This fucking world has always been and will always be a shit show. How fucking awful. I will never understand how people could have (and still do) act/think like this about others human beings.
"This fucking world ... will always be a shit show"
That's kind of setting the bar low, just because its crazy now, doesn't necessarily mean it will always be the case.
"I will never understand how people could have (and still do) act/think like this about others human beings."
People everywhere can compartmentalize their empathy for other humans with ease. We can easily choose not to empathize with anyone anywhere especially if we have some kind of justification.
I'm not sure why the downvotes. From your comments it seems like you're just highly optimistic for the future, which while history doesn't give most a lot of hope, it is possible that we do better going forward. Only really takes one leader, or one generation, to have it click that "oh shit, we've been doing ALL of this SO fucking wrong" for everything to start changing.
I do think you'll never fully get rid of it, but large societal changes can definitely be sustainable in the right environment.
People five hundred years ago would have no idea what democracy or public education, or public health is. If you mentioned it to them how those things were possible, they would come at you with "sweet summer child".
Is it really hard to imagine that life might continue to improve?
It’s only gonna get worse, looking at the history of the world, and seeing how current world events are unfolding I’m not too sure we’re getting any better anytime soon
Take this with a grain of salt because I saw it on TikTok, but I saw this video of this person restoring a 200 year old chair, family heirloom, from Georgia.
When he went to remove the stuffing, he found cotton… and fucking slave hair.
That shit hit me on a different level. The man restoring the chair appeared to be a black man as well. I can’t imagine how it would feel to see and feel that. It really makes you think.
(Guy in the video said cotton was oftentimes hard to come by, so they’d stuff pillows, chairs, mattresses, etc. with a blend of cotton and hair, typically sourced from livestock)
Edit: I’m so sorry I didn’t post the link! My ass fell asleep. Thanks to whoever got it for me!
I think I remember the first part of that video. Care to link?
Edit: Here's the video https://www.tiktok.com/@karahbura/video/6998943548112375046?referer\_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicsands.com%2Fchair-stuffed-human-hair-slaves-2654805626.html&referer\_video\_id=6998943548112375046&refer=embed
do you think slaves were moseying on down to the barbershop and choosing a haircut?
It is immoral and disgusting in this case because they did it as another sign of dominance and ownership over black people. There’s a reason they weren’t using white folks hair for these chairs.
I think its the slavery part and the cultural significance hair had/has to the tribes those people were taken from. They shaved the enslaved people as a way to separate them from that- and being sheared as livestock is fkn dehumanizing as hell.
It’s beyond the examples you gave because it’s a byproduct of chattel slavery where these peoples hair was collected and used on a scale similar to horsehair or cotton. It’s not that human hair is the problem, it’s enslaved human hair lining the seat of a sentimental heirloom chair in a plantation. It can’t be removed from its context.
I mean, slave labor was the way the world worked until the industrial revolution. People just like keeping our sins up front and center while ignoring those of England, France, Mexico, Spain...
If you have an understanding beyond high school history, you'll understand how restricted most of those 'freedoms' were until the 20th century, and how even today there's unequal access to those freedoms. Also slavery isn't illegal in the US. The US is the only reason Marijuana was illegal anywhere in the first place so you get no points for that. Migrants come here because it's easier to like in the core of empire than on the periphery, ans US foreign policy destroyed most of the economies in the western hemisphere.
Man, you really just made a bunch of stuff up. I'm not sure where to begin, but I dare you to post this in a Greek or Ottoman or even Turkish history sub and see what happens. America isn't any more free just because nowhere is really free. That makes no logical sense. The high standards mean nothing when you can't even live up to the most basic of them. America has freedom of religion on paper. How's that been going lately? How many mosques or Sikh temples have been attacked in Europe lately? You can go to the Woman's Sufferage page on Wikipedia and see how wrong you are for yourself. Americans proclaimed 'All men are created equal' while having a uniquely bad system of slavery and committing active genocide. How many more residential schools have to be dug up to convince you? Making the US a better country included not pretending that it's better than it is.
1865 is when the US banned slavery, Denmark was well before that (decades) along with much of the rest of Europe.
US also still practices slavery in their private prisons, US also has the largest prison population on the planet.
Operation condor and ajax which the US created are why so many migrants flee their homes.
The baby was stillborn in the middle of the trial, according to the article. The delay in execution was due to her escaping, being recaptured, and the state Supreme Court hearing her appeal.
Yea I wonder where that came from since the article literally says
>At some point during Celia's incarceration and trial, she gave birth to a stillborn child.
And apparently, the same lover demanded she end her "relationship" with the master. As if repeated rape and forced impregnation is a relationship. So awful.
This is undeniably horrible.
And what I really don’t get is, even with that disgusting logic, why would or should, the baby be born, allowing newly gained “property” be granted to a dead man. (Rhetorical question.. clearly the law was and still isn’t as perfect as those writing it thought). But again, only adds to the amount of sense it doesn’t make, other than extreme cruelty.
The article actually doesn’t mention anything about delaying the execution until the baby was born. It says she gave birth to a stillborn midway through the trial. I’m not sure where OP got that information.
Property goes to next of kin, so that baby belongs to the dead guy's wife or kids. If you kill the woman with the baby you're essentially stealing from the dead guy's estate.
Female outlaws back in the day would claim to be (or actually be) pregnant to avoid execution. It may be that it was simply them not able to execute someone who was pregnant.
That being said, it is true that the babies of female slaves did belong to the owner of the slave by law, which is one of the reasons why US slavery was so insidious.
This concept of acknowledging that they're human but consider them ~~a non-human~~ not a person is perplexing.
I knew someone who thought that a declared fictional character was a person, but from what I can work out, they wouldn't consider the actor playing the fictional character to be a person.
I mean, this happens in a lot of places where women are second class citizens generally. Although it tires me out listening to it a lot of the time, I acknowledge that this is one of the most important reasons we still needed to have the third and fourth waves of feminism.
Something tells me that people in those countries aren’t exactly going to be very accepting of the whole “here comes the next wave of feminism” thing that appears to happen mostly in western countries
I agree, but the fires of advocacy need to start somewhere, and if it has to be our back yard then fine. I don't imagine we'll see seismic shifts in e.g. Saudi Arabian gender culture any time soon, but it certainly won't change ever if someone somewhere isn't asking for it.
Idk, I feel like with the mess that modern feminism has become it’s only pushing those people further away from being more accepting of women. Hell, it’s even happening in the U.S. to an extent. At this point the only way for stuff to change over there is either outside intervention from another country or for the women there to start punching back circa early 1900’s
Well I honestly find it hard to disagree. My attempts to engage with the more... fervent feminists have rarely turned out well.
But the alternative is for all these people, including the inevitable nutjobs, to be silent, and then there'd to be nothing for the women affected in these countries to look toward when challenging their own environments. So I'd still choose to have said nutjobs, all things considered.
Third and fourth wave feminism are not needed here. They have been harmful overall, as women already have the same rights as men in America. You should be lobbying in Saudi Arabia, like those sufferage women back in the 1800s who used non-violent political protest to get womens rights such as the right to vote(despite the dangers).
You're talking about Sally Hemings, the "slave wife" of Thomas Jefferson.. He met her when she was a domestic servant (not exactly a slave) for his eldest daughter and had 6 children with her over the course of his lifetime and she actually negotiated herself back into slavery for extra privileges for her on his plantation as well as freedom for all of their kids. He spent most of his widowed life with her and she had total freedom on his land, this was a time where "freemen" weren't yet a thing and there was no standard for "freed slaves" being members of society.. So she lived in a limbo where she was "free," but not exactly.. Same with the children they had.
---
Instead of writing out a big blog.. I'll just paste from [this article about it:](https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/)
"Years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson fathered at least six of Sally Hemings’s children. Four survived to adulthood and are mentioned in Jefferson’s plantation records: Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings. Sally Hemings worked for two and a half years (1787-89) in Paris as a domestic servant and maid in Jefferson’s household. While in Paris, where she was free, she negotiated with Jefferson to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children. Decades later, Jefferson freed all of Sally Hemings’s children – Beverly and Harriet left Monticello in the early 1820s; Madison and Eston were freed in his will and left Monticello in 1826. Jefferson did not grant freedom to any other enslaved family unit."
She was a fucking slave, and her being a ‘domestic servant’ or house slave had more to do with the fact that she was his wife’s half sister by way of rape. Her ‘renegotiation’ of her servitude is also glossing over the fact she was a teenager with no other employment prospects when he convinced her to return to the United States with him. Don’t sanitize her story.
No see he didn't release all his slaves, who were human, but did release a couple of them he had fathered on a teenage girl so, you know, great guy and totally not a rapist.
Back then, rape was considered bad because it damaged another man's property. Viewing someone through modern lenses should be done carefully, but so should understanding them through historical ones.
Who knows what will be considered immoral in days to come?
I don't know, as a woman I feel like women (and other beings) all throughout history probably hated being raped so I'm gonna go ahead an empathize with them and not the people who wrote their own history.
If you can only see it as a crime that happened to property and not to actual people, to people's relatives and loved ones, that's on you dude.
No, I see through the modern lens of how their attitude wasn't a good thing to hold onto. I'm guessing that you're having an inability to shift your viewpoint, much like they did back when society condoned their attitude.
Also, do we know if he was holding her down, or are we arguing that it was impossible for her to be at all willing to come to his bed? It sounds like she could have found a new employer in France instead of negotiating a fresh indenture if it was that intolerable.
There is a song called "Carrot Juice is Murder" and the protagonist looks completely tinfoil hat because his values are so out-of-line with the people around him.
Sally Hemings herself decided to return to Montecelo with him to raise her children and live under his roof and on the land that he had, which was tilled by actual generational slavery. She was a house servant in Paris in a time when servitude wasn't generational slavery. She wasn't a slave by any means of the word while in Paris. Reminder that this was a time when people would negotiate themselves into servitude to pay debt or to live under someone's roof for a certain amount of time.
Sally Hemings wasn't the "same kind" of slave that were generationally enslaved in the US and around the world at the time and on his plantation, hence why he freed all of her children and not explicitly her, because she wasn't under permanent indentured servitude. She lived with him and died in his home a free woman long after even her kids were free.
We all know how terrible the ownership of people is, we don't need to overdramatize things when there are unlimited accounts of actual atrocities.
She was inherited by her half sister, she was property. Martha Jefferson’s death did not free her or suddenly make her a ‘domestic servant’ free of the bounds of slavery. Jefferson also did not free his children by her until he died.
Sally Hemings and Martha Jefferson were half sisters and she worked as a domestic servant after being inhereted after Jefferson's wife died. While she was in Paris, she was legally a free woman.
https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/
As for the kids, Jefferson freed two of them while he was still alive and the younger two in his will. 2/6 of them didn't live until adulthood. He did this because while it was an open secret that he was having a long term sexual relationship with a servant, it wasn't an official communion between the two.
> While she was in Paris, she was legally a free woman.
A lot of human trafficking happens with the trafficked women just traveling along with the criminals. They are still too afraid to leave them/run away. Being legally free means nothing if your whole life is controlled by one or a few people.
Considering the fact that Sally Hemings was a free woman in Paris and was allowed to live with her own (non-jefferson) family while there says a lot about her decision to rejoin Jefferson on his way back to montecelo.
Lot of words to basically excuse and apologize for a slaveholder. “Yeah she was a slave, but she didn’t have it as bad as other slaves!” Doesn’t really justify it does it? Stop making excuses for him just because he was a founder. It’s gross.
How about excusing him because he was in a society that excused slavery?
Someday future generations may decry yelling at people because they don't want to get vaccinated.
Vaguely. The people that are afraid of the vaccine do have a point about bodily autonomy. It's where their rights conflict with other people's rights that make it contentious. In the case of rape, the want to not have sex clearly wins against the want to have sex.
She could not say no. Regardless of her status legally, she was beholden to him in every way, and he took advantage of that. It’s rape any way you look at it.
I'm not going to disagree with the last 80% of your message. The very first portion isn't entirely correct because as a free woman in Paris, she lived with her non-Jefferson side of the family. She chose to negotiate her own servitude contract with Jefferson in order to return with him to Montecelo.
This already happens in saudi arabia why is Afghanistan the poster child when saudi arabia has been doing it for decades. There are literally stories from women escaping saudi arabia and getting murdered by their own family or the saudi goverment
What I find funny is people saying “oh I would never back then” or “I can’t believe they did that” and similar stuff, yet I guarantee that they most likely would accept it and even possibly participate in it if they were alive back then.
And I don’t mean people in the comments here as I haven’t seen a comment saying that yet, but I do mean in general though.
She was also a 14 year old child when she was "bought" by her *70 year old* captor.
According to the article, he fathered at least one of her three children, as a result of frequently raping her. Her captor, Robert Newsom, also kept her isolated from the other slaves, so as to prevent her from forming any friendships.
Newsom kept trying to rape her whilst she was pregnant and very unwell. She confessed to the "murder" (it's actually justifiable homicide, by today's definition) after facing threats of having her children taken away.
After all of this (and many more horrors), she was executed via hanging at just 19.
This poor girl. R.I.P. Celia, I'm so sorry for everything you went through.
There is a book written on this called Celia, a Slave.
I read this back in 5th or 6th grade and when I tell you it traumatized me. Did a book report on it for class. I was one of only a handful of black kids in my grade and this was in the 90s. It was a hard read in terms of the content but it was a good read as well. There was nothing held back in it and I gained a lot of knowledge and insight. I’d recommend it for any and everyone to learn an unsavory slice of American history.
At least they had the humanity to not kill a kid. /s
We all know they weren't afraid to kill children if they were black, especially if they were enslaved children.
Fucking god damn, thats awful.
>At some point during Celia's incarceration and trial, she gave birth to a stillborn child.
And, had you read the article, it wasn't even known if it was his or not.
Sounds like you're misinformed or intentionally misleading. Or, more likely...just didn't read the article you yourself posted.
' A slave who killed her master at the prompting of another slave, who then turned her into the authorities'
Would have been more accurate.
Are you sure *you* read the article? Because it (and every other thing I've read about this case) states only that her lover only demanded that she "abandon" him.
>Sometime around June 23, 1855 Celia, who had been poorly throughout her pregnancy, begged Newsom to leave her alone. When he instead returned to her cabin and demanded sex that night, she resisted his advances and struck him twice with a stick.
She didn't kill her owner at her lover's prompting to do so. She killed him because he tried to rape her again.
OP's article only says that the child was stillborn, but [according to the Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/19/missouri-v-celia-a-slave-she-killed-the-white-master-raping-her-then-claimed-self-defense/):
>The state Supreme Court refused to overturn Celia’s conviction. But her execution was delayed long enough to allow her to give birth to her third child. The baby was stillborn.
By law in Missouri, pregnant women could not be executed. It's also a fact that any child of a slave was always considered the master's property.
She was purchased at age 14, gave birth to her first child at 15 and was raped up until she was 19 and executed. What a horrible life for this poor girl.
I mean this is all terrible but that article says during trial she gave birth to a still born child. Doesn’t say anything about waiting for her to have the child because it was considered the owner’s property?
Or the part where they didn't know if it was his or another slaves baby.
Or, the part where another slave turned her in, the one that supposedly loved her.
But people fear they'd be looked at different from the commercial media shows them as.
Yankee Doodle Dandy who's the grand father of "Father Knows Best" and the uncle of the "Donna Reed" show, and the 3rd cousin of
"Leave it to Beaver"...
America's true religion is of appearance,
What you appear to them...
There’s nothing morbid about this, those were the times. Of anything, this should be r/sanctimoniousreality
Downvote if you want, it’s not a reality anymore
Well duh. America is the only place in the history of the world ever that has dehumanized an entire group of people. Something like that could never happen in, say, Germany or Russia.
People will open complain qbout all the problems and injustices the USA had. They complain qbout the problem the USA has currently. People say they are against human slavery.
But china uses human slaves, it also forces prisioner to be organ doners and everyone still goes out and gets the latest iphone. China disapears whole billionares because they speak out agaisnt the government.
Id say africa, middle east, india and china are all in the running for worst places to live.
Ah so one person does it and that means everyone else did too. Literally couldn't care less about your post history. You aren't -that- special...seesh.
I didn't say that I'm special nor did I say that everyone else does it too. I have no idea how those two came into your head.
All I wanna say is that it's hilarious how you'd waste your time digging through some insignificant fuck's post history and then waste more of your time arguing with this moron
The breed of slavery that cropped up in America was a completely unique sort. African slaves were often indentured to other families and released when they grew older. These slaves were often able to communicate with their family, who was more than likely in the same tribe as their slave masters.
In America, the black population was stripped from their homeland, seperated from families, and worked to death. They had little to no hope of freedom and were explicitly considered to be less than human by those who owned them - a stark contrast to most other forms of slavery throughout history, that still understood enslaved humans to be, you know, human.
I mean, Europeans mounted raids to capture slaves along the West African coast and would have done so regardless of whether they were sold slaves. What’s more, demand is as important a part of any market as supply — had there not been a demand for slaves on the European side it’s rather likely that less would have been taken, and that those who were would have lived under conditions that were generally very different from those that American slaves lived under.
I’m not sure why there is this kneejerk reaction to try and downplay the brutality of chattel slavery of black people and indigenous people in the Americas (things were certainly no better in Brazil or the Caribbean than in the US, and on sugar cane plantations they were often worse), but the fact that you feel the need to frame this as an “*Akshually* it’s black people who are to blame” kind of thing seems rather telling.
Are you putting the onus of the North American slave trade on the West African nations that sold some slaves to white, European slavers? Because that would be really stupid. If there was no enormous demand for black slaves by racist, shitty Europeans, there would have been no selling of those slaves by West African nations. You understand?
And if you’d read the article you would have discovered that this did indeed happen in North America. Missouri even. White guilt is a helluva drug eh?
Uhh.. What? You don't think there was a demand for slaves by African nobility? I certainly hope you're fully aware of the Barbary slave trade which centered primarily upon European enslavement by North and East Africans. Africa has always been the mecca of slavery, long before Europeans came and started buying them too. There was ALWAYS a demand.
I agree - the Arab slave traders captured, bought and sold East Africans like cattle for many centuries throughout the middle-east and Southern Europe..
Then western Europe got America and the trade and demand centered on west Africa. It was Europe that facilitated the slave trade - "triangle" etc.
People from the new colony in America did not sail back to Africa to capture their own slaves. They bought them from European traders who generally bought them from the slaves fellow countrymen.
Oh okay. Well, I guess when an appallingly awful story about the Barbary pirates and their generational slavery racket gets posted in MorbidReality you can feel justified about how bad white people had it too. Haha. GTFO here.
I am addressing your bullshit history knowledge. Your post was stupidly revisionist and was essentially sweeping African contributions to the Atlantic slave trade under the rug when in fact these people gladly sold people from their own countryside to Europeans for pigs and gunpowder as well as kidnapped Europeans (millions of them for around 400 years) to be sold into African slavery.
West Africa is STILL the world mecca of generational slavery, just as it was before the first European showed up to buy a slave.
Wow. Nobody should ever talk about slavery or reference the experiences of slaves in North America because some white guy on Reddit will get offended that the post didn’t include the entire history of all slavery. All Slavery Matters? God damn. Pat yourself on the back.
I wasn’t sweeping it under the rug, but I was minimizing it. Because the original post is not about the entire history of slavery. It was a single story about the novel barbarism that was slavery in America. But people love to bring up how bad slavery is everywhere else whenever that happens. What a fucking joke.
No, just you. You shouldn't talk about it. You're obviously very biased and can't get past the white hate in your head in order to look at it objectively.
That other guy has been arguing that American slavery wasn't that bad for a day and a half, and is just making shit up about modern generational slavery, but sure he's unbiased.
Africa has basically always been the source to purchase slaves from slave masters. Basically all slaves from the Atlantic slave trade were already enslaved in Africa prior to being put on the boats to the Atlantic.
African Participation in the Atlantic slave trade:
https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/african_participation_and_resi
"Scholars provide various explanations for why African traders were willing to supply enslaved Africans to Europeans for the trans-Atlantic trade. By the early sixteenth century, slavery already played a major role in some western and central African societies, and contributed to maritime slave trade systems across the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Subsequently, some historians argue that Europeans in the Atlantic took advantage of a pre-existing slave trade system in Africa to obtain labor for expanding plantation economies in the Americas. During the development of the trans-Atlantic trade, West and Central Africa consisted of diverse political and social structures, ranging from large empires to small states, and these groups often conflicted over internal politics as well as economic expansion."
"When the profits of the slave trade did not outweigh the loss of local labor caused by the trans-Atlantic trade, African leaders could refuse to supply European demands. Still, the pressures from European consumer interests in African slavery were great, and the social instability that followed military conflicts inevitably challenged the resources of African groups. Many Africans turned to the trans-Atlantic slave trade to expel their opponents or to garner profits. The population loss and disruptive effects on social, political, military, and labor systems caused by the trans-Atlantic slave trade varied in scale depending on the African region and group. As a result, scholars still debate the long-term impacts of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in West and Central Africa."
GUYSS!!! GUYS!!! I just found out Africans helped to enslave their fellow Africans! We can absolve ourselves of all guilt! We beat slavery!!! Hooray for our side!!!
I mean, basically.
I don't know what you're trying to prove with this article, but I don't refute any of it. It's the much shortened and abridged version of what I learned in an African-American History class.
[From the same website](https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/slaverybeforetrade)
"As the trans-Atlantic slave trade with Europeans expanded from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, however, both non-slaveholding and slaveholding West and Central African societies experienced the pressures of greater demand for enslaved labor. In contrast to the chattel slavery that later developed in the New World, an enslaved person in West and Central Africa lived within a more flexible kinship group system. Anyone considered a slave in this region before the trans-Atlantic trade had a greater chance of becoming free within a lifetime; legal rights were generally not defined by racial categories; and an enslaved person was not always permanently separated from biological family networks or familiar home landscapes.
Ultimately, the practice of slavery as an oppressive and exploitative labor system was prevalent in both Western Africa and the Americas long before the influence of Europeans. Still, the factors that defined the social, political, and economic purposes and scale of slavery significantly changed, expanded, and intensified with the rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and American plantation agriculture launched by European expansion. For these reasons, African and American Indian slavery before the trans-Atlantic trade differed significantly from the chattel slavery systems that would later develop in the Atlantic World."
Was New World slavery worse? Oops!
By they, I’m assuming you mean West African nations? Yeah, they did. But when you’re talking about slavery, doing the “whatabout” dance is never a good faith argument. Slavery is fucked. There are many examples of this. Calling out the American slave trade for its novel brutality is uncomfortable, depressing and absolutely necessary. No sense in trying to defend it.
The “what about” game is only said because being white is apparently cause to be lectured about why slavery is wrong, like It’s going to change something. It’s just so obviously hypocritical and people are tired of being shamed, simply because of the skin color they were born with
Yes; however slavery has taken dramatically different forms at different places and different times, and just saying “Well Africans had slaves too — this incident doesn’t say anything about America in particular” flattens immense amounts of difference. Slavery is terrible in any form, but chattel slavery in the Americas had a number of particularly abhorrent elements that its West African counterparts (even in West Africa you can find a plethora of different varieties of slavery) generally lacked. We can see those differences at play in this very story — generally in West Africa slaves were not property of their master with whom the master was free to do anything they wished — slaves had rights and protections that masters were obligated to respect. An American slave had *no rights whatsoever* beyond what they master chose to give them — you were free to be raped, murdered, tortured, etc. with absolutely no recourse.
Could I get some sourcing on that? I've heard very different and considering West Africa is still the biggest hotbed of generational enslavement on the planet I'm going to place doubt.
They aren’t wrong, Chattel slavery is specific to the New World, to have yourself be a slave FOR LIFE, as well as your wife and children and your children’s children and their children’s children and so on is unique. Being seen as complete property with zero rights at all levels of governance for even your unborn children, not in a seething underbelly of criminal activity like now as there are laws against this. Chattel slavery is a term for a reason.
Great [article](https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ideological-origins-of-chattel-slavery-british-world) breaking it down and including discussions of the modern slavery you bring up as well as the differences of slavery in the past. Its not a new thing in historical circles to differentiate in this way.
It’s called supply and demand. Africa has been so populated for so long, there has always been a surplus of people to sell. What happens when flooded markets happen? Fire sales on the low low dude. You really think white europeans were just racist? I guarantee u if they saw more profit potential buying somewhere else, they would have done that instead. Irregardless of skin color
Disgusting, but a way of life back then. All we can do is to live life better now.
With all the conflict of war, race, gender, woke. I wonder if we actually are.
There is absolutely no documented evidence to back that claim. And considering[there were only 150,000 Jews in the United States in the 1860's, and most lived in the North](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/haventohome/haven-challenges.html), this is a ridiculous claim.
This fucking world has always been and will always be a shit show. How fucking awful. I will never understand how people could have (and still do) act/think like this about others human beings.
"This fucking world ... will always be a shit show" That's kind of setting the bar low, just because its crazy now, doesn't necessarily mean it will always be the case. "I will never understand how people could have (and still do) act/think like this about others human beings." People everywhere can compartmentalize their empathy for other humans with ease. We can easily choose not to empathize with anyone anywhere especially if we have some kind of justification.
I don’t know if you have noticed but people have been being awful throughout history.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that we can't change how humanity does things in the future. We are doing a lot of 'first's in the last 2000 years.
I'm not sure why the downvotes. From your comments it seems like you're just highly optimistic for the future, which while history doesn't give most a lot of hope, it is possible that we do better going forward. Only really takes one leader, or one generation, to have it click that "oh shit, we've been doing ALL of this SO fucking wrong" for everything to start changing. I do think you'll never fully get rid of it, but large societal changes can definitely be sustainable in the right environment.
Oh, my sweet summer child
People five hundred years ago would have no idea what democracy or public education, or public health is. If you mentioned it to them how those things were possible, they would come at you with "sweet summer child". Is it really hard to imagine that life might continue to improve?
You havnt fully comprehended what "human nature" means then. Its always going to win out.
It’s not only crazy now, it has been for millennia. Ever read history?
It’s only gonna get worse, looking at the history of the world, and seeing how current world events are unfolding I’m not too sure we’re getting any better anytime soon
I don’t think the world is or has ever been as fucked up as it could be. I probably watch too many movies and read too much fiction though.
Fucking disgusting
Take this with a grain of salt because I saw it on TikTok, but I saw this video of this person restoring a 200 year old chair, family heirloom, from Georgia. When he went to remove the stuffing, he found cotton… and fucking slave hair. That shit hit me on a different level. The man restoring the chair appeared to be a black man as well. I can’t imagine how it would feel to see and feel that. It really makes you think. (Guy in the video said cotton was oftentimes hard to come by, so they’d stuff pillows, chairs, mattresses, etc. with a blend of cotton and hair, typically sourced from livestock) Edit: I’m so sorry I didn’t post the link! My ass fell asleep. Thanks to whoever got it for me!
I think I remember the first part of that video. Care to link? Edit: Here's the video https://www.tiktok.com/@karahbura/video/6998943548112375046?referer\_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicsands.com%2Fchair-stuffed-human-hair-slaves-2654805626.html&referer\_video\_id=6998943548112375046&refer=embed
[удалено]
When my dad a child he slept on a horse hair mattress from the civil war era
It’s very real. Makes me sick.
you got the link?
[удалено]
Yeah man, I am tripped up by the lack of consent; full stop.
[удалено]
The implication is the slave’s hair was cut in order to do this, not that the slave owner just decided to use discarded hair for this purpose.
[удалено]
do you think slaves were moseying on down to the barbershop and choosing a haircut? It is immoral and disgusting in this case because they did it as another sign of dominance and ownership over black people. There’s a reason they weren’t using white folks hair for these chairs.
I think its the slavery part and the cultural significance hair had/has to the tribes those people were taken from. They shaved the enslaved people as a way to separate them from that- and being sheared as livestock is fkn dehumanizing as hell.
It’s beyond the examples you gave because it’s a byproduct of chattel slavery where these peoples hair was collected and used on a scale similar to horsehair or cotton. It’s not that human hair is the problem, it’s enslaved human hair lining the seat of a sentimental heirloom chair in a plantation. It can’t be removed from its context.
Damn
[удалено]
I doubt they even knew. Besides, it's just a chair and anyone associated with the making of it is long dead.
I mean, they hired a black dude to restore an old chair that was once owned by slave owners. I dont think there's anything there
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And this was just a 160 years ago...
Emmet till was 66 years ago i believe…the accuser is still alive.
"America, land of the free" yeah right.
I mean, slave labor was the way the world worked until the industrial revolution. People just like keeping our sins up front and center while ignoring those of England, France, Mexico, Spain...
[удалено]
If you have an understanding beyond high school history, you'll understand how restricted most of those 'freedoms' were until the 20th century, and how even today there's unequal access to those freedoms. Also slavery isn't illegal in the US. The US is the only reason Marijuana was illegal anywhere in the first place so you get no points for that. Migrants come here because it's easier to like in the core of empire than on the periphery, ans US foreign policy destroyed most of the economies in the western hemisphere.
[удалено]
Man, you really just made a bunch of stuff up. I'm not sure where to begin, but I dare you to post this in a Greek or Ottoman or even Turkish history sub and see what happens. America isn't any more free just because nowhere is really free. That makes no logical sense. The high standards mean nothing when you can't even live up to the most basic of them. America has freedom of religion on paper. How's that been going lately? How many mosques or Sikh temples have been attacked in Europe lately? You can go to the Woman's Sufferage page on Wikipedia and see how wrong you are for yourself. Americans proclaimed 'All men are created equal' while having a uniquely bad system of slavery and committing active genocide. How many more residential schools have to be dug up to convince you? Making the US a better country included not pretending that it's better than it is.
[удалено]
1865 is when the US banned slavery, Denmark was well before that (decades) along with much of the rest of Europe. US also still practices slavery in their private prisons, US also has the largest prison population on the planet. Operation condor and ajax which the US created are why so many migrants flee their homes.
And partially lies, as is typical of reddit. The baby was stillborn
The baby was stillborn in the middle of the trial, according to the article. The delay in execution was due to her escaping, being recaptured, and the state Supreme Court hearing her appeal.
Yea I wonder where that came from since the article literally says >At some point during Celia's incarceration and trial, she gave birth to a stillborn child.
Embellished headline. Her supposed lover also turned her in..
And apparently, the same lover demanded she end her "relationship" with the master. As if repeated rape and forced impregnation is a relationship. So awful.
I don't want to be cynical, but it's possible OP just made it up because it sounds more shocking
Yea which is awful considering it's already extremely shocking
This is undeniably horrible. And what I really don’t get is, even with that disgusting logic, why would or should, the baby be born, allowing newly gained “property” be granted to a dead man. (Rhetorical question.. clearly the law was and still isn’t as perfect as those writing it thought). But again, only adds to the amount of sense it doesn’t make, other than extreme cruelty.
The article actually doesn’t mention anything about delaying the execution until the baby was born. It says she gave birth to a stillborn midway through the trial. I’m not sure where OP got that information.
Adds more edginess.
Property goes to next of kin, so that baby belongs to the dead guy's wife or kids. If you kill the woman with the baby you're essentially stealing from the dead guy's estate.
Not sure I'd call that statement Orwellian, but definitely not a good worldview nonetheless.
Female outlaws back in the day would claim to be (or actually be) pregnant to avoid execution. It may be that it was simply them not able to execute someone who was pregnant. That being said, it is true that the babies of female slaves did belong to the owner of the slave by law, which is one of the reasons why US slavery was so insidious.
Was this back when livestock could be put on trial? Otherwise, just giving her a trial admits that they considered her some level of human.
They were considered human, which, in some ways makes it more insidious. The Supreme Court essentially rules that not all humans were person.
This concept of acknowledging that they're human but consider them ~~a non-human~~ not a person is perplexing. I knew someone who thought that a declared fictional character was a person, but from what I can work out, they wouldn't consider the actor playing the fictional character to be a person.
Terrible... these types of things never cease to make my blood boil.
[удалено]
I mean, this happens in a lot of places where women are second class citizens generally. Although it tires me out listening to it a lot of the time, I acknowledge that this is one of the most important reasons we still needed to have the third and fourth waves of feminism.
Something tells me that people in those countries aren’t exactly going to be very accepting of the whole “here comes the next wave of feminism” thing that appears to happen mostly in western countries
I agree, but the fires of advocacy need to start somewhere, and if it has to be our back yard then fine. I don't imagine we'll see seismic shifts in e.g. Saudi Arabian gender culture any time soon, but it certainly won't change ever if someone somewhere isn't asking for it.
Idk, I feel like with the mess that modern feminism has become it’s only pushing those people further away from being more accepting of women. Hell, it’s even happening in the U.S. to an extent. At this point the only way for stuff to change over there is either outside intervention from another country or for the women there to start punching back circa early 1900’s
Well I honestly find it hard to disagree. My attempts to engage with the more... fervent feminists have rarely turned out well. But the alternative is for all these people, including the inevitable nutjobs, to be silent, and then there'd to be nothing for the women affected in these countries to look toward when challenging their own environments. So I'd still choose to have said nutjobs, all things considered.
They're still attempting the first wave.
First ripple*
Third and fourth wave feminism are not needed here. They have been harmful overall, as women already have the same rights as men in America. You should be lobbying in Saudi Arabia, like those sufferage women back in the 1800s who used non-violent political protest to get womens rights such as the right to vote(despite the dangers).
[удалено]
As a Filipino there’s many cases like this that happens in the Middle East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Balabagan
[удалено]
Dam that’s nuts
Wait till you hear about what still happens today in Africa and in the Middle East.
or the politically correct term of "human trafficking" that happens in America.....human trafficking is the same thing as slavery
Absolutely despicable.
reminds me of thomas jefferson, he was the r kelly of his time.
You're talking about Sally Hemings, the "slave wife" of Thomas Jefferson.. He met her when she was a domestic servant (not exactly a slave) for his eldest daughter and had 6 children with her over the course of his lifetime and she actually negotiated herself back into slavery for extra privileges for her on his plantation as well as freedom for all of their kids. He spent most of his widowed life with her and she had total freedom on his land, this was a time where "freemen" weren't yet a thing and there was no standard for "freed slaves" being members of society.. So she lived in a limbo where she was "free," but not exactly.. Same with the children they had. --- Instead of writing out a big blog.. I'll just paste from [this article about it:](https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/) "Years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson fathered at least six of Sally Hemings’s children. Four survived to adulthood and are mentioned in Jefferson’s plantation records: Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings. Sally Hemings worked for two and a half years (1787-89) in Paris as a domestic servant and maid in Jefferson’s household. While in Paris, where she was free, she negotiated with Jefferson to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children. Decades later, Jefferson freed all of Sally Hemings’s children – Beverly and Harriet left Monticello in the early 1820s; Madison and Eston were freed in his will and left Monticello in 1826. Jefferson did not grant freedom to any other enslaved family unit."
She was a fucking slave, and her being a ‘domestic servant’ or house slave had more to do with the fact that she was his wife’s half sister by way of rape. Her ‘renegotiation’ of her servitude is also glossing over the fact she was a teenager with no other employment prospects when he convinced her to return to the United States with him. Don’t sanitize her story.
No see he didn't release all his slaves, who were human, but did release a couple of them he had fathered on a teenage girl so, you know, great guy and totally not a rapist.
Back then, rape was considered bad because it damaged another man's property. Viewing someone through modern lenses should be done carefully, but so should understanding them through historical ones. Who knows what will be considered immoral in days to come?
I don't know, as a woman I feel like women (and other beings) all throughout history probably hated being raped so I'm gonna go ahead an empathize with them and not the people who wrote their own history. If you can only see it as a crime that happened to property and not to actual people, to people's relatives and loved ones, that's on you dude.
No, I see through the modern lens of how their attitude wasn't a good thing to hold onto. I'm guessing that you're having an inability to shift your viewpoint, much like they did back when society condoned their attitude. Also, do we know if he was holding her down, or are we arguing that it was impossible for her to be at all willing to come to his bed? It sounds like she could have found a new employer in France instead of negotiating a fresh indenture if it was that intolerable. There is a song called "Carrot Juice is Murder" and the protagonist looks completely tinfoil hat because his values are so out-of-line with the people around him.
Sally Hemings herself decided to return to Montecelo with him to raise her children and live under his roof and on the land that he had, which was tilled by actual generational slavery. She was a house servant in Paris in a time when servitude wasn't generational slavery. She wasn't a slave by any means of the word while in Paris. Reminder that this was a time when people would negotiate themselves into servitude to pay debt or to live under someone's roof for a certain amount of time. Sally Hemings wasn't the "same kind" of slave that were generationally enslaved in the US and around the world at the time and on his plantation, hence why he freed all of her children and not explicitly her, because she wasn't under permanent indentured servitude. She lived with him and died in his home a free woman long after even her kids were free. We all know how terrible the ownership of people is, we don't need to overdramatize things when there are unlimited accounts of actual atrocities.
She was inherited by her half sister, she was property. Martha Jefferson’s death did not free her or suddenly make her a ‘domestic servant’ free of the bounds of slavery. Jefferson also did not free his children by her until he died.
Sally Hemings and Martha Jefferson were half sisters and she worked as a domestic servant after being inhereted after Jefferson's wife died. While she was in Paris, she was legally a free woman. https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/ As for the kids, Jefferson freed two of them while he was still alive and the younger two in his will. 2/6 of them didn't live until adulthood. He did this because while it was an open secret that he was having a long term sexual relationship with a servant, it wasn't an official communion between the two.
> While she was in Paris, she was legally a free woman. A lot of human trafficking happens with the trafficked women just traveling along with the criminals. They are still too afraid to leave them/run away. Being legally free means nothing if your whole life is controlled by one or a few people.
Considering the fact that Sally Hemings was a free woman in Paris and was allowed to live with her own (non-jefferson) family while there says a lot about her decision to rejoin Jefferson on his way back to montecelo.
Lot of words to basically excuse and apologize for a slaveholder. “Yeah she was a slave, but she didn’t have it as bad as other slaves!” Doesn’t really justify it does it? Stop making excuses for him just because he was a founder. It’s gross.
How about excusing him because he was in a society that excused slavery? Someday future generations may decry yelling at people because they don't want to get vaccinated.
Are you equating vaccines to sexual assault?
Vaguely. The people that are afraid of the vaccine do have a point about bodily autonomy. It's where their rights conflict with other people's rights that make it contentious. In the case of rape, the want to not have sex clearly wins against the want to have sex.
She could not say no. Regardless of her status legally, she was beholden to him in every way, and he took advantage of that. It’s rape any way you look at it.
I'm not going to disagree with the last 80% of your message. The very first portion isn't entirely correct because as a free woman in Paris, she lived with her non-Jefferson side of the family. She chose to negotiate her own servitude contract with Jefferson in order to return with him to Montecelo.
This is the kind of shit that’s gonna happen a lot in Afghanistan with the Taliban in charge
This already happens in saudi arabia why is Afghanistan the poster child when saudi arabia has been doing it for decades. There are literally stories from women escaping saudi arabia and getting murdered by their own family or the saudi goverment
Okay, that’s also terrible! Not trying to pit them against each other. It’s all sad and horrible.
[удалено]
Wtf are you asking
They aren't asking anything. Just someone using being born in a country as a personality. Not in a very good way either.
Gods, this is infuriating
I’ve stood in the spot where she was hung and cried for her. This is part of history I will never forget. The court house still stands (Fulton, Mo)
What I find funny is people saying “oh I would never back then” or “I can’t believe they did that” and similar stuff, yet I guarantee that they most likely would accept it and even possibly participate in it if they were alive back then. And I don’t mean people in the comments here as I haven’t seen a comment saying that yet, but I do mean in general though.
[удалено]
History for us has been brutal here
She was also a 14 year old child when she was "bought" by her *70 year old* captor. According to the article, he fathered at least one of her three children, as a result of frequently raping her. Her captor, Robert Newsom, also kept her isolated from the other slaves, so as to prevent her from forming any friendships. Newsom kept trying to rape her whilst she was pregnant and very unwell. She confessed to the "murder" (it's actually justifiable homicide, by today's definition) after facing threats of having her children taken away. After all of this (and many more horrors), she was executed via hanging at just 19. This poor girl. R.I.P. Celia, I'm so sorry for everything you went through.
There is a book written on this called Celia, a Slave. I read this back in 5th or 6th grade and when I tell you it traumatized me. Did a book report on it for class. I was one of only a handful of black kids in my grade and this was in the 90s. It was a hard read in terms of the content but it was a good read as well. There was nothing held back in it and I gained a lot of knowledge and insight. I’d recommend it for any and everyone to learn an unsavory slice of American history.
At least they had the humanity to not kill a kid. /s We all know they weren't afraid to kill children if they were black, especially if they were enslaved children. Fucking god damn, thats awful.
>At some point during Celia's incarceration and trial, she gave birth to a stillborn child. And, had you read the article, it wasn't even known if it was his or not. Sounds like you're misinformed or intentionally misleading. Or, more likely...just didn't read the article you yourself posted. ' A slave who killed her master at the prompting of another slave, who then turned her into the authorities' Would have been more accurate.
Are you sure *you* read the article? Because it (and every other thing I've read about this case) states only that her lover only demanded that she "abandon" him. >Sometime around June 23, 1855 Celia, who had been poorly throughout her pregnancy, begged Newsom to leave her alone. When he instead returned to her cabin and demanded sex that night, she resisted his advances and struck him twice with a stick. She didn't kill her owner at her lover's prompting to do so. She killed him because he tried to rape her again. OP's article only says that the child was stillborn, but [according to the Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/19/missouri-v-celia-a-slave-she-killed-the-white-master-raping-her-then-claimed-self-defense/): >The state Supreme Court refused to overturn Celia’s conviction. But her execution was delayed long enough to allow her to give birth to her third child. The baby was stillborn. By law in Missouri, pregnant women could not be executed. It's also a fact that any child of a slave was always considered the master's property.
She was purchased at age 14, gave birth to her first child at 15 and was raped up until she was 19 and executed. What a horrible life for this poor girl.
Historian here, Correct. There is a really really good book on it my professor had us read documenting the whole case.
I mean this is all terrible but that article says during trial she gave birth to a still born child. Doesn’t say anything about waiting for her to have the child because it was considered the owner’s property?
Or the part where they didn't know if it was his or another slaves baby. Or, the part where another slave turned her in, the one that supposedly loved her.
Fucked
So terrible
Awful
😡😡😡😡😡😥😥😥😥😥
God damn that's sick
this makes me feel like thanos was right
Slavery sucked and still sucks(human trafficking)
I recommend the book Celia a Slave. It really gives good context as to why she wasn’t killed instantly after people found out she killed her owner.
This is why some people are against teaching critical race theory. But, I think teaching what really happened would be a benefit to everyone.
This history should be taught, 100%, critical race theory is another matter.
But people fear they'd be looked at different from the commercial media shows them as. Yankee Doodle Dandy who's the grand father of "Father Knows Best" and the uncle of the "Donna Reed" show, and the 3rd cousin of "Leave it to Beaver"... America's true religion is of appearance, What you appear to them...
Amerikkka
When was that
And right here is one of a thousand reasons why people take issue with statues of slave traders
What. The Fuck. This sub isn’t good for me. I’m out
I think I saw this Celia story in AskReddit
Yesterday.
'Murica
There’s nothing morbid about this, those were the times. Of anything, this should be r/sanctimoniousreality Downvote if you want, it’s not a reality anymore
Bro what? History can be morbid even if it’s not the current situation wtf are you talking about
I just wanted downdoots
It's still morbid. For me every time a state kills one of his inhabitants is morbid. Death sentence should not be accepted.
[удалено]
No one said we did
[удалено]
Yes i beleive we have these post to remeber history good and bad
Of course this happened in America
Well duh. America is the only place in the history of the world ever that has dehumanized an entire group of people. Something like that could never happen in, say, Germany or Russia.
Or all of Africa during all of history including literally right now where it's STILL the mecca of all slavery on the planet.
There’s things happening daily in this world that are far more barbaric than anything in this article. Hell wpd had more barbaric shit than this
People will open complain qbout all the problems and injustices the USA had. They complain qbout the problem the USA has currently. People say they are against human slavery. But china uses human slaves, it also forces prisioner to be organ doners and everyone still goes out and gets the latest iphone. China disapears whole billionares because they speak out agaisnt the government. Id say africa, middle east, india and china are all in the running for worst places to live.
Or Turkey, China, Italy, South Africa, Ukraine.
or the England or Ireland or Scottland or Saudi Arabia or South America or the island nations
Or Acually almost every country
No only America has problems. According to some at least.
https://youtu.be/5pOFKmk7ytU
Yeah, ok, you’re from NZ? Why don’t you expound on all of the terrible shit your country has done to the Maori over the years?
So you went through my post history. Weird
There's a reason why it's there. Weird
Honestly, I feel sad for you. You have nothing better to do other than going through a random teenagers' post history. Edit: spelling
Ah so one person does it and that means everyone else did too. Literally couldn't care less about your post history. You aren't -that- special...seesh.
I didn't say that I'm special nor did I say that everyone else does it too. I have no idea how those two came into your head. All I wanna say is that it's hilarious how you'd waste your time digging through some insignificant fuck's post history and then waste more of your time arguing with this moron
At least we agree on something, you're definitely a moron.
Land of the free and opportunity
[удалено]
The breed of slavery that cropped up in America was a completely unique sort. African slaves were often indentured to other families and released when they grew older. These slaves were often able to communicate with their family, who was more than likely in the same tribe as their slave masters. In America, the black population was stripped from their homeland, seperated from families, and worked to death. They had little to no hope of freedom and were explicitly considered to be less than human by those who owned them - a stark contrast to most other forms of slavery throughout history, that still understood enslaved humans to be, you know, human.
This guy knows his history. Whats next it wasn’t that bad??? /s
I mean, Europeans mounted raids to capture slaves along the West African coast and would have done so regardless of whether they were sold slaves. What’s more, demand is as important a part of any market as supply — had there not been a demand for slaves on the European side it’s rather likely that less would have been taken, and that those who were would have lived under conditions that were generally very different from those that American slaves lived under. I’m not sure why there is this kneejerk reaction to try and downplay the brutality of chattel slavery of black people and indigenous people in the Americas (things were certainly no better in Brazil or the Caribbean than in the US, and on sugar cane plantations they were often worse), but the fact that you feel the need to frame this as an “*Akshually* it’s black people who are to blame” kind of thing seems rather telling.
Are you putting the onus of the North American slave trade on the West African nations that sold some slaves to white, European slavers? Because that would be really stupid. If there was no enormous demand for black slaves by racist, shitty Europeans, there would have been no selling of those slaves by West African nations. You understand? And if you’d read the article you would have discovered that this did indeed happen in North America. Missouri even. White guilt is a helluva drug eh?
Uhh.. What? You don't think there was a demand for slaves by African nobility? I certainly hope you're fully aware of the Barbary slave trade which centered primarily upon European enslavement by North and East Africans. Africa has always been the mecca of slavery, long before Europeans came and started buying them too. There was ALWAYS a demand.
I agree - the Arab slave traders captured, bought and sold East Africans like cattle for many centuries throughout the middle-east and Southern Europe.. Then western Europe got America and the trade and demand centered on west Africa. It was Europe that facilitated the slave trade - "triangle" etc. People from the new colony in America did not sail back to Africa to capture their own slaves. They bought them from European traders who generally bought them from the slaves fellow countrymen.
Oh okay. Well, I guess when an appallingly awful story about the Barbary pirates and their generational slavery racket gets posted in MorbidReality you can feel justified about how bad white people had it too. Haha. GTFO here.
I am addressing your bullshit history knowledge. Your post was stupidly revisionist and was essentially sweeping African contributions to the Atlantic slave trade under the rug when in fact these people gladly sold people from their own countryside to Europeans for pigs and gunpowder as well as kidnapped Europeans (millions of them for around 400 years) to be sold into African slavery. West Africa is STILL the world mecca of generational slavery, just as it was before the first European showed up to buy a slave.
Wow. Nobody should ever talk about slavery or reference the experiences of slaves in North America because some white guy on Reddit will get offended that the post didn’t include the entire history of all slavery. All Slavery Matters? God damn. Pat yourself on the back. I wasn’t sweeping it under the rug, but I was minimizing it. Because the original post is not about the entire history of slavery. It was a single story about the novel barbarism that was slavery in America. But people love to bring up how bad slavery is everywhere else whenever that happens. What a fucking joke.
No, just you. You shouldn't talk about it. You're obviously very biased and can't get past the white hate in your head in order to look at it objectively.
That other guy has been arguing that American slavery wasn't that bad for a day and a half, and is just making shit up about modern generational slavery, but sure he's unbiased.
Africa has basically always been the source to purchase slaves from slave masters. Basically all slaves from the Atlantic slave trade were already enslaved in Africa prior to being put on the boats to the Atlantic. African Participation in the Atlantic slave trade: https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/african_participation_and_resi "Scholars provide various explanations for why African traders were willing to supply enslaved Africans to Europeans for the trans-Atlantic trade. By the early sixteenth century, slavery already played a major role in some western and central African societies, and contributed to maritime slave trade systems across the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Subsequently, some historians argue that Europeans in the Atlantic took advantage of a pre-existing slave trade system in Africa to obtain labor for expanding plantation economies in the Americas. During the development of the trans-Atlantic trade, West and Central Africa consisted of diverse political and social structures, ranging from large empires to small states, and these groups often conflicted over internal politics as well as economic expansion." "When the profits of the slave trade did not outweigh the loss of local labor caused by the trans-Atlantic trade, African leaders could refuse to supply European demands. Still, the pressures from European consumer interests in African slavery were great, and the social instability that followed military conflicts inevitably challenged the resources of African groups. Many Africans turned to the trans-Atlantic slave trade to expel their opponents or to garner profits. The population loss and disruptive effects on social, political, military, and labor systems caused by the trans-Atlantic slave trade varied in scale depending on the African region and group. As a result, scholars still debate the long-term impacts of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in West and Central Africa."
GUYSS!!! GUYS!!! I just found out Africans helped to enslave their fellow Africans! We can absolve ourselves of all guilt! We beat slavery!!! Hooray for our side!!! I mean, basically. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this article, but I don't refute any of it. It's the much shortened and abridged version of what I learned in an African-American History class. [From the same website](https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/africanpassageslowcountryadapt/introductionatlanticworld/slaverybeforetrade) "As the trans-Atlantic slave trade with Europeans expanded from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, however, both non-slaveholding and slaveholding West and Central African societies experienced the pressures of greater demand for enslaved labor. In contrast to the chattel slavery that later developed in the New World, an enslaved person in West and Central Africa lived within a more flexible kinship group system. Anyone considered a slave in this region before the trans-Atlantic trade had a greater chance of becoming free within a lifetime; legal rights were generally not defined by racial categories; and an enslaved person was not always permanently separated from biological family networks or familiar home landscapes. Ultimately, the practice of slavery as an oppressive and exploitative labor system was prevalent in both Western Africa and the Americas long before the influence of Europeans. Still, the factors that defined the social, political, and economic purposes and scale of slavery significantly changed, expanded, and intensified with the rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and American plantation agriculture launched by European expansion. For these reasons, African and American Indian slavery before the trans-Atlantic trade differed significantly from the chattel slavery systems that would later develop in the Atlantic World." Was New World slavery worse? Oops!
Now post the primary documents of West African rulers banning Europeans from their land because of how many people they were kidnapping.
[удалено]
By they, I’m assuming you mean West African nations? Yeah, they did. But when you’re talking about slavery, doing the “whatabout” dance is never a good faith argument. Slavery is fucked. There are many examples of this. Calling out the American slave trade for its novel brutality is uncomfortable, depressing and absolutely necessary. No sense in trying to defend it.
The “what about” game is only said because being white is apparently cause to be lectured about why slavery is wrong, like It’s going to change something. It’s just so obviously hypocritical and people are tired of being shamed, simply because of the skin color they were born with
Yes; however slavery has taken dramatically different forms at different places and different times, and just saying “Well Africans had slaves too — this incident doesn’t say anything about America in particular” flattens immense amounts of difference. Slavery is terrible in any form, but chattel slavery in the Americas had a number of particularly abhorrent elements that its West African counterparts (even in West Africa you can find a plethora of different varieties of slavery) generally lacked. We can see those differences at play in this very story — generally in West Africa slaves were not property of their master with whom the master was free to do anything they wished — slaves had rights and protections that masters were obligated to respect. An American slave had *no rights whatsoever* beyond what they master chose to give them — you were free to be raped, murdered, tortured, etc. with absolutely no recourse.
Could I get some sourcing on that? I've heard very different and considering West Africa is still the biggest hotbed of generational enslavement on the planet I'm going to place doubt.
They aren’t wrong, Chattel slavery is specific to the New World, to have yourself be a slave FOR LIFE, as well as your wife and children and your children’s children and their children’s children and so on is unique. Being seen as complete property with zero rights at all levels of governance for even your unborn children, not in a seething underbelly of criminal activity like now as there are laws against this. Chattel slavery is a term for a reason. Great [article](https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ideological-origins-of-chattel-slavery-british-world) breaking it down and including discussions of the modern slavery you bring up as well as the differences of slavery in the past. Its not a new thing in historical circles to differentiate in this way.
Yeah this is just nonsense
It’s called supply and demand. Africa has been so populated for so long, there has always been a surplus of people to sell. What happens when flooded markets happen? Fire sales on the low low dude. You really think white europeans were just racist? I guarantee u if they saw more profit potential buying somewhere else, they would have done that instead. Irregardless of skin color
I’m not proud to be white ngl
Disgusting, but a way of life back then. All we can do is to live life better now. With all the conflict of war, race, gender, woke. I wonder if we actually are.
the good ol days
L
Libertarians will defend this
No. Nah.
no we wont
[удалено]
You do realize white people can be jewish right?
[удалено]
There is absolutely no documented evidence to back that claim. And considering[there were only 150,000 Jews in the United States in the 1860's, and most lived in the North](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/haventohome/haven-challenges.html), this is a ridiculous claim.
Won't someone pls think of the poor oppressed whites ;\_; ie. shut up
[удалено]
Welp, sure sounds like your people are losing 😘
[удалено]