did Ron DeSantis say pro slavery?
I am just interested!
Would love for you to take on an argument my teacher made, "those people are better here in America than they would be in Africa." He than turned to me and asked "would you rather be a slave in America or living in a hut in Africa?" To which I replied, " I'd rather be free".
It would certainly be interesting to track down 100 people descended from slaves, and 100 descended from the same ethnic group but which were not kidnapped and sold as property and compare the comfort of their lives....
@@CowMaster9001 we actually are able to do that, and overall, those who were allowed to build generational wealth without the being hindered by slavery or laws similar to Jim Crow, they typically have a better standard of living
@@ADP057 many of the people who see American slavery as a unique evil which uniquely requires reparations also see "generational wealth" as an evil.
@@CowMaster9001 they may see the building of generational wealth as evil, bit I do not. Furthermore, everyone has their own combination of beliefs. But you did bring up reparations, so I wonder what your opinion is on providing pay back programs to those decended of enslaved people
It's a simple but overlooked horror of slavery. Imagine how traumatizing it would be if aliens came to earth and your own leaders sold you off to them. Along the trip your family dies of beating or sickness. You now live in a foreign world and are treated horrifically. But hey, along the line, things get better for you, better than they have ever been. Even if this world wasn't designed with you in mind, you've still managed to slip through the cracks. But you never see earth again. Gradually, this nightmare you've lived starts to feel like reality and your life before starts to feel like a dream.
Even if you were treated horrifically back home, you would rather be home.
And if you're talking about people who were born here, well then it's a classic "other people have it worse" argument which completely discredits all the challenges both psychologically and materially that black people face today.
A point I've always made when pro-sl@very people talk about Africans participating in the trade; the big difference was that European traders came from cultures in which they had already established a distaste and a philosophical framework opposed to slavery and chose to capitalize on it anyway. Which is why people in Europe started inventing moral loopholes, like africans "not actually being people" so they could live with the cognitive dissonance.