Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Slavery....good for African-Americans?Follow

#52 Mar 21 2007 at 9:56 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Open the box and the thing's pristine. Like brand new. I was amazed it wasn't still warm.
I blame the transluscent and slightly luminescent orange goo they cook them in.

How do you think I keep my hair this particular shade of orange, hmm?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#53 Mar 21 2007 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I worked at a McD's for a stint in college. I walked away feeling good enough about most of it but, having seen those McRibs in the making, I can't touch the things.


A Coworker put one in a file storage box by mistake once, stored it, we reopen it 2 years and 27 days later and see the McRib box staring up at us. Open the box and the thing's pristine. Like brand new. I was amazed it wasn't still warm.



Upon seeing the lost sandwhich did your coworker jump up and shout:

"That's what happened to that thing! Man, that's been bugging me for the last 2 years and 27 days. I swear I was going crazy. Man, Wow! That's a load off my mind."
#54 Mar 21 2007 at 10:56 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
But we're speaking of broad trends, not looking for individual exceptions.


Quote:
But I sure as hell would have rather been a Chinese guy in California in the 1850's than an African.


This was my point. Would you rather have been ANY Chinese guy than ANY African? Speaking in broad trends is fine, but when you start trying to give those broad trends personal meaning, you have to remember that a lot of those broad trends are relatively inconsequential to individuals in the context of their lives.
#55 Mar 21 2007 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
Would you rather have been ANY Chinese guy than ANY African?
On average, sure.

If you asked someone "Would you rather be born to a very wealthy family or a family of dirt farmers?" most would choose the former because, on average, wealthy people have a higher quality of life. Broad trends.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Mar 21 2007 at 11:16 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Not on average :p I doubt the most mistreated Chinese immigrant was especially concerned with the averages. They didn't take much solace in the fact that as a "broad trend" Chinese people had it better than Africans, I imagine.
#57 Mar 21 2007 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, the point remains. Regardless of the theory that some slaves were pampered pets (and by the way: prove it), the question is couched in general terms.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#58 Mar 21 2007 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
WTF does that have to do with anything? If I find some French guy who was reduced down to a head in a jar of **** during the era of Western expansion, does that mean that "The native Americas were screwed over worse than the French during the era of Western expansion" is suddenly false?

Yeah, broad trends. That's what we're talking about here. The OP asked about the life of African-Americans in general, not how John Brown of 220 S. Eagle St, Gary, Indiana would be doing today. The question is debated by observing and extrapolating from broad trends in society throughout the period in question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Mar 21 2007 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
To the OP, my suppositions (based on an assumption that the Africa/America/Europe slave trade had never started):

Africa
Not much different to how it is now. Slavery was already going on among African tribes - we just elevated it to an industrial scale.
We'd still have raped the place though. Dutch, Portuguese, Belgian, French, German and of course Brit opportunists were already there for Gold and other valuable ore, Ivory, spices, timber, missionary work. . . Slavery was just a financial bonus.

Europe
The Industrial Revolution (which spawned steam engines and railroads and the subsequent development of the internal combustion engine, mass-production, enhanced mining, metallurgy etc etc) in the 17th and 18th Century were a direct response to the need for faster turnaround of cotton spinning and weaving.
The cotton was Europe's major by-product of slavery.
We'd probably have developed the technology, but without the exacerbation of the cotton market, I guess 100 to 150 years later.

USA
Would the southern cotton industry have been as successful with paid laboUr? I doubt it. So a less prosperous confederacy.
Would there still have been a civil war?
I suspect not.
We could be looking at a 21st century confederacy in what is now USA, with decent odds it would be part of the British Commonwealth like Canada and Australia.

And African Americans?
Without the cultural memory of being systematically repressed and brutalised by a specific demographic, the current understandable bitterness might not be there.
Snoop Dogg would be rapping about growing roses, Michael Jackson would still be a black mentally ill man (instead of being a white mentally ill girl) and Chris Rock's standup Routine would be 1min 12secs.

As it is we've ingrained a mistrust that will probably endure for another 200 years.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#60 Mar 21 2007 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
I brought it up because you made the leap from broad trends to individual experiences with that earlier statement :)

I'm not disagreeing with you, just further noting the futility of generalizing the situation. i.e.,

Quote:
does that mean that "The native Americas were screwed over worse than the French during the era of Western expansion" is suddenly false?


I'm saying it doesn't really matter if it's true or false to either the native Americans or the French guy.
#61 Mar 21 2007 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No one is asking for their opinions. In fact, their individual opinions aren't even relevant.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Mar 21 2007 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Nor is a comparison of the broad trends between Chinese immigrants and African slaves.
#63 Mar 21 2007 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I didn't originally bring them up. Complain to DaimenKain.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Mar 21 2007 at 12:20 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Well I'm not the one complaining about the relevancy of discussion to the OP :d As a matter of fact, since when did we start caring about that?
#65 Mar 21 2007 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
teh Nobs wrote:
Would the southern cotton industry have been as successful with paid laboUr? I doubt it. So a less prosperous confederacy.
Would there still have been a civil war?
I suspect not.


There wouldn't have been a civil war, because the southern states wouldn't have had the population or the prosperity, not to mention the motivation, to consider secession.

It's ironic that adult male slaves were counted as 3/5 of a white man in the population polls, in that the resulting increase in population gave the southern states the political clout to press the issue of expanding slavery into new territories.

But that's not the issue here, or I suppose it isn't. I confess I have no grasp of what the issue IS, here.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#66 Mar 21 2007 at 12:48 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
It's a speculation thread. Fun :o

#67 Mar 21 2007 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
1) No "Americans" were involved in the early slave trade. (they didnt exist yet)
2)Alot of "Africans" were, good way to get rid of & profit off of people from other tribes you have conquered.
3) On the Hitler question, you could easily argue that he was significantly responsible for the creation of the modern state of Israel.

oops, my dinner is ready
#68 Mar 21 2007 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
how John Brown of 220 S. Eagle St, Gary, Indiana would be doing today
Seriously, he is living in Gary, Indiana. How well could he really be doing?
#69 Mar 21 2007 at 11:35 PM Rating: Decent
*****
15,952 posts
Quote:
It sounds horrible, like I'm condoning slavery or even the Holocaust, but I'm not. I'm just pointing out that good things [can] come out of horrible events, and wanted to see what you guys think.


Anyone who has paid much attention to history knows it is just full of ironies.


(Nobby, those speculations built on the original speculation were brilliant. We can never know if they are anywhere close to what would have happened, but they are certainly something to think about. Myself, I think that there were a lot of things converging that birthed the industial revolution, so I think saying 100 years delay in it is a bit unrealistic. I suspect that wool and hemp manufacture would have stepped in, but that may have taken a little longer, since although both were readily farmed, certainly the cheapness of slave grown cotten was a factor in how fast industry grew on it's back)

Edited, Mar 22nd 2007 3:49am by Aripyanfar
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 340 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (340)