I can't stand such blatther.
If you can't stand the truth, get out of the forum.
You make stuff up and say others say it and then you make comments like this.
You might begin with proper English.
"This myth that slavery arose when white Europeans enslaved previously-free native Africans, is typical of the various distortions that abound in contributing to the mass-ignorance regarding history. The simple fact is that there was simply more opportunity in the Western Hemisphere for everyone, and this naturally included manpower which already existed; Africa was simply a very agriculturally poor region compared to the New World, leading to the mass-shift of manpower in all forms, via simple ecopolitical causation-- simply put, the eating was better here. "
This sounds like very much like the influx of population from Afraica was the same as the migration of Irish from Ireland as a result of the Potato famine and Englands shamefull withholding of food for the Irish people. (racisim).
Technically, the forces behind it were the same; until very recently, all societies were originally based on agricultural productivity, and Africa was a very infertile continent in this regard-- compared to the "New World" of the Western Hemisphere, which was very rich; this naturally resulted in the mass-influx of man-power to harvest it due to inherent profits, both freemen and bondsmen.
Likewise, Ireland became very infertile, likewise resulting in greatly increased profits by immigration to the Western Hemisphre-- both by those who could afford the passage, as well as indentured servants.
Many European prisoners also had their sentences communted via "transport," i.e. deportation to the colonies as forced labor.
You probably even subscribe to the myth that slavery principally involved white Europeans/Southerner Americans going to Africa and enslaving free Africans as well-- this is a popular myth which flies in opposition to the reality that such slaves were purchased from native african kings, and any Europeans who attempted capture of native Africans without such payment, were dealt with quite harshly by such-- like any thieves.
Likewise, not ONE ship from the southern states, ever carried slaves; all were either Spanish, British, or Yankee carriers. The reason for slavery taking place in the the southern states and colonies, was due to 1) pure Yankee racism, which deplored all but the white race, and fought the Civil War on the express premise that all freed slaves would be deported, and 2) economics, in that a) the cost for heating-fuel in the North to allow slaves to survive the winters, outweighed the profit from ownership of slaves, and b) the higher supply of alternative sources of manpower in the north, resulting in lower demand in comparison to the productivity of the land in question (which was also lower in the north during the earlier years of development).
Furthermore, the major slave-trade in the US, originated in New England-- not the South at all.
True to form, therefore, the loud Yankee talk of "equality" was more the "blather" you speak; Lincoln himself sponsored legislation which prevented blacks from settling in Illinois.
Finally, your view is myopic via the concentration- not to metion hypocritical-- on the US, as opposed to rest of the Western Hemisphere-- as well as the Eastern one. As I've mentioned before, 95% of slaves sent to the western Hemisphere alone, were exported elsewhere than to the US-- and this doesn't even account for slavery elsewhere in the world.
This is a clear double-standard-- and likewise goes back to this thread-title regarding race-relations in these nations, compared to in the US.
If your contentions were correct, race-relations in the US would be far BETTER than in these nations, with descendants showing good-will and gratitude for such "emancipation" -- as opposed to the prevalent sentiment, of hostility and resentment.
Rather, this indicates strained sociopolitical relations between races, leaving them far WORSE than in these nations where such force emancipation NEVER took place-- but rather occurred naturally.
And I won't even get into the factoids regarding how it began in the future-US in 1611 in Jamestown, how the first slaves were white Scottish women and children, how black slave-owners-- and white slaves-- outnumbered the white slave-owners and black slaves in some areas. Likewise the overseas importation of slaves was banned by the states in 1806, a scant 19 years after the Constitution was ratified; and furthermore, slavery would not have lasted long after secession, if it had been allowed to take place in peace as per right of national soveriegnty. (Strange how those who scoff most at national sovereignty, are most shrill regarding INDIVIDUAL sovereignty, before such was even a concept under the law).
You, like most Americans, have simply been force-fed a politcally-correct, volatile and fallacious bill of goods, and I'm tired of refuting it with readily-available information.
The more I read your posts the more I believe YOU have a miopic view of the world and history.
At least I can spell "myopic."
There was an economic basis in slavery but it was not based in the slaves belly.
Because slavery DOESN'T WORK when it costs more to feed and clothe etc. a slave, than the slave's work-product. It was all about supply and demand-- these are relative to productivity; hence, people went from areas of lower agricultural productivity, to higher.
But of course you can site history
In addition to being able to spell, I can also use proper homophonic word-context-- ala "cite;"
to tell me how all transported Africans gained in girth and in reward for their in demand manpower. Yes this was early market forces at work.
I never said they did; however this is not the issue at hand, so much as ecopolitics. If you can't refrain from engaging in emotional idealisms, then you have no place in any sort of objective logical discourse.
Or maybe this is the source of world socialism.
No, that came as a result of the Civil War, under the false guise of Emancipation-- as I explained in citing the letter from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, comparing "Negro slavery" to "burgois slavery by the European Proletariat."
Though this has been since suppressed, it defies any rational denial of causative linkage.
yes, this is the other end of capitalism. Now I see it all. you are right. the Civil War is the source of world socialism because the slaves would not accept money or property for their work and that corrupeted the States! They wrote home and told their kin to ship over and that caused the market to fail from over supply and then it all went to heck. I get it now......NOT JB
They couldn't even write-- which was because Africa was such an agriculturally-poor land, that civilization never developed to that level-- and so their principal export was manpower, since it was in high supply in comparison to agricultural products, thus lowering the price relative to other areas.
The Civil War was the birth of world socialism, because of the false premise of forced emancipation, as well as socialism viz. the socialist Republican-nee-Whig-party platform of state-control of private resources, and control by special interests.
This later enabled and spread to Marxist regimes overseas, lending precedent and destabilization to these regions in order to facilitiate socialist uprisings in these areas-- and censorship of all logic and rationality to the contrary.
However you can't hope to see the big picture, when you can't even get the little one right-- or even consistently; you probably believe in the draft and compulsory school-attendance etc by freemen, but decry slavery hundreds of years ago by those who were never free to begin with-- while probably saying NOTHING about similar practices in these same regions today.
You might want to do your homework, before taking the reality-test; so far, you get an "F."
