Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: obsidian on December 11, 2014, 12:21:51 PM
-
When you think about it, slavery really offered minimal benefits. Sure, your cotton gets picked but now you're surrounded by dark faces and have to look at them everyday. That alone cancels any benefits it offered.
The best farmers, brick layers, electricians, plumbers, roofers etc. were always white. There really was no need to use Africans for labor. It was very shortsighted on the slave traders part to bring them over on a boat. They should have been left in Africa and they should have declined when the black masters offered their African slaves to the Europeans.
The Jewish slave traders probably took them over by boat not only for cheap labor but also to facilitate their divide and conquer agenda.
The European slave traders did it for profit and were shortsighted.
-
Aside from your humorous racist commentary, it's very true that slavery was a terrible business model. Having "employees" that are not fairly compensated for their work is not a model to achieve quality and efficiency. In the case of agricultural workers, a lazy shiftless lot of slaves can ruin a harvest. Then what? You can't beat the slaves for food.
Markets were always and will always be the answer to almost every question that modern society has.
-
Slavery still exists :)
Just imagine America without Wiggs & Belgium without 'baby mama' ;D
-
yes agreed that's why the english invited the irish over to work for free
best thing is you get to look at a nice white face in around the house
-
I hope you find what you're looking for.
Until your heart is warm forever more :)
-
Aside from your humorous racist commentary, it's very true that slavery was a terrible business model. Having "employees" that are not fairly compensated for their work is not a model to achieve quality and efficiency. In the case of agricultural workers, a lazy shiftless lot of slaves can ruin a harvest. Then what? You can't beat the slaves for food.
Markets were always and will always be the answer to almost every question that modern society has.
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
-
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
Please cite your revelations. Something aside from the Sons of the Confederacy website. Thanks.
-
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
It offered no benefit to whites or blacks. Blacks today are unhappy because of slavery and rightfully so and whites are dealing with black crime and division and unhappy about it and rightfully so.
Whites also taught blacks how to farm. Ever seen proper farming in Africa? No, all they end up with is erosion and famine. Whites have always been hugely successful in farming for the most part and blacks were never crucial for success. It was a terrible business model.
-
Some of the best if not the very best craftsmen were black. Coach builders, Cabinet Makers and Furniture makers such as Thomas Day, Masons, plasterers, house builders, blacksmiths. The blacks in the South were some of the best artisans the world had ever seen. They were able to practice these trades in the South, whereas laws were passed in nearly all states in the North banning blacks from engaging in any trades. There was no living to be carved or etched out in the North at all. Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington and many other states in the North even outright banned blacks from entering the state and made it a crime if they remained which resulted in imprisonment and then expulsion. Blacks had no interest in going to the North and they never bothered to travel north as the racial dot map historically shows as wells as first hand historical accounts prove. Blacks could not make any kind of living at all in the North, nor could they own any property.
Blacks in the South owned some of the largest plantation houses pre-civil war. The largest slaveholder in NC at one time was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly. There were no blacks of any wealth or means in the North at all as they were barred from obtaining anything.
-
Adonis:
Were the blacks who were brought over on the slave boats to America also slaves in Africa, or were they free in Africa but forced on the boats and made slaves once they arrived?
-
It offered no benefit to whites or blacks. Blacks today are unhappy because of slavery and rightfully so and whites are dealing with black crime and division and unhappy about it and rightfully so.
Whites also taught blacks how to farm. Ever seen proper farming in Africa? No, all they end up with is erosion and famine. Whites have always been hugely successful in farming for the most part and blacks were never crucial for success. It was a terrible business model.
There is tons of farming in Africa moron. They end up in famine, not because of lack of farming, they do so because the birth rate is too high to sustain what is produced and available. Blacks were some of the best farmers in the South and it was not a terrible business model. It produced more wealth than any other system. The Federal government was using the money generated by the South, which was more than the North was generating as they produced nothing really, and using it to build post roads, schools, buildings and the South was getting nothing. Acts such as the Morrill Tariff ensured that the North was going to fill their coffers with Southern money and is one of the main reasons why the South wanted out. It was not fair at all to pay so much and get nothing other than watch the money be spent on growing the North.
-
Adonis:
Were the blacks who were brought over on the slave boats to America also slaves in Africa, or were they free in Africa but forced on the boats and made slaves once they arrived?
Slaves sold by black slavers and traded for as well. They were not forced at all. Slavery still continues in Africa.
-
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
Right on Arian Brother
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/5f/5fd40e13c3e047dfc3b813daec63f0731a65318cd4c907e8c7fa70ba572bcedd.jpg)
-
Does anyone know what single invention made it more economical to release the slaves than to keep them in slavery?
-
Does anyone know what single invention made it more economical to release the slaves than to keep them in slavery?
Are you speaking of the cotton gin? That would be my guess.
-
Does anyone know what single invention made it more economical to release the slaves than to keep them in slavery?
The chicken fryolator
-
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
A very small minority of whites owned slaves. For the rest of the white population, the vast majority, slavery was not beneficial at all and actually had a negative impact on their lives. A good analogy would be the compare slavery to illegal aliens and their effect on jobs and wages. Slave owners were the large corporations of their day.
-
A very small minority of whites owned slaves. For the rest of the white population, the vast majority, slavery was not beneficial at all and actually had a negative impact on their lives. A good analogy would be the compare slavery to illegal aliens and their effect on jobs and wages. Slave owners were the large corporations of their day.
I agree
what in fact is the effect of illegal aliens on jobs a wages?
can't wait to hear this!
-
I agree
what in fact is the effect of illegal aliens on jobs a wages?
can't wait to hear this!
It stagnates wages. Why do you think companies employ illegals? They like tacos?
-
Depending on Negroes to work for you, paid or unpaid, is never a good business model.
-
(http://oi58.tinypic.com/j94swp.jpg)
-
It stagnates wages. Why do you think companies employ illegals? They like tacos?
I don't understand how undocumented workers compete to drive down wages. doing what exactly? minimum wage landscape labor?
the point isn't about wages it's about who benefits and if the country gets rich as a result, whoever lives there is a beneficiary.
-
I don't understand how undocumented workers compete to drive down wages. doing what exactly? minimum wage landscape labor?
the point isn't about wages it's about who benefits and if the country gets rich as a result, whoever lives there is a beneficiary.
They aren't paid minimum wage. They are off the books employees. And many of them work in the agricultural business. No, you are incorrect. Not all of society members benefits. Much of the wealth generated by slavery in the United States was gone after the Civil War. Individual families got rich, not society. Would you argue that all of society benefits from big business? If that's the case I assume you support big business interests.
-
They aren't paid minimum wage. They are off the books employees. And many of them work in the agricultural business. No, you are incorrect. Not all of society members benefits. Much of the wealth generated by slavery in the United States was gone after the Civil War. Individual families got rich, not society. Would you argue that all of society benefits from big business? If that's the case I assume you support big business interests.
We are trying to understand the facts about who benefits not my opinions.
Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "benefit". I'm talking about money.
There is more money in the system, it came from somewhere, the economy has growth as a result
...maybe you're talking about something else?
-
We are trying to understand the facts about who benefits not my opinions.
Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "benefit". I'm talking about money.
There is more money in the system, it came from somewhere, the economy has growth as a result
...maybe you're talking about something else?
No no, it was your opinion that everyone benefits in society. That was not true for slavery at all. Slavery didn't inject wealth into economy. Slavery did not create more jobs or increase wages on labor. Families benefited from slavery, not society as a whole. You have to look at the past in the context of the class system.
More money into the system? Where? Where does it go? Who generates that wealth and who benefits from it? And if they do benefit, how?
-
No no, it was your opinion that everyone benefits in society. That was not true for slavery at all. Slavery didn't inject wealth into economy. Slavery did not create more jobs or increase wages on labor. Families benefited from slavery, not society as a whole. You have to look at the past in the context of the class system.
More money into the system? Where? Where does it go? Who generates that wealth and who benefits from it? And if they do benefit, how?
I'm talking about the economy.
you're saying that people of european descent did not benefit from slavery.
I gather that they would have traded places with the africans doing agricultural labor.
Is being excluded from slavery not a benefit?
-
It offered no benefit to whites or blacks. Blacks today are unhappy because of slavery and rightfully so and whites are dealing with black crime and division and unhappy about it and rightfully so.
Whites also taught blacks how to farm. Ever seen proper farming in Africa? No, all they end up with is erosion and famine. Whites have always been hugely successful in farming for the most part and blacks were never crucial for success. It was a terrible business model.
You do know that the soil in many parts of Africa is different than over in the US and Europe. Places like Southern Africa have climates similar to America and Europe, so farming was easier.
The tropical countries closer to the equator have soil that is not good for growing grains, and other foods.
-
No no, it was your opinion that everyone benefits in society. That was not true for slavery at all. Slavery didn't inject wealth into economy. Slavery did not create more jobs or increase wages on labor. Families benefited from slavery, not society as a whole. You have to look at the past in the context of the class system.
More money into the system? Where? Where does it go? Who generates that wealth and who benefits from it? And if they do benefit, how?
Slavery did put more money into the system in the form of cotton, sugar, corn, wheat and other commodities. This greatly benefited both North (who took a ton of the revenue and built their cities with it) and the South who did the same. The economy was built with Southern labor and Southern money in Northern banks.
As far as illegals go. Its a detriment for many reasons. The illegals usually take the money and send it back to Mexico or they save it and then go back to Mexico which effectively takes it out of the United States. Also, it lowers the standard of living greatly. If you can pay a worker 3 dollars an hour, the legal citizen who wants a job at 8 dollars an hour, can`t get one in that sector. Its unfair and its a job killer, unless it was legal to pay that low, which its not. Also, none of that money is going to social programs or to the towns and cities as no taxes are being paid, so everyone loses as a result.
I have no idea why Mr. Turbo thinks its not a detriment to society.
-
I'm talking about the economy.
you're saying that people of european descent did not benefit from slavery.
I gather that they would have traded places with the africans doing agricultural labor.
Is being excluded from slavery not a benefit?
Whites and Europeans were not excluded from slavery and there were many, many white slaves.
We had one President of the United States who was in the same class of slaves and treated as such. Andrew Johnson. He was bonded to a man called James Selby in Raleigh, NC who made Andrew Johnson become a tailor. He was legally bound to Mr. Selby until Andrew turned 21. Andrew Johnson ran away and J. Selby sent out a "Slave Bill" with a reward for anyone who would return Andrew Johnson. Johnson eventually came back and tried to buy his way out of bondage but was unable to do so. He was forced to move West.
Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home is located on a Jewish Plantation in Raleigh, Mordecai Plantation Manor.
Here is the Jewish Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg/800px-Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg)
And here is Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home on the Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Andrew_Johnsons_First_Home_2006.jpg)
-
Whites and Europeans were not excluded from slavery and there were many, many white slaves.
We had one President of the United States who was in the same class of slaves and treated as such. Andrew Johnson. He was bonded to a man called James Selby in Raleigh, NC who made Andrew Johnson become a tailor. He was legally bound to Mr. Selby until Andrew turned 21. Andrew Johnson ran away and J. Selby sent out a "Slave Bill" with a reward for anyone who would return Andrew Johnson. Johnson eventually came back and tried to buy his way out of bondage but was unable to do so. He was forced to move West.
Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home is located on a Jewish Plantation in Raleigh, Mordecai Plantation Manor.
Here is the Jewish Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg/800px-Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg)
And here is Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home on the Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Andrew_Johnsons_First_Home_2006.jpg)
(http://www.financialtipoftheday.com/uploads/2/1/3/2/21326872/3962339_orig.jpg)
Don't forget William Ellison....one of the largest slaveowners in South Carolina. Over 60 slaves, 1000 acres of land. Its amazing how history has been so corrupted politically.
Personally, I never agreed with slavery but ironically most black slaves looked down at poor white farmers and considered them of lower class.
-
When you think about it, slavery really offered minimal benefits. Sure, your cotton gets picked but now you're surrounded by dark faces and have to look at them everyday. That alone cancels any benefits it offered.
The best farmers, brick layers, electricians, plumbers, roofers etc. were always white. There really was no need to use Africans for labor. It was very shortsighted on the slave traders part to bring them over on a boat. They should have been left in Africa and they should have declined when the black masters offered their African slaves to the Europeans.
The Jewish slave traders probably took them over by boat not only for cheap labor but also to facilitate their divide and conquer agenda.
The European slave traders did it for profit and were shortsighted.
No...slaves were captured from African tribes and sold to either Arab Nation or to settlers. They weren't chased down and captured like most movies and schools want you to think. White settles bought slave FROM BLACK PEOPLE. We sold ourselves into slavery and we even responsible for the law allowing slaves to be held for life.
-
Are you speaking of the cotton gin? That would be my guess.
correctomundo my friend, very few people realize that but without it slavery would have lasted much longer
-
correctomundo my friend, very few people realize that but without it slavery would have lasted much longer
The cotton gin increased slavery actually.
-
Whites and Europeans were not excluded from slavery and there were many, many white slaves.
We had one President of the United States who was in the same class of slaves and treated as such. Andrew Johnson. He was bonded to a man called James Selby in Raleigh, NC who made Andrew Johnson become a tailor. He was legally bound to Mr. Selby until Andrew turned 21. Andrew Johnson ran away and J. Selby sent out a "Slave Bill" with a reward for anyone who would return Andrew Johnson. Johnson eventually came back and tried to buy his way out of bondage but was unable to do so. He was forced to move West.
Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home is located on a Jewish Plantation in Raleigh, Mordecai Plantation Manor.
Here is the Jewish Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg/800px-Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg)
And here is Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home on the Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Andrew_Johnsons_First_Home_2006.jpg)
This is really interesting
I understand your point but for the class argument to make sense you have to pretend that racism doesn't and didn't exist. Andrew Johnson isn't black.
Plenty of Irish were sent over on slave ships too and Ronald Regan was the president.
Undocumented workers lower the wages for guys mowing lawns - marginally if that...you can also pay someone $20/hr to mow your lawn but that actually creates a drag on growth.
cheap and free labor has the effect of raising wages in other sectors of the economy. These guys don't take your manufacturing jobs contrary to popular belief.
The same principle applies to slavery so you need to be consistent. Archer is consistent with the argument but he's just incorrect. :D
-
There is tons of farming in Africa moron. They end up in famine, not because of lack of farming, they do so because the birth rate is too high to sustain what is produced and available. Blacks were some of the best farmers in the South and it was not a terrible business model. It produced more wealth than any other system. The Federal government was using the money generated by the South, which was more than the North was generating as they produced nothing really, and using it to build post roads, schools, buildings and the South was getting nothing. Acts such as the Morrill Tariff ensured that the North was going to fill their coffers with Southern money and is one of the main reasons why the South wanted out. It was not fair at all to pay so much and get nothing other than watch the money be spent on growing the North.
Most don't realize this. This is what the Norths invasion was really about, money, and how the South wasn't going to pay it any longer.
Did you read the book "Un-civil War"? It's pretty interesting and written by a native NC author.
-
The cotton gin increased slavery actually.
you are so fucking annoying, your like a know-it-all women that everyone just wants to shut the fuck up
-
you are so fucking annoying, your like a know-it-all women that everyone just wants to shut the fuck up
Sorry that you hate facts. If I didn`t correct them, people like you would continue to repeat nonsense and believe it to be true.
If you want to be willfully ignorant, have at it.
-
Sorry that you hate facts. If I didn`t correct them, people like you would continue to repeat nonsense and believe it to be true.
If you want to be willfully ignorant, have at it.
show me your facts
-
There is tons of farming in Africa moron. They end up in famine, not because of lack of farming, they do so because the birth rate is too high to sustain what is produced and available. Blacks were some of the best farmers in the South and it was not a terrible business model. It produced more wealth than any other system. The Federal government was using the money generated by the South, which was more than the North was generating as they produced nothing really, and using it to build post roads, schools, buildings and the South was getting nothing. Acts such as the Morrill Tariff ensured that the North was going to fill their coffers with Southern money and is one of the main reasons why the South wanted out. It was not fair at all to pay so much and get nothing other than watch the money be spent on growing the North.
Hey pea brain, just because there is farming in Africa does not mean it's good. Go look at Zimbabwe when white people farmed there and go look at it now and get a fucking clue. Are you seriously trying to say they were required by whites for farming thereby justifying slavery? The best farmers were and are white period. They were not needed and slavery benefited few whites as mentioned. Even for the whites that benefited the gains were short term and the long term outlook terrible.
You admit they are not smart enough to stop breeding themselves into famine and at the same time you are trying to make the case that they are smart farmers. In Africa they sometimes plow vertically down the gradient of the land, thus accelerating erosion when they should have plowed along the contours of the terrain. During the great depression this happened as well however in some parts of Africa contour plowing is still not done.
(http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/99/65699-004-7FCC0E1C.jpg)
Look at some of the equipment developed by whites... what did blacks develop to support their massive populations? They are moronic for having such a large number of people they cannot sustain. That's lack of planning and nature needs to have its way since it is unnatural for a group of animals to reproduce without the means to feed themselves. Their populations numbers increased because of technology given to them by white people.
(http://www.farm-equipment.com/wysiwyg/images/Sunflower_7000_Series_opt.jpg)
-
Slavery....
Gets shit done!
-
Some of the best if not the very best craftsmen were black. Coach builders, Cabinet Makers and Furniture makers such as Thomas Day, Masons, plasterers, house builders, blacksmiths. The blacks in the South were some of the best artisans the world had ever seen. They were able to practice these trades in the South, whereas laws were passed in nearly all states in the North banning blacks from engaging in any trades. There was no living to be carved or etched out in the North at all. Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington and many other states in the North even outright banned blacks from entering the state and made it a crime if they remained which resulted in imprisonment and then expulsion. Blacks had no interest in going to the North and they never bothered to travel north as the racial dot map historically shows as wells as first hand historical accounts prove. Blacks could not make any kind of living at all in the North, nor could they own any property.
Blacks in the South owned some of the largest plantation houses pre-civil war. The largest slaveholder in NC at one time was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly. There were no blacks of any wealth or means in the North at all as they were barred from obtaining anything.
This is your subjective opinion retardo. Go look at the thousands of buildings in Europe and then compare with what Africa has produced. Same goes for furniture, arts and culture you can pick anything and whites are the best. I can start posting examples. How about Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Mies, Norman Foster, Le Corbusier, Edison, Ford, the list goes on and on. There are no blacks that can compare with these titans and you know it and the low skilled jobs were performed perfectly by whites as well. Blacks were not crucial for any industry and slavery should never have been implemented because it offered zero benefits to white people.
-
No...slaves were captured from African tribes and sold to either Arab Nation or to settlers. They weren't chased down and captured like most movies and schools want you to think. White settles bought slave FROM BLACK PEOPLE. We sold ourselves into slavery and we even responsible for the law allowing slaves to be held for life.
I would not be surprised if back in the day some slimy black asshole pulled a greedy white or sneaky jew aside and said:"Hey, psst, I have some slaves if you're interested." How do you know it did not go down like that?
Those whites should have declined and at the same time should have prevented the jews from taking advantage of the offer.
-
obsidian account working hard tonight
godspeed bro!
-
the greeks took everything from the egyptians
oh ya the but ridley scott says they were white guys too haha
-
TA decimating ignorance in this thread.
-
Getbig just love African Americans.
-
Indeed, terrible idea long term - this is why they replaced the brews with imported Indian workers in every Caribbean country.
-
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
You are talking modern history.
They may have helped raise whites , although I personally doubt it, but to make the statement that they showed whites how to farm defies logic.
How can a people, who at a fundamental level, have almost no background in manipulating their land for food production, be in any position to teach others how to farm.
Whites along with all other non African races practised farming to a much higher degree than the bulk of the African populations. Yes Africans did partake to some small degree in farming, but long before America was even populated by Indians, white people were manipulating their land for food.
The skills of farming were developed by the people of the caucuses.
Africa was a land rich and plenty in food and the African man had to catch his prey, this needed the ability hunt in packs,run and attack prey.
Fast reactions, efficient and explosive running capabilities were required for survival. Planning and strategic capacities to manage crops and survival within colder climes was not required.
-
A very small minority of whites owned slaves. For the rest of the white population, the vast majority, slavery was not beneficial at all and actually had a negative impact on their lives. A good analogy would be the compare slavery to illegal aliens and their effect on jobs and wages. Slave owners were the large corporations of their day.
Add that to the racist anti "white" fact that no one ever blames African slavers. That tells me people only want to hate Whites. It's in fact the trend these days to hate "whites" and be as racist and murderous towards "whites" as you want. Society accepts violence towards "whites" and it's ok for whites to die. But God forbid but one black man dies while attacking a cop defending him self. Cops and anyone can kill whites all they want and no one gives a shit... they are happy to see whites die!!! Like in the o.j. trial... the racist biggots will cheer!!! and be glad and admit it!!!
-
You are talking modern history.
They may have helped raise whites , although I personally doubt it, but to make the statement that they showed whites how to farm defies logic.
How can a people, who at a fundamental level, have almost no background in manipulating their land for food production, be in any position to teach others how to farm.
Whites along with all other non African races practised farming to a much higher degree than the bulk of the African populations. Yes Africans did partake to some small degree in farming, but long before America was even populated by Indians, white people were manipulating their land for food.
The skills of farming were developed by the people of the caucuses.
Africa was a land rich and plenty in food and the African man had to catch his prey, this needed the ability hunt in packs,run and attack prey.
Fast reactions, efficient and explosive running capabilities were required for survival. Planning and strategic capacities to manage crops and survival within colder climes was not required.
I`m talking about the plantation system and crops in America. Blacks were there from the start and knew how to get the most out of the land.
-
(http://www.celebritymeasurement.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Ronnie-Coleman-Body.jpg)
-
You do know that the soil in many parts of Africa is different than over in the US and Europe. Places like Southern Africa have climates similar to America and Europe, so farming was easier.
The tropical countries closer to the equator have soil that is not good for growing grains, and other foods.
Not sure I buy that excuse. Look at Zimbabwe after farms were seized from white farmers and the result...
I admit blacks are the fastest runners on the planet but best farmer's they're not. Nature gave us each strength and weaknesses and it is true very few white men will run 100 meters in under 10 seconds and none will match Usain Bolt. For this same genetic reason very few African men will be excellent scientists and none will match a Newton or Tesla. That's just a fact and foot stomping or temper tantrums will do nothing to change that.
Exhibit A:
http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech (http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech)
(http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/images/RGS%20speech%20Craig%20R%20pic%209%20before%20after%20Mar%2013.jpg)
-
Add that to the racist anti "white" fact that no one ever blames African slavers. That tells me people only want to hate Whites. It's in fact the trend these days to hate "whites" and be as racist and murderous towards "whites" as you want. Society accepts violence towards "whites" and it's ok for whites to die. But God forbid but one black man dies while attacking a cop defending him self. Cops and anyone can kill whites all they want and no one gives a shit... they are happy to see whites die!!! Like in the o.j. trial... the racist biggots will cheer!!! and be glad and admit it!!!
It's genocide. You'd think white lives would become more precious as their numbers reduce but not in the mind of an anti-white elite liberal - white or pseudo-jew. They salivate at the prospect of very few whites left and foolishly think they will be able to rule over the non-white masses. They are condemning themselves and of course whites will exact vengeance on these criminals of humanity. It is only a matter of time. It's just how nature works and there will be resistance against this socially engineered bloodless genocide. Those resisting of course have the moral high ground because they are just fighting for their survival. I would even argue that pro-whites are the new liberals. The current liberals cannot be viewed as such anymore because they represent the majority (non-whites) oppressing the minority (whites).
The same thing is happening to various animal species in Africa. Lions are under threat as well as Elephants and Rhinos. The Chines ivory trade market is a serious threat to the Elephant population being slaughtered for their tusks. The white race has a lot in common with these endangered animals from a survival point of view. And the biggest threat to them all are the non-white masses that are consuming the planet and being supported by a tiny percentage of insane, power hungry white and pseudo-jewish elites.
-
It's genocide. You'd think white lives would become more precious as their numbers reduce but not in the mind of an anti-white elite liberal - white or pseudo-jew. They salivate at the prospect of very few whites left and foolishly think they will be able to rule over the non-white masses. They are condemning themselves and of course whites will exact vengeance on these criminals of humanity. It is only a matter of time. It's just how nature works and there will be resistance against this socially engineered bloodless genocide. Those resisting of course have the moral high ground because they are just fighting for their survival. I would even argue that pro-whites are the new liberals. The current liberals cannot be viewed as such anymore because they represent the majority (non-whites) oppressing the minority (whites).
The same thing is happening to various animal species in Africa. Lions are under threat as well as Elephants and Rhinos. The Chines ivory trade market is a serious threat to the Elephant population being slaughtered for their tusks. The white race has a lot in common with these endangered animals from a survival point of view. And the biggest threat to them all are the non-white masses that are consuming the planet and being supported by a tiny percentage of insane, power hungry white and pseudo-jewish elites.
yes but don't worry the international species conservation authorities are no doubt on top of it.
hopefully if the planet is destroyed, we can keep the blondes in a secure underground facility. A kind of breeding project for the betterment of the species and for the repopulation effort too.
stay positive
-
yes but don't worry the international species conservation authorities are no doubt on top of it.
hopefully if the planet is destroyed, we can keep the blondes in a secure underground facility. A kind of breeding project for the betterment of the species and for the repopulation effort too.
stay positive
I would say to the criminals supporting this genocide to really stay positive because once the white sleeping giant is awaken there will be a massacre and tribunals all over the place. Stay positive my friend! ;)
-
Not sure I buy that excuse. Look at Zimbabwe after farms were seized from white farmers and the result...
I admit blacks are the fastest runners on the planet but best farmer's they're not. Nature gave us each strength and weaknesses and it is true very few white men will run 100 meters in under 10 seconds and none will match Usain Bolt. For this same genetic reason very few African men will be excellent scientists and none will match a Newton or Tesla. That's just a fact and foot stomping or temper tantrums will do nothing to change that.
Exhibit A:
http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech (http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech)
(http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/images/RGS%20speech%20Craig%20R%20pic%209%20before%20after%20Mar%2013.jpg)
The soil and climate is different in Southern Africa than it is in tropical/equatorial Africa. Tropical climates have poor soil for growing grains and other plants.
-
Not sure I buy that excuse. Look at Zimbabwe after farms were seized from white farmers and the result...
I admit blacks are the fastest runners on the planet but best farmer's they're not. Nature gave us each strength and weaknesses and it is true very few white men will run 100 meters in under 10 seconds and none will match Usain Bolt. For this same genetic reason very few African men will be excellent scientists and none will match a Newton or Tesla. That's just a fact and foot stomping or temper tantrums will do nothing to change that.
Exhibit A:
http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech (http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech)
(http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/images/RGS%20speech%20Craig%20R%20pic%209%20before%20after%20Mar%2013.jpg)
Spot on!!!! Couldn't have put it into words any better!
-
Not sure I buy that excuse. Look at Zimbabwe after farms were seized from white farmers and the result...
I admit blacks are the fastest runners on the planet but best farmer's they're not. Nature gave us each strength and weaknesses and it is true very few white men will run 100 meters in under 10 seconds and none will match Usain Bolt. For this same genetic reason very few African men will be excellent scientists and none will match a Newton or Tesla. That's just a fact and foot stomping or temper tantrums will do nothing to change that.
Exhibit A:
http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech (http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/page/craig-richardson-speech)
(http://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/images/RGS%20speech%20Craig%20R%20pic%209%20before%20after%20Mar%2013.jpg)
Its a commercial farm and its obviously just not been tended to. There's no difference in farming when it comes to race whatsoever.
-
You are all wrong.
1. Slaves were compensated in the form of free room and board, the ability to marry, practice a trade and could earn freedom. After earning freedom, the majority stayed on or owned houses and plantations of their own or even slaves of their own.
2. It was incredibly efficient for many and produced the greatest wealth which enabled places like Nottaway Plantation to exist. Nothing like that existed in the North. It was inefficient for some, like Thomas Jefferson, whose slaves bankrupted him as they kept growing in numbers and he had to build more housing and grow more crops to feed them.
3. Slaves were far from lazy. It is a liberal retelling of revisionist history to think that slaves were beaten and treated so badly. They grew up side by side their white families, the blacks helping to raise the whites and showing them how to farm and the like. The white children played with the black children and so on.
4. Harvests were never ruined.
you aer simply hilarious........keep going......this is amazing revisionist history.....but I don't blame you since dominant culture is not really taught about their mistakes.....you still believe that Cloumbus "discovered" America and that the Klan were simply protectors of American values huh?????????????
-
Sorry that you hate facts. If I didn`t correct them, people like you would continue to repeat nonsense and believe it to be true.
If you want to be willfully ignorant, have at it.
we don't hate facts...we hate people who think they are being factual when they are not :-\
-
"The borrower is slave to the lender" - Proverbs 22:7
-
you aer simply hilarious........keep going......this is amazing revisionist history.....but I don't blame you since dominant culture is not really taught about their mistakes.....you still believe that Cloumbus "discovered" America and that the Klan were simply protectors of American values huh?????????????
???
-
Brews were the first ones on the moon. That's no small feat...
-
you aer simply hilarious........keep going......this is amazing revisionist history.....but I don't blame you since dominant culture is not really taught about their mistakes.....you still believe that Cloumbus "discovered" America and that the Klan were simply protectors of American values huh?????????????
Actually Adonis is 100% correct....once slaves bought their freedom they could purchase their own slaves. In fact in numerous countries in North and South Carolina, the largest owner of slaves were black men....something school history book ignore.
And Andrew Jackson was a slave. Personally I've always thought of slavery as an awful institution but we started it.
-
(http://mainsite.dancemania.netdna-cdn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DVO.jpg)
-
Actually Adonis is 100% correct....once slaves bought their freedom they could purchase their own slaves. In fact in numerous countries in North and South Carolina, the largest owner of slaves were black men....something school history book ignore.
And Andrew Jackson was a slave. Personally I've always thought of slavery as an awful institution but we started it.
Nigerians and other west africans were facilitators of the Slave trade.
Nobody ever seem to mention the fact that Arabs were also heavily involved in Slavery.