The law of economics works regardless of the setting. If slavery worked in Brazil’s agrarian based economy, why would it suddenly become unprofitable in the South?
You again demonstrate ignorance of history. Enslaved women didn’t get maternity leave; they were expected to be up and about very quickly. This “considerable period of time” that they were laid up was a matter of days. You make it sound like slaves were covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act or something. And children were expected work their asses off, too. They ran errands, toted water, picked cotton, etc.
I have no idea where you’re pulling these assertions from but in spelling out the word assertion, I think I have a clue.
What does it matter what factory workers cost in the North? This is a ridiculous question! The South and North had their own economies; they did not compete in the same markets. So it really doesn’t matter if the factory worker was cheaper to the industrialist than the slave was to the planter. Both sides had a viable method of making their dollars. If they had financially competed against one another, then we’d know which method was better. It would be the method that ended up surviving without the intervening hand of the 13th amendment.
You might as well be asking us to compare and contrast the cost of hiring illegal immigrants to work in a cornfield with the cost of hiring board certified physicians to run a hospital. Two different markets, therefore two different set of pressures.
This is so funny. Even today in our “humane” society, I have witness women who didn’t have the ‘right’ insurance or had a need to work, leave the hospital within days, I mean like 3 days of having a child…regardless of their ability to care for themselves, let alone a newborn.
Does DrDeth really believe and perhaps he’ll answer, that a slave who was considered and treated has property be allowed to lay in bed for a ‘considerable’ time? Does that make any sense?
So like you, I find DrDeth so far out of the loop in this, it’s sad.
That was a plot point in “The Necessity of His Condition,” a short story by Avram Davidson. Good story, too, look it up if you get a chance, it’s in several Davidson collections.
This is,perhaps, true. (It is certainly true for the slaves.)
However, we have not yet seen any evidence that slavery was an economic burden on the South once the gang stystem was employed on the appropriate crops.
You are doing this because you are a dishonest debater and a liar. I made the “claim” in response to what someone else said, and what you tried to defend. It’s up to you to prove that my challenge to your clearly specious and inaccurate allegations is wrong. Would you like a definition of slavery? Here’s a cite all about slavery which states the following:
They also includes first hand accounts of the beating s if this isn’t up to snuff. The fact that slaves were often beaten to death shows many slave owners had little appreciation for their health.
Another interesting tidbit:
[
About those expensive housing costs…
So it appears you are full of shit in every regard.
I assume this is a typo.
If you have an integrity and honor, admit you are wrong and crawl back under the rock you came from.
brickbacon, nothing posted in this thread requires a response that another poster is deliberately lying and there is no reason to make a personal attack saying that anyone is “full of shit.”
Consider reading Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, by Keith B. Richburg. He spent 3 years in Africa as a foreign correspondant for the Washington Post and came back filled with rage at the treatment he recieved in Africa at the hands of both whites and blacks, and filled with gratitude that his ancestors had gotten out.
However, Richburg was in contact with an Africa that was shaped by slave-taking, colonialism, and late 20th century electronic images of U.S. culture, all three of which had an effect on how Africans peceived and treated him. I am not saying the book has nothing to say, but it seems to not address the discussion of this thread.
Seems to me that it’s highly likely that the rough treatment he experienced was a ramification of the slave trade itself. A lot of Africans are prejudiced against African-Americans. Why? Because we are the descendants of slaves, duh. And needless to say, one of slavery’s famous legacies is white racism. His experience in Africa would have probably been a completely different thing had slavery not existed.
But hey, he’s free to feel an illogical sense of gratitude that his ancestors were brutalized and treated like animals just so that one day he could live in place a where he can write books about how he’s glad his ancestors were brutalized and treated like animals. More power to him.
Hang on, you got Richburg wrong. A lot of what drove his rage was what struck him as the prejudice of black Africans against him because his appearance suggested that he was from another country in Africa, not because he was American. Even those who knew he was American treated him disrespectfully because they thought his lineage was not of their country and thus unworthy, e.g, border guards insisting he was Zairean when they plainly knew otherwise. He was stunned how tribal black Africa still is, not that whites were any better. He protests a line-cutting woman in Kenya, who immediately recognizes his accent as American and says, “oh, sorry! I thought you were African.”
I have a feeling his book would give me a headache, if your synopsis is accurate.
Let me get this straight: He left Africa grateful that his ancestors were brought to the U.S. because people there were prejudice against him?I don’t know where he’s from or where he’s traveled, or what kind of book learning he’s got, but somebody oughta tell him that the U.S. practically patented prejudice against folks like him.
Is he so self-centered that he can only see things from his experience only? His ancestors had to put up with a lot unnecessary hell (prejudice was a mere nuisance compared to the other crap they had to deal with) and just because those people were strong enough to survive that hell long enough to pass their chromosomes on to another generation, it doesn’t mean that a recipient of their genes should feel grateful for a fate like that. If he should feel grateful for anything, it should be for the fortitude of his ancestors who managed to survive that shit. Feeling gratitiude for the shit itself is just beyond horrible.
Enquiring minds still want to know if Joakim Noah is white in your eyes. You’ve had plenty of time to look up the “right” answer, but you should be brave enough to give an honest, bullshit-free answer.
And while you’re at it, care to answer the harmless questions I asked? I mean, if your going to accuse me of being a hypocrite and all, it should be no problem to state and support your position as I have done.
I’d be curious what you think is being proven by Noah’s appearance. I looked up the “right” answer and it matched my off-the-cuff opinion pretty well.
(I’m not sure that we are in disagreement regarding appearances and race; I am just not sure what you think is proven by (American) reactions to Joakim Noah.)
Little Nemo says that he’d call 75/25 (Euro/Afro) mixes white “unless he had some particular reason not to” (whatever that means). So If LN is to be consistent, the “right” answer will be white. But I’m curious if Joakim would actually be considered white by Little Nemo if he saw the guy walking down the street. I doubt he would, but he seems to be under the impression that my racial beliefs are mine and mine alone. I’m trying to show them that they are not.
I’m figuring the “particular reason” Little Nemo may have for not calling him white is simply because he “looks” black. Logic that is rather circular, if you think about it. “Looking black” is rather easy to do when the one-drop rule is being used as your guide. The threshold for looking white is so much higher than the threshold for looking black that even a guy that has three times as much “white blood” still quite easily looks black. In fact, he looks much like many, average everyday black African-Americans who are the subject of this thread.
You know, the salads who are constantly refered to as bowls of tomatoes in order to show that slavery left them better off because otherwise they’d be in Africa dying from malaria and pellagra. You know, them.