US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Dr Strangelove]

Isn't the word "Slav" actually a derivation of the word "slave", a name given to the Slavic peoples by the Vikings describing the Slavic peoples from the viewpoint of the Vikings?

[Tuberski]

Hey Nickiow, don't worry about Pekka. He just pissed because you seem to be trying to take the title of "Long Winded Poster" away from him.

ACK!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Nickiow


The 1808 clause was a comprimise, it obtained a further 25 year extension later as the slave states did not want, on economic grounds to lose this population base.
The peak importing of slaves to the US was oddly enough is 1790 to 1810, as amny negros were came in as had done in the prior 160 years.
Negros imports from old world to new world
1451-1600====275,000
1601-1700====1,362,000
1701-1810====6,200,000
1811-1870====1,898,000

I believe these figures are irrelevant as they reflect the entire trans-Atlantic slave trade, not the importation of slaves to continental British North America or the United States. The entire black population of the US in 1800 was one half million and in 1860 was about 3.5 million. Slave populations imported to the US generally experienced natural increases nearly identical to the white population, so in fact a rise from 0.5 to 3.5 millions would not require the importation of additional slaves

[Mrs. Tuberski]

This whole thread has now made sense to me. I seriously wonder if its all bout slavery or the fact that in the us the treatment of black folks continued to be a serious issue up till the 19 60's. As it has been posted previous, i am no more to blame for waht happend 100 years ago then i am for what my father did 2 years before he died. I assure you there is always a group of people that assume they are far superior then others. In which case you have a division of right and wrong. If you know its wrong and you do it anyway then you are guilty. My point is why is slavery still an issue. Nobody alive has suffered this horror being discussed. Now if you want to come into the current century I ask my self why the sweat shops arent being discussed? This inturn is a form of slavery is it not? I guess its more inflammatory to bring up **** that happend 150 years ago where nobody alive today is responisble for, then to talk about something that is occuring now and have folks that can be held responsible

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Hey Nickiow, don't worry about Pekka. He just pissed because you seem to be trying to take the title of "Long Winded Poster" away from him.

ACK!

Nah, what really pisses Pekka off is that Nickiow isn't just Long Winded - he seems to both make sense and know what he is talking about

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Isn't the word "Slav" actually a derivation of the word "slave", a name given to the Slavic peoples by the Vikings describing the Slavic peoples from the viewpoint of the Vikings?

No. The vikings didn't know/used the word slave - their slaves was called thralls. It's probably just another word from latin - I think they called their slaves for sklavus.

[Pekka]

BlackCat, hey why don't you go sell some more legos, even God sighs when he sees you.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Pekka
BlackCat, hey why don't you go sell some more legos, even God sighs when he sees you.

Yeah, and you sighs even deeper SC. Well, we can't have that SC gets lazy so I'm here to keep you on your toes and fit for fight

Besides, you are beginning to sound like a LP with a crack - the same tune over and over again - couldn't you try to renew yourself - you are not the usual fun.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Nah, what really pisses Pekka off is that Nickiow isn't just Long Winded - he seems to both make sense and know what he is talking about

I wouldn't know, because, like Pekka posts, I don't bother to read them.

ACK!

[Pekka]

BlackCat, that's ok, if you want some of your usual company, book a flight to Pattaya. Everything under 10 is on sale!! Except that your racism wouldn't be tolerated there either.

Tubes, that's ok too, because you are pig fascist.

[Cyclotron]

10/10

[vomitus]

Re: US, not africans, responsible for slavery

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
It is sad that it is so hard for Americans to say, "This was an era of our history that we are not proud of."

Americans don't say this?

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I believe these figures are irrelevant as they reflect the entire trans-Atlantic slave trade, not the importation of slaves to continental British North America or the United States.

Yes thats what they represent, and that is what i said they were, i also said that the peak import to the US was 1790 to 1810, after the US colonies were sperate from the Uk practice of importing them, the then new sov states continued to do so at a rate far in excess of anything the Uk crown had done so.

Irelavent in what respect?, the point i was adressingwas the Uk importation of slaves compared to US, while the Uk imported them the gross number was small, unlike when the US did so, the highest decade of Uk imports was 1760-1770 at circa 60,000, and a average for the last century was less than half this,while the newly independent USA in 1780-1790 imprted 100,000 and in 1790-1800 imported 110,000 and 1800 and its average since independence until banning the salve trade was 75,000 per decade.

The point of course is that while the Uk/france/spain introduced the practice, the US also expanded it far more than did they.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The entire black population of the US in 1800 was one half million and in 1860 was about 3.5 million. Slave populations imported to the US generally experienced natural increases nearly identical to the white population, so in fact a rise from 0.5 to 3.5 millions would not require the importation of additional slaves

Actually the US education system uses different numbers and reaches different conclusions.

Now you say birth rates are nearly identicle to the white population, this is directly contary to every national cenus, and text book on the subject. For insatnce every decade the pop increase in the US from existing negros was higher than imports of new negros, but even without the new imports the avearge growth rate of the negros was far higher, in some decades 200% higher than white pop increase.

Again i refer to a USA text book, " Thus the US become the leading slave powewr of the western world, not because of involvement in the slave trade, but because of the unusually high rate of natural increase in its slave population".



TABLE 2
Population of the South 1790-1860 by type
Year
White
Free Nonwhite
Slave


1790
1,240,454
32,523
654,121

1800
1,691,892
61,575
851,532

1810
2,118,144
97,284
1,103,700

1820
2,867,454
130,487
1,509,904

1830
3,614,600
175,074
1,983,860

1840
4,601,873
207,214
2,481,390

1850
6,184,477
235,821
3,200,364

1860
8,036,700
253,082
3,950,511

Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970).


Hope that helps, i can post more data if you require it.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
This whole thread has now made sense to me. I seriously wonder if its all bout slavery or the fact that in the us the treatment of black folks continued to be a serious issue up till the 19 60's. As it has been posted previous, i am no more to blame for waht happend 100 years ago then i am for what my father did 2 years before he died. I assure you there is always a group of people that assume they are far superior then others. In which case you have a division of right and wrong. If you know its wrong and you do it anyway then you are guilty. My point is why is slavery still an issue. Nobody alive has suffered this horror being discussed. Now if you want to come into the current century I ask my self why the sweat shops arent being discussed? This inturn is a form of slavery is it not? I guess its more inflammatory to bring up **** that happend 150 years ago where nobody alive today is responisble for, then to talk about something that is occuring now and have folks that can be held responsible

Slavery is a form of ecominic exploitation, there are praticly no civilizatiopns that have not pratcised it, the romans had an alternative to slavery, it was genocide.

Now the level of economic explotation is whats really the point, was US slavery worse than any ones else?, the % chance of a slave in the US being whipped was less than .1% of a UK naval impressed man odds of being flogged, and .5% of a Uk soldier, your chances of a slave fleeing and a soldier deserting are also intresting to compare.

Most today are still slaves, its just that your contract of employement makes it a very benign form of slavery, so far removed from the other extreme of economic explotation to be almost a different thing, but they are not. Of course when your free and live in Italy 1880, Austria 1875, Uk major Urban town 1860 you will live just under half as long as a US slave, while all french men in 1858 lived on avarage 4 years less than an avewrage US slave.

it all depends on exatly what we mean when we use the same words, slavery to many US slaves ment long life, cfradle to grave health care and diet better than many european countries offerd to its free citizens.

Now thinkers on human rights nearly all support slavery, civilization simply does not function without one section explotation of anothewr section.

some of the worlds earliest written records show human bondage, the Vulture stele of Sumer and the Menes in Egypt show the fate of the mil defeated, those who would not acpt are shown being executed.

Aristotle had a vision of a perfect society, it had slaves, a benign form to be sure, but without slaves there woulod be no time for the greek to think deeply about stuff.

Romans had a more pragmatic approach, cato wrote a tretise on the most cost effiecent use of slave labour that become the standard way the plantationwere run, he maxed out profit and loss, recomending the death of slaves at a certain point as the cost profit balance dicated, not universally acepted, but not uncommon practice either.


Skip forward to Lock, who advances inaliable rights for men, but was a dircetor of a slave firm and owned and profited from them, he acpeted and tolerated slavery as also being natural, the alternative was death, he saw that the alternative to death was slavery, the slave had already lost the right to life and could deprive his master of the economic gain by ending his life.

T More in the Uk a champion of natural rights also acepted slavery in his Utopian view of a pefect model society and so on.

so whats changed?, well slavery has been the norm since we first had records of, and its not gone now, we still have it, its just the terms and conditions of it have become very benign and apply to nearly all, society simply functions best when sections of it exploit other sections of it.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
Nicki, I think you owe me an apology. You have insulted me out of no reason and gotten personal.

Your even funnier today than yesterday!.

Should you not be off selling your body for finacial gain?, after all since you want to advertise you do this on your profile we all know your that kind of person, the only question is what price your willing to accept for your use?.

Im english, we only ever insult by intention, never by accident btw.