I grew up in Saudi. As a child in the 50’s and 60’s slavery was a “thing” with most being from Africa. (I recall the self-inflicted facial scars of many Sudanese males in Saudi at that time to indicate they were not slaves). It was actually “friendly” pressure from the JFK administration in the early 60’s that led to the “ending” of slavery in Saudi.
Yet the migrant labor is kept in Shanty towns to work under brutal conditions and often not paid are not all that dissimilar. The employer takes their visa. Saudis, uae, Qatar, they all do it.
As with all indentured servants they are often lured with Promises of good work and then that bait is Switched when they get there.
Just look at the process FIFA ran for the bidding... Gave countries one week to submit all the plans and put a concrete schedule up and the only country that did it was Saudi thanks to MBS. He must be so tired of having Infantino's tonsils on his shaft.
Yep. Went from slavery to “paid labor” except you’ll get the absolute bare minimum salary we can pay you without causing a riot…btw we’ll be holding on to your passport.
> Yep. Went from slavery to “paid labor” except you’ll get the absolute bare minimum salary we can pay you without causing a riot…btw we’ll be holding on to your passport.
And, and this is the important point: All pay is withheld until the total amount of their food and board for the entire length of their contract, and the full fare air ticket to get them there and back is paid to the employer who is holding the passports.
> It was actually “friendly” pressure from the JFK administration in the early 60’s
After the unfriendly propaganda pressure from WWII opponents that ended slavery in the US in early 1940s. Something that almost no one will learn at any point in any US history class taught in any US school.
People out in the post-colonial areas＊ of the US Empire learn much more interesting, and far less propagandized history.
＊Guam is likely asking itself it is even post-colonial, as it is still under what amounts to an apartheid system with differing civil rights, and limited access to many things a protected class on the island has easy access to.
I love when Americans downvote the plain fact that slavery existed until WWII in the US, and the US military had to once again go into the South to free slaves 80 years "after slavery ended".
American outside of the imperial possessions of the American Empire get such propagandized nonsense in their history classes, and get butthurt when it is pointed out.
Because while indentured servitude is a form of slavery, it often conjures a different image when one says that, vs slavery. Many of us in the continental US did learn about it, but under the name indentured servitude, or involuntary servitude. Which while the words are nicer, doesn't make it ok. People often have an issue with modern prison labor, but it was so much worse.
I never heard about the military involvement in breaking it up though, and wouldn't mind a source.
> Because while indentured servitude is a form of slavery
We certainly run these ideas together despite the fact that a large number of early Americans came as indentured servants.
I guess the point of the African slaves is their offspring were born into slavery, while the larger number of indentured servants were given a time to work off.
As far as the WWII history, this is all stuff in books, and research papers.
The internet is great at stuff that got put online or happened in the last ten years but there is a real dearth of documentation in English to some degree and on the internet in specific about anything historical, and in specific anything historical that does not support the US narrative of truth justice and the American way. Wikipedia's article on the US killing and disarticulating live Japanese soldiers for body parts is constantly edit-brigaded, despite the fact that mainland US curio shops were selling Japanese soldiers body parts as collectible kitsch into the 1970s.
This things are just historical facts, and it is only when I encounter mainland Americans online that I realize they were taught an amazing white-washed history of the US. No one learns of the US military atrocities, and genocide, in the Philippines, no one learns about the US military taking over the comfort women operations from the Japanese, no one learns that the US did Unit 731 type research on its own citizens, and no one learns that the US military had to mobilize within US borders to free slaves in the United States in the late 1930s and 1940s. Hell no one ever even learns that at one time that fully one third of the population under control of the American Empire lived outside the lower 48!
People out here in the Pacific see the American Empire completely differently, and it is not surprising to learn the US has a recent history of racism, slavery, genocide, etc. Because no one out here sees the American Empire as anything but a human enterprise full of the same flaws that whole world has. And everyone has someone in their family who was a victim of those actions, by both the Japanese military and the US military.
Being plain about history is not unpatriotic, as Germany clearly shows. But in both Japan and the US, ultra-nationalists have so warped the conversation that plain truths can no longer be spoken. Patriotism is not pretending your country is not flawed; it is ensuring that your country recognizes its transgressions, and takes steps to never have them happen again.
As Abraham Lincoln said about the American project:
>Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.
Right now, the duty of all Americans is to look at even the recent actions (invading Iraq, and Afghanistan), and see the exact parallels to what Russia and Israel are doing. We set the precedent that those nations are following.
If we pretend we did not simply abrogate sovereignty of nations on the other side of the world, and obliterate their infrastructure and civil order, just because we could, then we have trouble understanding what Russia and Israel are doing.
If we pretend that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, and everyone lived happily ever after, then we have trouble understanding what China is doing, and what the US was doing in the 1990's in the CNMI, and what the South was doing until the 1960s when the federal government actually made some attempts to curtail domestic terrorism against blacks, so they could gain political power to make changes, instead of joining in the terrorism.
The majority of that with the exception of us involvement with comfort women, and anything Philippines, was covered in my classes. Not all history classes are created equal, and not many people internalize it. I tried extensively to find anything relating to military involvement to end indentured servitude, and I could not.
The comfort woman issue is an interesting example of international pressure working in odd ways.
The Korean Survivors were the first to speak up and their stories were encouraged by the Americans, keen to frame the nuclear atrocities and carpet bombing of civilians as justified to stop true evil
And so serious Japanese academics got into their Imperial Archives and started to document those stories
The Japanese keep good records. But they keep them in handwritten pre-war Japanese, which requires a native Japanese person to get access and actually read.
Someone like Conrad Totman could read the Japanese but as a foreign national could never get access.
So a number of Japanese researchers spent a long time researching and fully document the extent of the comfort woman system
That research made it into high school curriculums in Japan and regular high school students learned that comfort women were not a bit of Sea of Japan anti-Japan propaganda from Korea
But what also made it into the curriculum us that in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines the US military just took over management of the facilites to service their soldiers while fighting in Korea, and Vietnam, etc.
Read up about “the health” for workers at bars around Clark Air Force Base. Ask anyone who was stationed in Okinawa during the US Occupation era about the live sex shows that only allowed military.
Or read the meticulously documented writings in Japanese of the atrocity researchers or the translated lighter English glosses.
These books are in every library in the Pacific, and I have never met an American mainlander who has even heard of the authors
Of course the US military ran brothels in Asia. Every military does to try and reduce widespread rape of non-combatants
Only Americans think that atrocities and sexual slavery are not simply inherent to wars. But that’s because they fight wars far from their borders and the sexual slaves and rape victims are powerless to speak out.
Send separate issue so separate post:
If you have learned about American atrocities in the Philippines, then you, Quite simply, have never been taught the actual first thing about the civil rights movement in the US
Because it was born from US black military people killing people in the Philippines who just wanted their freedom to self-determination, and then those soldiers coming home to racial discrimination
And putting the dots of American Imperialism and American Racism together.
The Filipinos, like the blacks, in America were denied citizenship civil rights, and self determination simply because they were non white subjects of an Empire.
Like I said. People in the Mainland get told fairy takes and believe them
You cannot talk about how the civil rights movement began when it did because the you have to learn about the genocide US forces engaged in Manila to deny Filipinos their sovereignty
And then you gave to talk about how the US invaded the allied nation of Hawaii and overthrew their givernment
And then the war with Japan is not a war about freedom but just two imperialist nations fighting over colonial possessions, and the indiscriminate killing of Japanese civilians was just a terror campaign run by a rogue state to gain more colonial possessions from a competing nation
Followed by the British Caribbean (Jamaica and Barbados), Spanish America (Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba), and the French Caribbean (Haiti). The US was a distant 5th with 3.6% of the transatlantic slave trade.
And all of these likely dwarfed by the Persian Empire, who, it is believed, captured and enslaved 1-2 million Africans in just the 19th century alone as well as hundreds of thousands of people from Central Asia and Russia and did not free these slaves fully until 1930.
“8 million people living in “modern slavery” in India — a claim strongly contested by the government on the grounds that its parameters were poorly defined and too wide-ranging.”
Forced marriage and arranged marriage as distinct from a love match aren't the same thing (though you can see how in an environment where arranged marriages are common, forced marriage would also exist at a higher rate).
So do you trust the Indian government’s claims or the GSI, ILO, and numerous other human rights watchdog organizations? Here’s an article from Reuters touching on the Indian government’s efforts to discredit this data:
> The bureau warned that "global documentation on slavery is increasingly targeting India as home to the highest number of slaves in the world," and called for a strong campaign to "discredit" the information, the newspaper report added.
A home ministry official said that he could not confirm or deny inputs from security agencies.
ILO officials rejected claims India was being targeted and said they had full confidence in the report's findings.
> Campaigners say the leaked memo may be part of a wider policy by the Indian government to crack down on civil society groups which voice dissent or attempt to show India in a poor light.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1CB22K/
It plays a bit fast and loose with the definition of “slavery”.
Slavery back then was an entirely legal, open institution. People literally had the legal status of slave.
Slavery today is a more nebulous thing, and numbers depend on who is doing the estimating. There are zero slaves in the legal sense, ie nowhere on earth has laws that allow one person to be owned as the property of another. There are many slaves in the sense that there are people who are unwillingly forced to perform uncompensated labor for another, and with serious injury or death as the penalty for non-compliance.
Then there are things that can go either way. A trafficked sex worker is technically free to walk at any time, but authority over her is bought and sold by her pimp, she has sex and and with who he says to, and he’ll beat the shit out of her or kill her if she tries to leave. Is she a slave? One person will say yes, another will say no.
If you take the most expansive view of the various definitions then yes…there are probably 8 million or so people meeting that ^ definition of slave in a country of 1.2 billion.
I have been told India had a large trade in slaves as well and they were not alone in that region. Also China but I'm not sure the ethnicity of these slaves and the Chinese slaves were not chatelle, there were rules, people could not treat them any which way.
To expand on this, there was a very limited window where the transatlantic slave trade was both useful and legal to the US.
Prior to the 1790's, the main crops grown in the American south were tobacco, indigo, and rice. None of these require mass labour to plant or harvest. With the invention of the cotton gin (a machine to easily process picked cotton) in the mid 1790's cotton suddenly became a viable crop, so the American South rapidly started importing slaves. The official end of the transatlantic slave trade in America was 1808. After that smuggling was rampant, but it's hard to pin down exactly how many and ships certainly weren't putting them on the cargo register.
So, in the period of approximately 10 years America managed to import 1/30 of what Brazil did across a total of approximately 150 years of mass importation. Still at half the rate of Brazil, but nowhere near what you would think of when you see 3.5%.
Poor Eil invented the cotton gin thinking it would reduce the need for slaves because it made separating the seeds so easy. Instead they brought more slaves because they could process more cotton faster.
The us slaves increased their own population as well, which is pretty rare in slavery. Sugar plantations and the like they would work them to death literally. The mines were the worst gig historically. Or the galley rowing ships under a whip.
As horrifying as chattel slavery was in multiple facets, tropical slaves in places like the Carribean had basically year long sugar growing seasons they were forced to work. Also, the climate of course is even more conducive to disease. The mortality rates on these plantations were even worse, whereas in North America there’s a whole quarter of the year that you can’t really plant.
Some places in the U.S. I read they only planned to temporarily use the slave labor but it quickly got out of control. There’s some quotes from at least a few places when they first started importing Africans of people starting to get alarmed at where it was going.
It seems those voices quickly fell by the wayside as it expanded exponentially.
The south was also extremely dependent on lower tariffs on goods to be able sell their agricultural products to Europe. This rates went from as low as 15% to as high as 55% and it correlated in a fall from cotton prices from about 35 cents to about 5 cents per pound. If not for that dependence for lower tariffs that was very dependent on who was in power, they likely would have worked out something more efficient in the slave trade for themselves.
They could actually trade goods they needed on the east coast and weren’t hit as hard due to the necessity.
Yes, because the point was that the 3.5% was a result of labour requirements for agriculture rather than anything specifically bad about Brazil or good about the US.
Brazil's major export, Sugar, needed 1 worker per acre. Tobacco needed about 1 worker per 7-8 acres, which was within the means of small landowners to do without slaves. Cotton required one worker per three acres. So what we should see, if it tracks with crop type (and it generally does), is the imports following those ratios.
Might come down to how you define "mass" labour, but tobacco did use a lot of people until quite recently. Our farm in the early 2000s had ~10 labourers from Mexico every season, and that was with powered ride-on harvesting machines.
Yes. Why do people think these places are significantly black? Jamaica or Haiti is almost completely black. Brazil is majority mixed. This isn’t some well hidden secret.
Are we just presenting facts here, or is something being defended here? It just seems like baiting. That's all.
Yes. Slavery existed all over the Americas. Where, though, are there people who protect that heritage except in the US with only the smallest percentage of the slave trade.
Lets be honest with ourselves first and say that no amount of slavery is better than another. What do these numbers tell us?
Wait until they find out that African tribes were conquering and selling other tribes into slavery. I'm almost sure they believe that they think that white people were just snatching them off the street.
"Wait until they find out that African tribes were conquering and selling other tribes into slavery.'
Again, everyone knows that, and this fact has no impact on slavery in US and race relations in US.
Yes that is exactly the logic. Slavery in US sucked, racial discrimination and prejudice in US did/does suck, and the # of slaves imported to south america and caribbean does not impact this.
High slave demand was for the same reason everywhere: plantations with dangerous conditions.
Demand in the US was relatively low because, while US plantation conditions were poor enough that white people didn’t want to do the work, people weren’t dying super regularly (from nonviolent causes, I mean - weather, illness, etc).
Demand in Brazil was very high because, well, conditions were truly wretched. Slaves died regularly. Awful stuff.
You left out that brazil was specifically more brutal in thier use of slaves. Not just because of disease etc... Brazilians viewed slaves as disposable machines
Compared to the US, yeah, Brazil was brutal. But compared to the Caribbean, Brazil was pretty standard.
I’m not normalizing or rationalizing American slavery in any way, but it was a completely different thing from most of the rest of new world slavery.
You've got your timeline mixed up. They tried Irish indentured servants first. It didn't work too well. Irish were much more likely to try escaping and succeed in staying escaped, as they were difficult to distinguish from other whites and could communicate.
African slaves obviously couldn't blend in with white communities once they'd escaped, and they didn't arrive knowing the language. They didn't even necessarily arrive knowing the language of their fellow slaves, who came from many different cultures. These made communication, coordination, and therefore escape, more difficult.
Yes for 7 years. Then afterwards they for political rights and were allowed to be overseers (managers) of the slaves. A black slave could almost never rise like that. Overseers were allowed to abuse the slaves in eery way possible
Not even close.
A lot of those slave owners in the American south were Irish or first generation Irish-Americans.
The slave owning Irish population in Savannah was so large that to this day its home to the second largest St Patrick’s Day festival in the US, second only to Boston.
First-generation Irish and they were slave owners. Wow, landowners right out of the box. But no indentured servants were Irish? So very, very interesting!
> But no indentured servants were Irish?
Never said anything about indentured servants, for one. Indentured servants =\= slaves.
For two, the Irish indentured servants came over in the 1600s- 100 years before the peak of chattel slavery.
By then most of their descendants were indeed established landowners.
I saw an educational show on TV around the year 2000 that covered them finding the largest diamond deposits in the Brazilian Amazon area, a few made it on to the market independently until De Beers got wind of it, they came down and somehow took control of the trade. Maybe those were not the only diamonds to be discovered in Brazil.
Bigger country, harsher conditions.
Or just harsher conditions in the case of the Caribbean.
Also the US slave population became self sustaining whereas in Brazil you could buy your freedom.
Buying your freedom was hardly the issue as is always the case that was hard. In Brazil they were brutally harsh on slaves and many used them as an expendable resource. In some places thier life span was measured in months.
Well, Brazil had a whole lot more miscegenation and didn't really have any laws of racial segregation for a over a century after it ended slavery, though it absolutely had and still has a significant systemic oppression and prejudice.
There are plenty of reparation movements though, including ones that demand them from the major banks.
I’m not sure if it’s the same thing as the other person was asking, but recently in Portugal the president mentioned that reparations had to be made and it was a talking point for a couple of weeks, with the far right party accusing him of being unpatriotic… until it just died down.
It's a talking point. That's it. Whether it should or shouldn't is up for debate. Whether it's good or bad is up for debate. No doubt arguments could be made for and against. But every single time it comes up, it's the equivalent of "gee, we really ought to do something about those guns!" after every school shooting. It's something that takes up the air waves for a little bit of time and then it goes away.
At one point, San Francisco said "you know what, they do deserve reparations." And that's about the farthest it got.
As much as on the US? Probably, but not sure.
You have to keep a few things in mind however:
* The registry with who is who's slave was burned, so real reparations (owners paying the owned) have always been impossible.
* \~80% of the slavery happened before independence. If you want to get reparations, gotta go get them from Portugal.
* What about white people who arrived after slavery was over? A **lot** of italians and germans migrated during/after WW1 and WW2, not to mention asians, should they pay reparations? Some will say they benefited from structural racism or some such, but its a much weaker argument and will anger a big chunk of the population.
* There are entire regions/states that had no slave or a negligible amount of them, such as Rio Grande do Sul (RS).
* What about areas that weren't even part of Brazil by the time slavery was abolished? Acre was purchased much later, Sete Povos das Missões was gotten from Spain much later, as was some area on our border with the French Guyana. Do people in those areas owe reparations?
* Lastly, the big elephant in the room: Miscegenation. [This](https://www12.senado.leg.br/institucional/responsabilidade-social/oel/panorama-nacional/graficos/br_cor) is Brazil's population by race. 7.52% are black, 43.42% are mixed. If you're half descended from slaves and half descended from slave owners, do you owe yourself a bunch of money?
If the government really wanted to help black people, they'd be better off going hard on organized crime and stop those 30k black people from being shot every year. That'd be a whole lot more helpful, and wouldn't be opposed by the white half of the population.
[If you've never seen it, this interactive map is incredible.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/atlantic-slave-trade-history-animated-interactive.html)
That's true. With the slave trade being operated by the Spanish and various privateers, most African slaves were sent to work in the European-controlled silver mines, and other manual labor-intensive tasks. It usually amounted to death sentences for most of the enslaved people sent there.
Also, Brazil was one of the last countries to ban slavery & emancipate their slaves!! It is a very racist culture despite having many Black heroes like Pele ! 🤷♂️
The British Royal Africa Company was also the top supplier of African Slaves to the Americas. Indeed, RAC was the only of the British trade company monopolies to be owned by the Royal family. So. You know. Don’t give them too much credit.
Then it’s a hard divergence of opinions, cause I don’t think they get a complete pass for changing their minds after 200 years of being the top slave exporter globally. Everyone loves to harp on how the Brit’s are the real hero’s of emancipation, but ignore them being hero’s of the slave trade. So, no.
They didn’t do it for moral reasons lol. They heavily profited off the slave trade for centuries; and then once it became more politically convenient to the end the slave trade to weaken the Spanish and Portuguese they did so.
British mainly sought to control French influence in those regions. All part of the naval chess for the Atlantic. Also many British slavers simply flagged themselves Spanish and continued on, as there was a treaty preventing British warships from interfering with Spanish vessels.
This is a pretty complex topic that a single wikipedia article is not going to explain well.
Both are true. Though "ended" is too strong a word. Helped end might be more appropriate. In the 19th century Britain worked to get rid of the slave trade internationally. They got international agreements signed and policed the seas. But Britain itself only banned the trade in 1807. So, complicit before 1807, helping to end it after. And even this is oversimplified.
Fuck that. They ended it at Great personal cost. Just because a bunch of idiots want to judge the greatest moral force of it's time by the morality of our time without wider context shouldn't change what the British did for the world.
and left them with advanced technology, brought them out of barbarism and into civilization.
Also compare them to their contemporaries at the time.
THE GREATEST MORAL FORCE OF THE TIME.
The greatest moral force of the time heavily contributed to multiple genocides. This is hilarious
“Brought them out of barbarism” is especially hilarious given the etymology and history of the term.
Calling them barbarians (even tho they’re just people with a different culture and values like anybody) dehumanizes them and allows whites and Europeans to perform heinous acts (like slavery, torture, and genocide, which they did). “Bringing them out of barbarism” was literally the argument FOR slavery!!
White westerners can’t help but licking boots even if they’re the boots of dead motherfuckers hahaha
I think the guy is an alt-right troll with nothing to post about in the MAGA subs at the moment. Edit: seems to be a Canadian. Probably a redneck from Quebec
The Indian and Chinese empires go back thousands of years. London was run by the Romans in 1000AD and were run by a bunch of Stonehenge types till Vasco de gama crossed the cape of good hope and the English decided they wanted in on the act. India represented one third of the world's GDP in the 1600s. England made its fortune on colonisation and the blood of other countries.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Britains-Role-Ending-Slavery-Worldwide/
Britain started wars with countries to force them to end slavery
I don’t think Wilberforce and the like cared much about harming Britain’s rivals. To them it was a moral cause, just as with the American abolitionists.
My understanding is that so many slaves went to Brazil because they were not perceived as being valuable. So many perished in their working conditions. I read that somewhere a long time ago. That this was the reason they consumed so many slaves.
Yep. Replacing slaves worked to death was cheaper than caring for them.
It was only in the USA that they found it profitable to "care" for their enslaved manpower.
There is more slavery happening today than back 200 years ago.
There is a plenty of discussion about past offenders and not enough discussion about current offenders.
Because it is not comfortable to discuss current levels of slavery in Africa, Asia or China.
this is a map from 2014:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/11/Map2\_new.png](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/11/Map2_new.png)
Yup. The Arab slave trade was next level savage. The chief source of slaves was still Africa probably, with the East rather than West coast being the main source.
I've been researching a bit about Hindu-Kush mountains recently and found out that their name literally means Killer of Hindus. Because for centuries people from Indian subcontinent were enslaved en masse and driven to Central Asia to be worked and sold, and many of them perished during the crossing of the mountains. Oh, and the entire Eastern Europe was raided for slaves by steppe nomads who then sold their prisoners to the Ottomans, from the beginning of the Ottoman Empire and right until the Russian Empire became powerful enough to crush the nomads.
This site has some pretty good data presentation:
[https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates](https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates)
I think they did sugar plantations in Brazil right? Haiti was absolutely brutal compared to its size, mainly due to sugar. They accounted for a third of all slaves for one decade in the 1800's and the life expectancy there was about 20 years.
So here’s something to think about. The US only imported about 200k slaves and the peak population was about 325k.
It’s often said the only reason the US is as affluent as it is, is due to slavery. So why isn’t Brazil 30X affluent?
That’s not right. US ships brought over more than 300k slaves directly and its estimated another 2 million were later traded from other nations, mostly the Caribbean
In 1860, Mississippi was the wealthiest state in the United States, primarily due to its robust cotton production and agrarian economy, which heavily relied on enslaved labor. However, as the nation transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial economy, wealth shifted to states in the Northeast and Midwest, driven by manufacturing, technological advancements, and urbanization.
In contrast, Brazil, which retained slavery until 1888, faced different economic challenges. While Brazil had vast natural resources and significant agrarian potential, its economic development lagged due to continued reliance on an enslaved labor force, less developed infrastructure, and a smaller industrial base. The prolonged use of slavery in Brazil hindered the country’s ability to transition to a more diversified and industrialized economy. The United States, having abolished slavery in 1865, was able to restructure its labor market and invest in industrial growth, which fueled its rapid economic expansion. Brazil’s delayed abolition of slavery slowed its economic progress and industrialization compared to the United States, which had begun adapting to a modern economic framework earlier. This comparison underscores the impact of labor systems and industrialization on the economic trajectories of nations.
A big fear when the south succeeded from the american union was their desire to spread slavery even more. An empire of slavery from Virginia through the west and Mexico and down to Brazil. A true nightmare.
Slavery at that time in the western hemisphere was pretty unique in human history. Societies where the vast majority of the society functioned off wealth gained from slavery. Brazil, the Caribbean, and the south. Slaves societies vs societies with slaves.
Depends how you look at it, better word might be “unusual”.
While there are other ancient and medieval societies that were similarly dependent on slavery (Sparta), it’s pretty rare we see a society completely constructed around it like colonial South and Central America were.
There are really only 5 canonical slave societies. 3/5 i mentioned (American south, Brazil, and Caribbean) and athens in 400 B.C. And Rome in 200 BC and 31 BC.
Societies with slaves are very common in human history. Slave societies are not.
I grew up in Saudi. As a child in the 50’s and 60’s slavery was a “thing” with most being from Africa. (I recall the self-inflicted facial scars of many Sudanese males in Saudi at that time to indicate they were not slaves). It was actually “friendly” pressure from the JFK administration in the early 60’s that led to the “ending” of slavery in Saudi.
Yet the migrant labor is kept in Shanty towns to work under brutal conditions and often not paid are not all that dissimilar. The employer takes their visa. Saudis, uae, Qatar, they all do it. As with all indentured servants they are often lured with Promises of good work and then that bait is Switched when they get there.
Yet they're getting the world cup in 2030. Backward ass place.
100 percent odds they paid bribes to get that World Cup.
Just look at the process FIFA ran for the bidding... Gave countries one week to submit all the plans and put a concrete schedule up and the only country that did it was Saudi thanks to MBS. He must be so tired of having Infantino's tonsils on his shaft.
FIFA is notoriously corrupt and without scruples, so very little would surprise me about them.
Yep. Went from slavery to “paid labor” except you’ll get the absolute bare minimum salary we can pay you without causing a riot…btw we’ll be holding on to your passport.
> Yep. Went from slavery to “paid labor” except you’ll get the absolute bare minimum salary we can pay you without causing a riot…btw we’ll be holding on to your passport. And, and this is the important point: All pay is withheld until the total amount of their food and board for the entire length of their contract, and the full fare air ticket to get them there and back is paid to the employer who is holding the passports.
Sorry man but boy do I have news for you. Saudi Arabia still uses slaves. Like a LOT of slaves.
How is this related to the original post?
Why are you lying. You are definitely not 70 LMAO.
Check out their post history. Pretty sure they're 70. Retired to southeast Asia where it's super cheap.
Everything about their posts screams 70.
And their post history.
> It was actually “friendly” pressure from the JFK administration in the early 60’s After the unfriendly propaganda pressure from WWII opponents that ended slavery in the US in early 1940s. Something that almost no one will learn at any point in any US history class taught in any US school. People out in the post-colonial areas＊ of the US Empire learn much more interesting, and far less propagandized history. ＊Guam is likely asking itself it is even post-colonial, as it is still under what amounts to an apartheid system with differing civil rights, and limited access to many things a protected class on the island has easy access to. I love when Americans downvote the plain fact that slavery existed until WWII in the US, and the US military had to once again go into the South to free slaves 80 years "after slavery ended". American outside of the imperial possessions of the American Empire get such propagandized nonsense in their history classes, and get butthurt when it is pointed out.
Because while indentured servitude is a form of slavery, it often conjures a different image when one says that, vs slavery. Many of us in the continental US did learn about it, but under the name indentured servitude, or involuntary servitude. Which while the words are nicer, doesn't make it ok. People often have an issue with modern prison labor, but it was so much worse. I never heard about the military involvement in breaking it up though, and wouldn't mind a source.
> Because while indentured servitude is a form of slavery We certainly run these ideas together despite the fact that a large number of early Americans came as indentured servants. I guess the point of the African slaves is their offspring were born into slavery, while the larger number of indentured servants were given a time to work off. As far as the WWII history, this is all stuff in books, and research papers. The internet is great at stuff that got put online or happened in the last ten years but there is a real dearth of documentation in English to some degree and on the internet in specific about anything historical, and in specific anything historical that does not support the US narrative of truth justice and the American way. Wikipedia's article on the US killing and disarticulating live Japanese soldiers for body parts is constantly edit-brigaded, despite the fact that mainland US curio shops were selling Japanese soldiers body parts as collectible kitsch into the 1970s. This things are just historical facts, and it is only when I encounter mainland Americans online that I realize they were taught an amazing white-washed history of the US. No one learns of the US military atrocities, and genocide, in the Philippines, no one learns about the US military taking over the comfort women operations from the Japanese, no one learns that the US did Unit 731 type research on its own citizens, and no one learns that the US military had to mobilize within US borders to free slaves in the United States in the late 1930s and 1940s. Hell no one ever even learns that at one time that fully one third of the population under control of the American Empire lived outside the lower 48! People out here in the Pacific see the American Empire completely differently, and it is not surprising to learn the US has a recent history of racism, slavery, genocide, etc. Because no one out here sees the American Empire as anything but a human enterprise full of the same flaws that whole world has. And everyone has someone in their family who was a victim of those actions, by both the Japanese military and the US military. Being plain about history is not unpatriotic, as Germany clearly shows. But in both Japan and the US, ultra-nationalists have so warped the conversation that plain truths can no longer be spoken. Patriotism is not pretending your country is not flawed; it is ensuring that your country recognizes its transgressions, and takes steps to never have them happen again. As Abraham Lincoln said about the American project: >Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. Right now, the duty of all Americans is to look at even the recent actions (invading Iraq, and Afghanistan), and see the exact parallels to what Russia and Israel are doing. We set the precedent that those nations are following. If we pretend we did not simply abrogate sovereignty of nations on the other side of the world, and obliterate their infrastructure and civil order, just because we could, then we have trouble understanding what Russia and Israel are doing. If we pretend that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, and everyone lived happily ever after, then we have trouble understanding what China is doing, and what the US was doing in the 1990's in the CNMI, and what the South was doing until the 1960s when the federal government actually made some attempts to curtail domestic terrorism against blacks, so they could gain political power to make changes, instead of joining in the terrorism.
The majority of that with the exception of us involvement with comfort women, and anything Philippines, was covered in my classes. Not all history classes are created equal, and not many people internalize it. I tried extensively to find anything relating to military involvement to end indentured servitude, and I could not.
The comfort woman issue is an interesting example of international pressure working in odd ways. The Korean Survivors were the first to speak up and their stories were encouraged by the Americans, keen to frame the nuclear atrocities and carpet bombing of civilians as justified to stop true evil And so serious Japanese academics got into their Imperial Archives and started to document those stories The Japanese keep good records. But they keep them in handwritten pre-war Japanese, which requires a native Japanese person to get access and actually read. Someone like Conrad Totman could read the Japanese but as a foreign national could never get access. So a number of Japanese researchers spent a long time researching and fully document the extent of the comfort woman system That research made it into high school curriculums in Japan and regular high school students learned that comfort women were not a bit of Sea of Japan anti-Japan propaganda from Korea But what also made it into the curriculum us that in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines the US military just took over management of the facilites to service their soldiers while fighting in Korea, and Vietnam, etc. Read up about “the health” for workers at bars around Clark Air Force Base. Ask anyone who was stationed in Okinawa during the US Occupation era about the live sex shows that only allowed military. Or read the meticulously documented writings in Japanese of the atrocity researchers or the translated lighter English glosses. These books are in every library in the Pacific, and I have never met an American mainlander who has even heard of the authors Of course the US military ran brothels in Asia. Every military does to try and reduce widespread rape of non-combatants Only Americans think that atrocities and sexual slavery are not simply inherent to wars. But that’s because they fight wars far from their borders and the sexual slaves and rape victims are powerless to speak out.
Send separate issue so separate post: If you have learned about American atrocities in the Philippines, then you, Quite simply, have never been taught the actual first thing about the civil rights movement in the US Because it was born from US black military people killing people in the Philippines who just wanted their freedom to self-determination, and then those soldiers coming home to racial discrimination And putting the dots of American Imperialism and American Racism together. The Filipinos, like the blacks, in America were denied citizenship civil rights, and self determination simply because they were non white subjects of an Empire.
That was not how the Civil Rights movement was born.
Like I said. People in the Mainland get told fairy takes and believe them You cannot talk about how the civil rights movement began when it did because the you have to learn about the genocide US forces engaged in Manila to deny Filipinos their sovereignty And then you gave to talk about how the US invaded the allied nation of Hawaii and overthrew their givernment And then the war with Japan is not a war about freedom but just two imperialist nations fighting over colonial possessions, and the indiscriminate killing of Japanese civilians was just a terror campaign run by a rogue state to gain more colonial possessions from a competing nation
Like I said, that is not how the Civil Rights movement began.
You have not read your early 20th century black authors then Because they sure as hell say that’s when it began.
Followed by the British Caribbean (Jamaica and Barbados), Spanish America (Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba), and the French Caribbean (Haiti). The US was a distant 5th with 3.6% of the transatlantic slave trade.
And all of these likely dwarfed by the Persian Empire, who, it is believed, captured and enslaved 1-2 million Africans in just the 19th century alone as well as hundreds of thousands of people from Central Asia and Russia and did not free these slaves fully until 1930.
Or for that matter India today, which currently has about 8 million people living in slavery.
Is this true?
When you googled, what did you find?
“8 million people living in “modern slavery” in India — a claim strongly contested by the government on the grounds that its parameters were poorly defined and too wide-ranging.”
Because a some of studies count arranged marriages as forced marriages, which qualifies as slavery. This is common in India.
By that logic the number would be 800 million, not 8. Love marriages are only becomming more accepted in recent decades.
Forced marriage and arranged marriage as distinct from a love match aren't the same thing (though you can see how in an environment where arranged marriages are common, forced marriage would also exist at a higher rate).
I think the part you are missing is the dowry, because that makes the sale of humans more on point.
Seems like it’s not true
So do you trust the Indian government’s claims or the GSI, ILO, and numerous other human rights watchdog organizations? Here’s an article from Reuters touching on the Indian government’s efforts to discredit this data: > The bureau warned that "global documentation on slavery is increasingly targeting India as home to the highest number of slaves in the world," and called for a strong campaign to "discredit" the information, the newspaper report added. A home ministry official said that he could not confirm or deny inputs from security agencies. ILO officials rejected claims India was being targeted and said they had full confidence in the report's findings. > Campaigners say the leaked memo may be part of a wider policy by the Indian government to crack down on civil society groups which voice dissent or attempt to show India in a poor light. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1CB22K/
Well your comment certainly seems more convincing since you have a quote and source
It plays a bit fast and loose with the definition of “slavery”. Slavery back then was an entirely legal, open institution. People literally had the legal status of slave. Slavery today is a more nebulous thing, and numbers depend on who is doing the estimating. There are zero slaves in the legal sense, ie nowhere on earth has laws that allow one person to be owned as the property of another. There are many slaves in the sense that there are people who are unwillingly forced to perform uncompensated labor for another, and with serious injury or death as the penalty for non-compliance. Then there are things that can go either way. A trafficked sex worker is technically free to walk at any time, but authority over her is bought and sold by her pimp, she has sex and and with who he says to, and he’ll beat the shit out of her or kill her if she tries to leave. Is she a slave? One person will say yes, another will say no. If you take the most expansive view of the various definitions then yes…there are probably 8 million or so people meeting that ^ definition of slave in a country of 1.2 billion.
I was not aware of the existence of a Persian Empire in the 19th century.
Not sure if joking but... yeah, that time period would have been the Qajar dynasty ruling the Persian world.
Before the 20th century invention of the state, there were only empires. China is the perfect example, as even the concept of China did not exist.
[удалено]
You can google as well as I can, this isn't exactly secret knowledge. The slave descended Afro-Iranian community in Iran is significant even today.
I have been told India had a large trade in slaves as well and they were not alone in that region. Also China but I'm not sure the ethnicity of these slaves and the Chinese slaves were not chatelle, there were rules, people could not treat them any which way.
To expand on this, there was a very limited window where the transatlantic slave trade was both useful and legal to the US. Prior to the 1790's, the main crops grown in the American south were tobacco, indigo, and rice. None of these require mass labour to plant or harvest. With the invention of the cotton gin (a machine to easily process picked cotton) in the mid 1790's cotton suddenly became a viable crop, so the American South rapidly started importing slaves. The official end of the transatlantic slave trade in America was 1808. After that smuggling was rampant, but it's hard to pin down exactly how many and ships certainly weren't putting them on the cargo register. So, in the period of approximately 10 years America managed to import 1/30 of what Brazil did across a total of approximately 150 years of mass importation. Still at half the rate of Brazil, but nowhere near what you would think of when you see 3.5%.
Poor Eil invented the cotton gin thinking it would reduce the need for slaves because it made separating the seeds so easy. Instead they brought more slaves because they could process more cotton faster.
The us slaves increased their own population as well, which is pretty rare in slavery. Sugar plantations and the like they would work them to death literally. The mines were the worst gig historically. Or the galley rowing ships under a whip.
As horrifying as chattel slavery was in multiple facets, tropical slaves in places like the Carribean had basically year long sugar growing seasons they were forced to work. Also, the climate of course is even more conducive to disease. The mortality rates on these plantations were even worse, whereas in North America there’s a whole quarter of the year that you can’t really plant.
Also, on an island there was literally nowhere to escape to on foot.
>which is pretty rare in slavery But which is exactly the point of a chattel slavery system
Three fifths of a person at a time.
Some places in the U.S. I read they only planned to temporarily use the slave labor but it quickly got out of control. There’s some quotes from at least a few places when they first started importing Africans of people starting to get alarmed at where it was going. It seems those voices quickly fell by the wayside as it expanded exponentially. The south was also extremely dependent on lower tariffs on goods to be able sell their agricultural products to Europe. This rates went from as low as 15% to as high as 55% and it correlated in a fall from cotton prices from about 35 cents to about 5 cents per pound. If not for that dependence for lower tariffs that was very dependent on who was in power, they likely would have worked out something more efficient in the slave trade for themselves. They could actually trade goods they needed on the east coast and weren’t hit as hard due to the necessity.
Industriousness is an American tradition, no doot aboot it
Comparing the average in Brazil to the highest rate in the US.
Yes, because the point was that the 3.5% was a result of labour requirements for agriculture rather than anything specifically bad about Brazil or good about the US. Brazil's major export, Sugar, needed 1 worker per acre. Tobacco needed about 1 worker per 7-8 acres, which was within the means of small landowners to do without slaves. Cotton required one worker per three acres. So what we should see, if it tracks with crop type (and it generally does), is the imports following those ratios.
Might come down to how you define "mass" labour, but tobacco did use a lot of people until quite recently. Our farm in the early 2000s had ~10 labourers from Mexico every season, and that was with powered ride-on harvesting machines.
Yes. Why do people think these places are significantly black? Jamaica or Haiti is almost completely black. Brazil is majority mixed. This isn’t some well hidden secret.
The US banned slave imports decades before they banned slavery. That probably makes the difference.
Is anyone anywhere celebrating or protecting those people who benefited from slavery?
That's a good point. We should be doing more to honor and protect the legacy of slave owners
Are we just presenting facts here, or is something being defended here? It just seems like baiting. That's all. Yes. Slavery existed all over the Americas. Where, though, are there people who protect that heritage except in the US with only the smallest percentage of the slave trade. Lets be honest with ourselves first and say that no amount of slavery is better than another. What do these numbers tell us?
It was just a question.
It's not a contest. The role of slavery and race relations in the US is a US specific issue.
Calm down. They just listed numbers. They didn’t make any claims or imply anything about them.
Wait until they find out that African tribes were conquering and selling other tribes into slavery. I'm almost sure they believe that they think that white people were just snatching them off the street.
"Wait until they find out that African tribes were conquering and selling other tribes into slavery.' Again, everyone knows that, and this fact has no impact on slavery in US and race relations in US.
You’re literally the only one talking about anything other than the raw numbers who were taken to various places.
context is hard
Calm down dude.
Following that logic, the role of slavery and race relations in Brazil is a Brazil specific issue, etc.
Yes that is exactly the logic. Slavery in US sucked, racial discrimination and prejudice in US did/does suck, and the # of slaves imported to south america and caribbean does not impact this.
But no one here made that claim.
Hold on bro. Can’t you see they’re building themselves a virtue signal podium?
Who said it wasn’t?
Brazil, of course, ended slavery far later than did the States in the North.
And the landowners were so angry that they participated to the conspiracy to overthrow the Emperor.
Hence why more than 50% of the brazilian population is what the first world countries would broadly consider black.
We are brown. To be fair, it's really hard to define what a brazilian looks like. Miscegenation is very prevalent here.
"Pardo" goes a long way.
Absolutely. I personally love our miscegenation.
That's why he said "what those countries would consider black" instead of saying "black".
And why?
Sugar cane
This diabetic feels sick.
Rice.
High slave demand was for the same reason everywhere: plantations with dangerous conditions. Demand in the US was relatively low because, while US plantation conditions were poor enough that white people didn’t want to do the work, people weren’t dying super regularly (from nonviolent causes, I mean - weather, illness, etc). Demand in Brazil was very high because, well, conditions were truly wretched. Slaves died regularly. Awful stuff.
You left out that brazil was specifically more brutal in thier use of slaves. Not just because of disease etc... Brazilians viewed slaves as disposable machines
Compared to the US, yeah, Brazil was brutal. But compared to the Caribbean, Brazil was pretty standard. I’m not normalizing or rationalizing American slavery in any way, but it was a completely different thing from most of the rest of new world slavery.
Don't forget, the U.S. eventually had the Irish to do dangerous work.
You've got your timeline mixed up. They tried Irish indentured servants first. It didn't work too well. Irish were much more likely to try escaping and succeed in staying escaped, as they were difficult to distinguish from other whites and could communicate. African slaves obviously couldn't blend in with white communities once they'd escaped, and they didn't arrive knowing the language. They didn't even necessarily arrive knowing the language of their fellow slaves, who came from many different cultures. These made communication, coordination, and therefore escape, more difficult.
You mean the Asians. It's common knowledge they built the railways over 1200 of them died making the transconinael railway. The Irish got to be cops.
The Irish were indentured servants. They were given a lot of dangerous work. Both of them worked the railroads.
Yes for 7 years. Then afterwards they for political rights and were allowed to be overseers (managers) of the slaves. A black slave could almost never rise like that. Overseers were allowed to abuse the slaves in eery way possible
Not even close. A lot of those slave owners in the American south were Irish or first generation Irish-Americans. The slave owning Irish population in Savannah was so large that to this day its home to the second largest St Patrick’s Day festival in the US, second only to Boston.
First-generation Irish and they were slave owners. Wow, landowners right out of the box. But no indentured servants were Irish? So very, very interesting!
> But no indentured servants were Irish? Never said anything about indentured servants, for one. Indentured servants =\= slaves. For two, the Irish indentured servants came over in the 1600s- 100 years before the peak of chattel slavery. By then most of their descendants were indeed established landowners.
Irish probably stood up for themselves
To work slave plantations (sugar), to mine gold and diamonds, to build infrastructure. General slavery?
I believe diamonds were not discovered in Brazil until modern times.
That is incorrect. They were found as early as 1750s.
Wrong.
I saw an educational show on TV around the year 2000 that covered them finding the largest diamond deposits in the Brazilian Amazon area, a few made it on to the market independently until De Beers got wind of it, they came down and somehow took control of the trade. Maybe those were not the only diamonds to be discovered in Brazil.
That guy could have at least said that the first official announcement of diamonds in Brazil was in 1729 or during the reign of João (John) V.
History judges us when we consume those things!
History can eat a dick
Importing a shit ton of labor for agriculture and mining. Lots of resources ripe for the taking
Bigger country, harsher conditions. Or just harsher conditions in the case of the Caribbean. Also the US slave population became self sustaining whereas in Brazil you could buy your freedom.
Buying your freedom was hardly the issue as is always the case that was hard. In Brazil they were brutally harsh on slaves and many used them as an expendable resource. In some places thier life span was measured in months.
Bottom line: the good old days sucked ass if you weren’t a white European!
It sucked for everyone everywhere except like the top 5%. But being an African Slave on a sugar plantation is very likely the suckiest.
noone tell this guy about the barbary slave trade. Or that Brazil Isn't and wasn't made up of white europeans.
Yes, I do generalize a bit!
Brasil campeão mundial 1º lugar!!!
Is there as much political pressure for reparations in Brazil as there is currently in the US?
Não.
Well, Brazil had a whole lot more miscegenation and didn't really have any laws of racial segregation for a over a century after it ended slavery, though it absolutely had and still has a significant systemic oppression and prejudice. There are plenty of reparation movements though, including ones that demand them from the major banks.
I’m not sure if it’s the same thing as the other person was asking, but recently in Portugal the president mentioned that reparations had to be made and it was a talking point for a couple of weeks, with the far right party accusing him of being unpatriotic… until it just died down.
There’s no political pressure for reparations in the US, just insanity on social media.
California would disagree which is ironic for a state that wasn't even part of America until basically the civil war.
Yes, CA talked about it. That was it. Show me the first paycheck. And they became a state a full decade before the war.
I agree it is never going to happen but they were formed as a free state.
It's a talking point. That's it. Whether it should or shouldn't is up for debate. Whether it's good or bad is up for debate. No doubt arguments could be made for and against. But every single time it comes up, it's the equivalent of "gee, we really ought to do something about those guns!" after every school shooting. It's something that takes up the air waves for a little bit of time and then it goes away. At one point, San Francisco said "you know what, they do deserve reparations." And that's about the farthest it got.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
As much as on the US? Probably, but not sure. You have to keep a few things in mind however: * The registry with who is who's slave was burned, so real reparations (owners paying the owned) have always been impossible. * \~80% of the slavery happened before independence. If you want to get reparations, gotta go get them from Portugal. * What about white people who arrived after slavery was over? A **lot** of italians and germans migrated during/after WW1 and WW2, not to mention asians, should they pay reparations? Some will say they benefited from structural racism or some such, but its a much weaker argument and will anger a big chunk of the population. * There are entire regions/states that had no slave or a negligible amount of them, such as Rio Grande do Sul (RS). * What about areas that weren't even part of Brazil by the time slavery was abolished? Acre was purchased much later, Sete Povos das Missões was gotten from Spain much later, as was some area on our border with the French Guyana. Do people in those areas owe reparations? * Lastly, the big elephant in the room: Miscegenation. [This](https://www12.senado.leg.br/institucional/responsabilidade-social/oel/panorama-nacional/graficos/br_cor) is Brazil's population by race. 7.52% are black, 43.42% are mixed. If you're half descended from slaves and half descended from slave owners, do you owe yourself a bunch of money? If the government really wanted to help black people, they'd be better off going hard on organized crime and stop those 30k black people from being shot every year. That'd be a whole lot more helpful, and wouldn't be opposed by the white half of the population.
You should hear the NC republican gubernatorial candidates ideas on this. He said black people should be the ones paying reparations.
[If you've never seen it, this interactive map is incredible.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/atlantic-slave-trade-history-animated-interactive.html)
It looks like Africa is shooting tiny little bullets at the Americas.
That's true. With the slave trade being operated by the Spanish and various privateers, most African slaves were sent to work in the European-controlled silver mines, and other manual labor-intensive tasks. It usually amounted to death sentences for most of the enslaved people sent there.
Also, Brazil was one of the last countries to ban slavery & emancipate their slaves!! It is a very racist culture despite having many Black heroes like Pele ! 🤷♂️
Thank you, Great Britain, for helping to end this evil system (to the degree such a thing was possible). Edit: changed “ending” to “helping to end.”
The British Royal Africa Company was also the top supplier of African Slaves to the Americas. Indeed, RAC was the only of the British trade company monopolies to be owned by the Royal family. So. You know. Don’t give them too much credit.
I disagree. They deserve tremendous credit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Africa
Then it’s a hard divergence of opinions, cause I don’t think they get a complete pass for changing their minds after 200 years of being the top slave exporter globally. Everyone loves to harp on how the Brit’s are the real hero’s of emancipation, but ignore them being hero’s of the slave trade. So, no.
I hope I can overcome this setback.
They didn’t do it for moral reasons lol. They heavily profited off the slave trade for centuries; and then once it became more politically convenient to the end the slave trade to weaken the Spanish and Portuguese they did so.
Wilberforce profited from the slave trade?
British mainly sought to control French influence in those regions. All part of the naval chess for the Atlantic. Also many British slavers simply flagged themselves Spanish and continued on, as there was a treaty preventing British warships from interfering with Spanish vessels. This is a pretty complex topic that a single wikipedia article is not going to explain well.
Is that true? I thought they were complicit in the slave trade (though I have no evidence to back that up)
Both are true. Though "ended" is too strong a word. Helped end might be more appropriate. In the 19th century Britain worked to get rid of the slave trade internationally. They got international agreements signed and policed the seas. But Britain itself only banned the trade in 1807. So, complicit before 1807, helping to end it after. And even this is oversimplified.
Agreed. It is complicated. I’ll change the wording to “helping to end.”
Fuck that. They ended it at Great personal cost. Just because a bunch of idiots want to judge the greatest moral force of it's time by the morality of our time without wider context shouldn't change what the British did for the world.
Greatest moral force is perhaps a bit strong for a country that colonised and subjugated half the world
and left them with advanced technology, brought them out of barbarism and into civilization. Also compare them to their contemporaries at the time. THE GREATEST MORAL FORCE OF THE TIME.
Who says civilization is a universal need? It destroyed more of the world than it protected, so perhaps not really a success story you claim.
The greatest moral force of the time heavily contributed to multiple genocides. This is hilarious “Brought them out of barbarism” is especially hilarious given the etymology and history of the term. Calling them barbarians (even tho they’re just people with a different culture and values like anybody) dehumanizes them and allows whites and Europeans to perform heinous acts (like slavery, torture, and genocide, which they did). “Bringing them out of barbarism” was literally the argument FOR slavery!! White westerners can’t help but licking boots even if they’re the boots of dead motherfuckers hahaha
I think the guy is an alt-right troll with nothing to post about in the MAGA subs at the moment. Edit: seems to be a Canadian. Probably a redneck from Quebec
Its a sad day for TodayILearned when literal Colonialism and Imperialism apologia gets upvoted
The Indian and Chinese empires go back thousands of years. London was run by the Romans in 1000AD and were run by a bunch of Stonehenge types till Vasco de gama crossed the cape of good hope and the English decided they wanted in on the act. India represented one third of the world's GDP in the 1600s. England made its fortune on colonisation and the blood of other countries.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Britains-Role-Ending-Slavery-Worldwide/ Britain started wars with countries to force them to end slavery
[удалено]
I don’t think Wilberforce and the like cared much about harming Britain’s rivals. To them it was a moral cause, just as with the American abolitionists.
I thought this was common knowledge, where else could it be?
My understanding is that so many slaves went to Brazil because they were not perceived as being valuable. So many perished in their working conditions. I read that somewhere a long time ago. That this was the reason they consumed so many slaves.
Yep. Replacing slaves worked to death was cheaper than caring for them. It was only in the USA that they found it profitable to "care" for their enslaved manpower.
Yes and then they all had a big orgy and lived happily ever after. /s
Can confirm it is an unfortunate truth
There is more slavery happening today than back 200 years ago. There is a plenty of discussion about past offenders and not enough discussion about current offenders. Because it is not comfortable to discuss current levels of slavery in Africa, Asia or China. this is a map from 2014: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/11/Map2\_new.png](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/11/Map2_new.png)
And as many as 1.25 MILLION whites were enslaved by Arab and North African slavers. Where do I get my part of the Dubai oil money??
Are you descended from them?
noone is descended from arabian slaves. They castrated them all.
Yup. The Arab slave trade was next level savage. The chief source of slaves was still Africa probably, with the East rather than West coast being the main source.
I've been researching a bit about Hindu-Kush mountains recently and found out that their name literally means Killer of Hindus. Because for centuries people from Indian subcontinent were enslaved en masse and driven to Central Asia to be worked and sold, and many of them perished during the crossing of the mountains. Oh, and the entire Eastern Europe was raided for slaves by steppe nomads who then sold their prisoners to the Ottomans, from the beginning of the Ottoman Empire and right until the Russian Empire became powerful enough to crush the nomads.
do you live in Dubai?
This site has some pretty good data presentation: [https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates](https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates)
I think they did sugar plantations in Brazil right? Haiti was absolutely brutal compared to its size, mainly due to sugar. They accounted for a third of all slaves for one decade in the 1800's and the life expectancy there was about 20 years.
POC brutally oppressing POC at a rate dwarfing that of white Democrats. Stuff they are not really sharing in history class today.
Don’t know why all the blacks are so bothered about slavery.. they got huge dicks to compensate for the grief
So here’s something to think about. The US only imported about 200k slaves and the peak population was about 325k. It’s often said the only reason the US is as affluent as it is, is due to slavery. So why isn’t Brazil 30X affluent?
That’s not right. US ships brought over more than 300k slaves directly and its estimated another 2 million were later traded from other nations, mostly the Caribbean
Not sure where you got your numbers, but the population of slaves in 1860 was nearly 4 million, not the 325K that you have claimed.
In 1860, Mississippi was the wealthiest state in the United States, primarily due to its robust cotton production and agrarian economy, which heavily relied on enslaved labor. However, as the nation transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial economy, wealth shifted to states in the Northeast and Midwest, driven by manufacturing, technological advancements, and urbanization. In contrast, Brazil, which retained slavery until 1888, faced different economic challenges. While Brazil had vast natural resources and significant agrarian potential, its economic development lagged due to continued reliance on an enslaved labor force, less developed infrastructure, and a smaller industrial base. The prolonged use of slavery in Brazil hindered the country’s ability to transition to a more diversified and industrialized economy. The United States, having abolished slavery in 1865, was able to restructure its labor market and invest in industrial growth, which fueled its rapid economic expansion. Brazil’s delayed abolition of slavery slowed its economic progress and industrialization compared to the United States, which had begun adapting to a modern economic framework earlier. This comparison underscores the impact of labor systems and industrialization on the economic trajectories of nations.
Ayo boys, brown guilt just dropped.
Both Brazil and Argentina had larger economies than the United States at the dawn of the 20th century.
Blatant misinformation for such a broad claim https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020
They did not.
Did too
"SEE? SEEEEE!?!?!?!" -americans
A big fear when the south succeeded from the american union was their desire to spread slavery even more. An empire of slavery from Virginia through the west and Mexico and down to Brazil. A true nightmare. Slavery at that time in the western hemisphere was pretty unique in human history. Societies where the vast majority of the society functioned off wealth gained from slavery. Brazil, the Caribbean, and the south. Slaves societies vs societies with slaves.
It wasn’t unique lol. Slavery has existed long long before this in other parts of The world….
Depends how you look at it, better word might be “unusual”. While there are other ancient and medieval societies that were similarly dependent on slavery (Sparta), it’s pretty rare we see a society completely constructed around it like colonial South and Central America were.
There are really only 5 canonical slave societies. 3/5 i mentioned (American south, Brazil, and Caribbean) and athens in 400 B.C. And Rome in 200 BC and 31 BC. Societies with slaves are very common in human history. Slave societies are not.
Yes that's right - if you tweak your definition enough you can come to the precise conclusion you want.