Wait, is it true that a lot of modern surnames come from the…uhh…Irish people rescuing drowning…members of the Spanish Armada?
I heard this somewhere. I forget the specifics. 
I guess this amounts to a plug, but I’ve got no financial interest in it:
This book (“American Slavery: 1619-1877”, by Peter Kolchin) is the best book I’ve read thus far on (I’d say “the Peculiar Institution”, but that phrase is clever the first time and irritating afterwards) Slavery in America (and the Americas). Perhaps it was my “Wow, in college, you actually learn about unusual things!” response, but what I found fascinating about this book was that it looked at slavery in the American South (which smaller parts on how it related to slavery in other parts of the globe) from a largely economic perspective – which is to say, I felt that before I studied this, I had the same question as every modern person on my lips, namely, “How could people ever do this? What were they thinking?”
Basically: they were thinking money. It (the aforementioned book) demonstrates how the South became an agrarian, slave-labor society – and how, putting aside the moral issues, this basically created an American South that was, in effect, a “slave economy”. Meanwhile, the North was industrializing, if only simply because it had to (inferior agricultural land, which led to a long-term reduction in the cost-effectiveness of Northern slave-labor, and so on).
One of the most striking facts that I recall from the book was that, during the height of the King Cotton years – the South was still so lacking in industrialization that they had to ship their raw cotton North (or across the pond), simply so that it could be turned from a raw material into what we’d now call a “value-added product”; the Southernors, by trapping themselves in a slave economy, had basically allowed the “real money” to be made elsewhere (textile mill areas: drive through parts of the upper northeast, and you’ll still see them; heck, consider the UK – Manchester was “Cottonopolis”).
Anyway, not seeking to dump on any party, here, and that thesis is certainly arguable, but – let’s tie this back to the OP – did Blacks build the South? Damn right they did, but their “bosses” (ahem.) didn’t see how important industrialization was. Certainly, the South could have industrialized – and an interesting question is whether Slave labor would have quickly become “unfree factory labor” a la Dickensian England, or Dickensian America, or probably Dickensian Anywhere – that’s another question.
So, in summation: I don’t know. 
Unlikely.
I thought they were really the Picts?
it boggles my mind to see how controversial this question is. Warning? Ill take a warning any day sir, Im not the right person to tell anyone how to do their “job”. this is a question that makes people think, hmm maybe just maybe the wasps don’t have all the answers
There are only two ethnic groups in America. Blacks and WASPs.
Oh, wait. There are also white scottish protestants, white german protestants, white french protestants, white anglo-saxon catholics, white irish catholics, white german catholics, white (off white) italian catholics. I could go on, but you get the drift. It’s irritating when people say “WASP” when they mean white. Unless you’re anglo-saxon and protestant and white, you’re not a WASP. WASPS are a small minority of white people in America.
No, actually, it makes people wonder when is the op going to post a debate.
cute! I take it you are a white person, you have never seen the effects of structural racism Ill take it. If you are a black male in 2011 you see racism every single days. If you are being hassled every single day, you will steal a car sooner or later.
Not my point, of course the slaves brought their culture to the us. Without the influence from Africa, Us would be nothing but anarchy. (nb. my theory)
Err…
No.
Easy evidence against your hypothesis: look at modern Africa. Notice how quite a lot of it is a festering shithole, despite the blacks being there.
Now look at Japan. See how good it’s doing without the blacks? Or England? Or Germany?
Seriously, it’s a horribly misguided hypothesis.
You misspelled “incoherent.”
Can we just move this over to the pit so that we can use the personal insults that are clearly necessary here?
Glad to see you slept it off.
The “question” is not so much controversial as silly.
You were given the opportunity to defend it and chose to not bother even trying.
This is a Warning not to pull this sort of joke again.
Thread closed.
[ /Moderating ]