Ask yourself why the descendants of slaves are forever being compared to Africans, but never to Europeans, even though 25% of their heritage on average comes from white people.
Perhaps my objection isn’t obvious to you because we are speaking about nameless, faceless people whose ethnic identity doesn’t seem all that complex to someone outside of it. So let me put a human face to it. Dana Ownens is a black person, a descendant of American slaves. Why would we think of comparing her to Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo?
Seems to me that her hodgepodge makeup makes the comparison of her with President Obasanjo rather apple and orangish. She is not an African, so why would we ever look at these two rather different people and say she came out better than he did? Because her skin is brown and so is his? Because some of her ancestors may have come from the same pool that his came from? That’s not a good enough reason. A good many of her ancestors also came from America and Europe. Ethnically she is as much West African as your average white person is German. Which is not much.
Wentworth Miller is a black guy, too. Would anyone ever think of comparing him to someone in Africa? But if you do it for Dana and all the other descendants of slaves, then you gotta do it for him, too.
Everyone is also assuming that the US would be the same, or similar, if they was no slave trade. Who knows what this country would be like? I sincerely doubt it would be the way it is now. We wouldn’t have had millions or hours of free labor, we wouldn’t be seen as a melting pot, we wouldn’t have the economic prosperity we have today, and the wars we’ve been involved in would have turned out very differently (if they happened at all). Basically, this is a very stupid and insulting question that has no good answer.
You, allow me to acknowledge the obvious; many people have ancestors of different races. So very few people are one “pure” race (other than human).
But now you should acknowledge the obvious; people who are 75% descended from black ancestors are usually going to be considered black themselves and people who are 75% descended from white ancestors are usually going to be considered white themselves. There are some people who are of such mixed ancestry that their race might be considered either black or white (or some other mixture of races) but for 99% of the population of this country, race is pretty much fixed at birth. So pretending that race is an illusion because it “only” effects 99% of the people in America is not going to go too far.
Bolding mine. What makes you think that slavery created prosperity ? Slaves are inferior workers, just as conscripts are inferior soldiers to volunteers. Slavery benefited the slave traders, and often the owners, but to society as a whole it was an economic drag. That’s why the North was economically superior to the South; the South basically turned itself into what we would call a Third World country.
I have a vague memory from high school, way back when, about a book on this published on this subject about the same time as Uncle Tom’s Cabin, to great furor at the time but now largely forgotten. I was told that it said just what I’ve been talking about, that slavery was impoverishing the South. Does anyone else remember this ? That’s all I recall.
Inferior to whom? Even if you meant less productive, there is no way to even begin to prove that. I’ll like a cite on what types of workers slaves are. I would think the fear of death or a brutal ass kicking is enough to make most people work. Either way, arguing that decades of free labor didn’t create economic prosperity is mind numbingly stupid.
How is it an economic drag?
No, it’s not. Not to mention that the North wouldn’t have been the way it was without the raw materials, goods, etc. created in the South. Why do you think American company will move shit overseas just to utilize what basically amounts to slave labor? If it is so economically superior to use well paid, happy workers, why do companies desire to pay so little. You either have a basic misunderstanding of economics or you are terribly ignorant.
Don’t have one; that’s one reason why I asked if anyone else remembered that book. I read about this stuff many years ago, long before I had a computer to bookmark cites on.
No, it’s an observation of human nature, and the impoverishment of the South. Sure, you can force them to work, just as you can force conscripts to fight; they just won’t do it very well. Not to mention that they had to keep the slaves uneducated to help contol them, which meant there were a great many jobs the slave couldn’t do. The South stayed agricultural while the North industrialized, because slavery crippled it too badly.
See above. You had a huge number of workers who worked inefficiently, and at best did what they were told, and nothing more. To quote Napoleon, “morale is to the material as three is to one”; and slaves have very low morale. He was speaking of war, but the principle applies.
They would have gotten those materials from some other producer of raw materials and poorly made goods. It would have been a bit more expensive, and the South would have collapsed completely. Unless the raw material in question is something relatively rare like oil, that’s why the producers of raw materials tend to be impoverished; they have no economic leverage.
In some cases, because the employers don’t care, and are more concerned about grinding an economic boot into their employee’s faces than increasing profits. In others, they are simply ignorant. In yet others, they subscribe to the common managerial attitude that workers are just a replacable resouce, and don’t think of how they feel at all, much less about how that affects or does not affect productivity. Besides, the worst effects are felt on society as a whole, not on the individual boss/owner.
That doesn’t seem right with me. During the later part of the slavery, it wasn’t very profitable, since agriculture was being taken over by the industrial revolution, and the production value of agricultural lands was generally in decline. But to say slavery did not create prosperity and that it actually made the South poor is a huge overstatement. Slaves cleared virgin forests. They established crops that whites had no history with. They built large buildings without machinary (our own Capitol speaks to this). They fought wars, including skirmishes with Indians, for no pay. When the cotton gin came on the scene, slaves made cotton king. It’s estimated that the wealth generated by slave labor was in the trillions. Slavery was not perpetuated irrationally: it made plenty of folks rich, and not just fat-cat planters.
Without slavery, our early presidents may have been regular statesmen, at best. Without Washington’s over 300 slaves and Jefferson’s 650 slaves, we could very well be British territory right now. Twelve US presidents owned slaves. I don’t think these folks would have seen office if it hadn’t been for the wealth generated by their “assets”.
No, you still don’t get it. What’s obvious to me still alludes you.
If the average black is actually 25% white, ask yourself why they are called black. Ask youself also how little African blood it takes to make someone black and then think a little about slavery’s role in how we define blackness today. Then perhaps it will start dawning on you how very stupid the OP’s question is.
The one-drop rule made it so that a black person could be anyone with up 100% African blood to less than ~3% . The one-drop rule was invented because of slavery. The Halle Berry’s of the world wouldn’t likely be called black, if it hadn’t been for slavery and the one-drop rule. Neither, in all probability, would I. In fact, I probably wouldn’t exist at all. The one-drop rule made it difficult for blacks to assimilate like other immigrants did, because historically, white people have a problem with producing black kids. It created a pressure that kept blacks with other blacks. Had that pressure not existed, blacks would have diffused genetically with the greater population a lot more.
Flip the one-drop rule on its head and pretend, for a second, that all it takes is a “drop” of white blood to turn someone white. That would mean that most descendants of American slaves (who on average are 25% white) would be actually considered white people in this particular parallel universe. As Aeschines succintly pointed out, our perception of blackness is product of our collective imagination. The very same people who we call black today probably wouldn’t be called black if it hadn’t been for slavery. This is what is annoyingly obvious to me.
Hate to break it to you, but it’s a lot more complex than that. Did you read the cite I linked to? 25% is an average. There are many black people who are actually more European than African, and there are some who actually have undetectable levels of African DNA in their genes. Yet that is often lost on people in discussions such as this one because they think black = 100% African, therefore leading them to make comparisons they’d never think of making with other groups.
For one thing, race is not “fixed” at birth. If I go to South Africa right now, my race suddenly changes. The same if I went to Brazil or Haiti. So in a way, yes, race is an illusion.
But that’s not the point you with the face was making. Her point is that black Americans (most of them) are not Africans. We are more closely connected to the continent through genetics than whites are, but this does not make us African. By asking us if we’re better off here in the States than we would be if we had been left alone in Africa, you’re essentially telling us that you see us as transplanted Africans. Even though for bunches of us, we’re not only African, but we’re Native American and European too. For the large percentage of us who are actually 50% black and 50% white (and I’m not just talking about parentage…just see that program hosted by Henry Louis Gates), you could very well ask these folks if they are better off here than in Europe. But that question never gets asked for some reason, because race confuses things.
An alien from another planet who sees genotype instead of phenotype would probably see the question as bizarre.
The flaw in your logic is the assumption that the same and better couldn’t have been achieved by free people. If all those Africans had been free immigrants, what makes you think they couldn’t have done everything they did and do it better, given that they would be much better educated and motivated ? If you were right, the Soviet Union would have been far more competitive with America. If you’re right, volunteer armies would be less effective than conscript ones; they aren’t. Wherever you find a major segment of the population subjugated, you tend to find an impoverished society.
I should have specified “sub-Saharan.” But for purposes of this kind of discussion North Africa should be annexed to other places – it is and always has been culturally (and racially, FWIW) distinct, indeed largely isolated, from everything south of the Sahara. Afrocentrists who claim Egypt as an “African” civilization, simultaneously equating “African” with “negro,” are full of shit.
See above. But can you clarify your terms? “Coptic” is an archaic word for “Egyptian”; nowadays it refers to the Christian minority of Egypt.Nubians are an ethnic group of Egypt and Sudan. And, of course, I’ve already mentioned the Ethiopians, just south of Sudan, who had a native syllabary. To which were you referring?
You mean, written in Arabic letters? No, I didn’t know that.
I’ve heard many blacks say – sometimes argue fiercely – that that’s how they see themselves, and how they should see themselves. I recall one I saw on TV: “My granma used to say, ‘Kitten might crawl up in the oven but that don’t make him biscuit!’”
Nonsense, of course. African-Americans are biologically of mixed race (I’ve read there’s some American Indian blood in the mix too, BTW; some Indians kept slaves back in the day), and more importantly they are the products of an American ethnic subculture that bears no resemblance to any culture in Africa, the Caribbean or Latin America, and which owes a lot more to Europe than to Africa. Any African-American almost certainly would feel more at home in Copenhagen than in Kinshasa.
Just because slavery labor would have been less productive than paid labor, doesn’t mean that it was unprofitable. There wasn’t always enough workers to do the work, for one thing, especially when the country was in its infancy. That was why Africans were brought over here in the first place.
I doubt that it would have taken a war to end slavery if the system was as woefully inefficient as you’re making it out to be.
I had a friend from Tanzania who was more racist against African-Americans than any white person I ever met. She believed the crime, poverty, and “immorality” (single mothers) was genetic in nature, and she said it was because the Africans who were brought from America had their blood polluted by the worst of the white Americans. Her reasoning was that all American blacks had a substantial amount of European ancestry, and that the only whites who would have sex with a black person for most of their history in the USA were lower class and/or immoral.
I don’t think I agree with her, but it did make me think…if a substantial portion of blacks even in the 1860s were of mixed heritage, and miscegenation was considered a crime, all the blacks of mixed heritage had criminals for parents.
How did you infer any of this from what I posted? I didn’t say anything about slaves doing anything better than anyone else. I’m talking about what they did. You essentially said slaves did nothing, that they were a drain on the economy, and that they were inferior workers. Your claims have no basis in reality.
We could speculate all day long. That’s why I generally stay away from these kind of “what if” threads. If the slaves hadn’t been around, Americans very well could have exploited another racial group, like the Chinese. Instead of fried chicken and collard greens being served at soul food restaurants, we would be eating chop suey and rice. If the slaves hadn’t been around, Irish immigrants might have swarmed over here earlier, in larger numbers, bringing the potato famine over here. We might not have a White House because of that, and no french fries either. If the slaves hadn’t been around, we might have lost the Revolutionary War. We could be talking in a Cockney accent and eating blood pudding pops while we watch soccer on the tellie. If the slaves hadn’t been around, we might have a black president right now, sending us to war in with the Antarcticans, who hold a monopoly on the Spice.
The whole world and course of human history would be different without slavery. Speculating how it would be different is an interesting exercise, but only as much as any other navel-gazing activity. If you aren’t interested in getting the basic facts of what actually happened correct, Der Trihs, then I don’t see what’s the point.
You’ve made a few unsupportable assumptions, here.
For one thing, you are taking a relative comparison and trying to turn it into an absolute. It may be true that slaves are less efficient than free workers, but by how much? If a slave is only 10% as effective as a free worker, you would need a lot of slaves to make up for their lack of freedom. However, if slaves are 95% as effective as free workers, then you need to prove that the difference in wages makes up for the difference in substandard housing. Barring real numbers, you are simply expressing a comparison of unknown quantity as a fact of importance.
Your volunteer/conscript claim suffers the same problem: my drafted uncle and his mostly drafted buddies beat off several fierce attacks by volunteer SS troops in the Ardennes at a time when there was no air cover, no artillery support, and no defensive tanks around. “Better” has to be placed in a specific context to be meaningful.
