!2 Years a Slave

[Steve James]

but to me it's not so much about the times but about one man's struggle to get through those times.

Exactly. It's a human story. "Schindler's List" isn't about Nazi prison camps. "It's a Beautiful Life" isn't about the holocaust.

[neijia_boxer]

according to this radio show (I trust this guys fact checking on history)- USA has a very small percentage of slaves than did the Caribbean and South America.

Enslaved Africas: 40% went to Caribbean islands, 37% Pourtugese Brazil, 15% Spanish America, 5% British north america, 3% europe and Asia.

More slaves have been white people (Slaves= Slavic) . Greek society was dependent on slaves.

6% of southern whites owned black slaves.

slavery was indegenous to African and Muslim countries well before Europe.

US Consensus In 1830 in Charelston SC, 407 blacks owned slaves.

28% of Free blacks owned slaves, much higher than whites.

People who were against slaves were poor whites since it brought down the price of labor.

Europeans are the ones that lead the fight against slavery, but Europeans are blamed for slavery.

[Interloper]

It was long-ago determined that slavery is indeed a human condition. Ants keep slaves too. That doesn't make it any less inhumane and abhorrent when we cause suffering for others, or give us permission to look the other way when others enslave. That's why having a moral compass is considered part of healthy social conditioning.

[wiesiek]

Make documentary of whole thing and teach the world not to be evil. Kill anyone who won't watch.

wish you luck Michael, seriously
but
Looki`n back on our history it will not work. Even if you put it into schools programs all over the world .
Now we have trembling hypocritical pace .
Not because suddenly, mankind change the course ,
but
because we have the weapon able to destroy whole planet

Education is important,
but /again/
We have long history in teaching not to be evil.
And what?
Prisoners became guards and reverse. Level of cruelty may vary...
funny, always freedom and rights are the case to kill.
We need to change whole system of teachings, probably

I know im lonely wolf

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Looki`n back on our history it will not work.

This is a ridiculous statement and I disagree 100% (of course, I am a history student).

Let a baby wander too close to a hot stove and see how many times they will return to get burned. Obviously, humans learn from their mistakes, which is just one of the reasons studying history is important.

[Steve James]

If the point is about who's to blame for slavery, I guess the answer is "the people who benefited from the slave trade." So, the Black slave traders and owners are just as guilty of greed as the White ones. If the point is that people generally don't know that Africans owned slaves in the US, that's true. If that brings some sort of relief, it's like saying that some Jews collaborated with Nazis. It doesn't change anything about the institution or its results. But, I'll answer the guy's points one by one.

Enslaved Africas: 40% went to Caribbean islands, 37% Pourtugese Brazil, 15% Spanish America, 5% British north america, 3% europe and Asia.

That's true, but let's adjust the statement a bit. Of the 11 million or so (known) Africans transported to the Americas, 40% were taken to Portuguese colonies in Brazil; 40% were taken to the British, French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. Less than 10% were taken to to the British colonies in North America. (The 3% to Europe, btw, is just bullshit since there were no European countries that permitted slavery in Europe. Those Africans who were taken to European countries, moreover, certainly couldn't have engaged in slave labor since there were no sugar or tobacco plantations at all on the continent).

In fact the reason that there were so few Africans imported to the NA colonies was primarily because of a better climate. Slaves in the Caribbean had a very high mortality --as did the Europeans. In the temperate regions of the North, the survival rate was higher. Another reason was that, completely unlike the Caribbean colonies, in North America, slaves were deliberately bred. At some point, the slave population in the US was self-supporting. In addition, the British ended their slave trade, and most US slaves had naturally come through British ports. So, around 1807 iirc, the US no longer imported any Africans at all. Well, legally, that is. There were attempts to get around the Brits by having ships sail from Africa directly to the Carolinas. Incidentally, that's the origin of what's called Gullah culture.

More slaves have been white people (Slaves= Slavic) . Greek society was dependent on slaves.

I don't see the point of that in an argument about American slavery, unless it's to show that not only Black people have been slaves. I get it though. We've all been enslaved at some time or other. The Jews have been enslaved. The Greeks, the Romans, the Teuton, the Mongols, the English (in spite of their anthem) have been conquered and enslaved. However, that has nothing to do with the conditions of American slavery. We have plenty of movies about Greeks and Romans fighting for their freedom or to enslave others. There's no problem with watching "300."

Now, if the argument is that there were White American slaves in America, that's different. They may have been treated even worse than Black slaves. For one thing, White slaves were "free" (i.e., they were brought and then served time here or in Australia). No White people could legally be held "in perpetuity" as a slave in the U.S.

6% of southern whites owned black slaves.

You know. The point of many of these points seems to be to shed some type of White guilt. I mean. There seems to be the expectation that everyone blames White people and that showing that only a few of them owned slaves means something more than the fact that those few people "owned" the majority of the Black population where they lived. That small group hired others to keep that population enslaved. The entire region was socially, politically, economically and legally bound to maintaining the institution of slavery. The number of slave owners has no effect on the result for those enslaved.

Anyway, in Haiti and elsewhere, there were plenty of Black slave owners. Well, they'd be considered "black" in the States. In Haiti, they were often mulattoes and what were called "Les petites blancs." So, I tell my students that, if and when Black people could own slaves, they did. It wasn't "race" that made anyone a slave owner. Most often, it was money. The majority of the wealth of the South, of the first colonies, resided in the enslaved human beings. Almost anyone who was wealthy --including all the Founders from the south, iinm-- owned or had investments in slaves, something connected to the trade, or to the products produced by slaves.

slavery was indegenous to African and Muslim countries well before Europe.

That's true. They even enslaved Europeans. Then again, we've settled that most peoples have been conquered at some point.

US Consensus In 1830 in Charelston SC, 407 blacks owned slaves.

28% of Free blacks owned slaves, much higher than whites.

Oh he means the census. Ok, 2 things, since I have to teach this stuff, the first thing I did was a bit of research. Afa I can find out, there was no 1830 Charleston census that listed slaves. The federal census in 1850 was the first time that slave information was captured as a separate schedule. But, secondly, if the point is that Blacks owned slaves in SC, fair enough. I copied the census info for all South Carolina (1830 and 1840):

1830
White 257,863 44.4%
Slave 323,322 55.6%
Total 581,185 100%

1840
White 259,084 43.6%
Slave 327,038 55.0%
Free Black 8,276 1.4%
Total 594,398 100% +2.3%

I've no idea why the number of Free Blacks was taken in 1840. However, put it like this. There are those who criticize Jewish Americans because they participated in American slavery at a higher percentage than other groups. Of course, to make a living on the land in a plantation economy requires workers. To compete with one's neighbors requires a competitive workforce. So, if people (anyone) wanted to stay in plantation land, he'd have to hire or buy workers.

Otoh, I know from personal experience that many Black people had to "buy" their children or wives out of slavery. Frederick Douglass escaped, but had to be "bought" from his master before he could return to the US. Even then, he was subject to the same treatment as a Solomon Northrup.

Of course, "free" Black people were the only ones to buy slaves. Kinda stands to reason, no? Some did it for economics; others for personal or even noble reasons. However, we ain't ever gonna see a movie with a Black slave owner doing the things to his White slaves on his VA, GA, or SC plantation, that you'll see in "12 Years" or any other American slave movie. The reasons are obvious.

People who were against slaves were poor whites since it brought down the price of labor.

Europeans are the ones that lead the fight against slavery, but Europeans are blamed for slavery.

Saved for the last, and I hope these aren't your thoughts, only a summary of the vid. Anyway, to say that the people who were against "slavery" were poor whites is just dumb because it hints that free Black people, slaves and wealthy Whites weren't against it. There was no one more interested in ending slavery than someone enslaved.

But, then comes the statement and the subject switches from poor Whites to "Europeans." Well, yes, Europeans led the fight to end the slave trade. Of course, they were often inspired by the writings of people like Northrup who detailed the horrors of the institution. Then again, Northrup wasn't a minister of the British intellectual and political elite, like Clarkson, Wilberforce and Granville Sharpe. The French had their equivalent in a guy name Victor Schoelcher; and in the States, there were Garrison, Phillips, and several Black abolitionists too.

I know. I know. Europeans ended the slave trade. Bad Africans for starting it and keeping it going for so long. Fortunately, we were rescued. Now we can talk about all the good things that the poor white Europeans have done for the Indians. Funny, they weren't on the SC census.

[grzegorz]

I don't understand NB's point either. Most of that is stuff (about the slave trade) most Americans should know from their high school education.

The point about poor whites (in the South) wanting to end slavery may have been true but ultimately it wasn't really Southerners who ended slavery in the US, was it?

Seems to me this stats are an attempt to say that slavery was in the US is a non-issue when compared with other cultures. In Eastern Europe I've heard people say that lots of jews were nazi collaborators as if this somehow removes their own country of guilt.

[yeniseri]

according to this radio show (I trust this guys fact checking on history)- USA has a very small percentage of slaves than did the Caribbean and South America.
Enslaved Africas: 40% went to Caribbean islands, 37% Pourtugese Brazil, 15% Spanish America, 5% British north america, 3% europe and Asia.
More slaves have been white people (Slaves= Slavic) . Greek society was dependent on slaves.
6% of southern whites owned black slaves.
slavery was indegenous to African and Muslim countries well before Europe.
US Consensus In 1830 in Charelston SC, 407 blacks owned slaves.
28% of Free blacks owned slaves, much higher than whites.
People who were against slaves were poor whites since it brought down the price of labor.
Europeans are the ones that lead the fight against slavery, but Europeans are blamed for slavery.

Your statistics, though correct, are detached from the reality of freedom and injustice within a New World US America. This is about US America so here we go:
1. US America was alleged to be a land of freedom for all but that was NEVER the case. It was for only European descended people(s). Please don't forget that each separate nation / European state had their own levels of facts against their other European brethren. The template was that North was superior to South, English superior to the Irish, Western European superior to Slav, etc. The US version grouped them all together as "white" (nothing wrong with that since that is what they were) since they needed the superior number of same colour individuals as aggregate numbers to instill that reality into law.

2. Once the aggregate was satisfied, it was time to forget about freedom and only apply to the white peoples. In order to do that, you needed to take the land away from the native American and enslave(e) the other coloured people to institute an economic institution.

3. Whether slavery was indigenous to Africa and the Middle East is bogus to the extent that it caught on pretty well in US America. Indigenous or not, it appears to be a great excuse along with the excuse that the BibLe ordained slavery so it must be good.

4. The facts are that US legal structure enforced slavery in the guise of pretending freedom was for all who set foot on US soil. There are some excellent exceptions to the rule, per the Amistad Incident and the free slaves who were able to exist despite the era. 12 years a slave is an example of that kind and level of injustice but also of the hope and decency of good people living freedom!

5. There are those who imagine that slavery ended because of the good nature of some good people! There is some truth to that but slavery ended because it ceased to be profitable. That did not stop those who need the entitlement of psychic ownership of African people that even today they feel they were cheated of that ENTITLEMENT. Many are heard exclaiming that "black people should be happy they were slaves because they had a job' I just heard a Limbaugh supporter saying he didn't like the movie (as if Hollywood teaches real history 12 Years a Slave" because they did not have happy slaves in the movie. wtf ! I coul dnot have made this up if I tried!

6. http://freakoutnation.com/2014/03/05/co ... py-slaves/
I disliked 12 years a Slave because happy slaves were not in the movie.

[grzegorz]

I have a question did any of these other countries fight a civil war to keep the institution of slavery?

[Steve James]

I'm not sure that poor whites in the South were against the enslavement of Africans. I think that there was plenty of resentment against them because they provided the capital that filled the rich man's (read "plantation owners") pockets. Moreover, economically, slavery meant that there was a ready supply of free labor --which in turn kept the wages of non-slaves low in the slave states.

After the Civil War, that labor force became direct competitors with other free labor. However, there was no way that the pay could be equal. If poor whites had wanted to end slavery to create equality, there's little evidence. There's been resistance to it for over 100 years after the war.

Anyway, there was a guy, George Fitzhugh, iirc, who wrote a book "Slave Without Masters" in the 1800s. His point was that poor (but free) white people were worse off than slaves. Slave masters were forced to provide food, clothing and shelter to their slaves. No one provided such for poor whites. Moreover, Fitzhugh called them "wage slaves" because they never earned more than enough to make it week to week.

Of course, take away the racial bs and his is an accurate illustration of how capitalism worked. Some would say it is how it works still.

[Steve James]

Ah Rush,
http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/0 ... sca/198310

"It doesn't matter whether it was good or bad. I haven't seen it." Hmm, ecco echo.

[Michael]

I have a question did any of these other countries fight a civil war to keep the institution of slavery?

Could we also ask it another way about fighting a civil war to end slavery? I think both are true.

I was listening to Webster Tarpley, historian, and he said that General Sherman was in California before the war and said something like the entire class of southern people, mostly men, who believe in slavery, a group of about 300,000 people, would have to be physically eradicated or made to submit militarily in order to end the practice of slavery; there would be no other way. Well, that's how it played out.

Once something is institutionalized and made part of the culture, the belief comes to a person from their own parents, and people believe in it to the point that it's almost impossible for them to change their ideas. It really takes generations of young people to replace them.

[Michael]

I know im lonely wolf

It's great to learn as much as possible about history, but it's tough to take a position of moral superiority about an event that is basically an abstract intellectual concept, perhaps mixed with some emotions inspired from the soundtrack of a Hollywood film.

Enjoy the history, the movies, the museum, or the death camp tour, but don't imagine you know what you would have done, which is the implication of taking a moral position. That's how I see Hollywood movies and holocaust museums, although they could be more significant to a particular individual. They exist for people to enjoy catharsis or a short-lived moral superiority because they certainly would never be the one to flog a slave or kill a prisoner.

If you were a guard in Auschwitz, would you have just followed orders? A guard, that's easy. Can you imagine what you would do to someone you feared, hated, or had a grudge against if you were in a higher position of power than a guard? I think there are chances to find out, but that's a personal choice.

Because the vast majority of people will follow orders to injure others without any fear of consequences to themselves, e.g. the Milgrom Experiment, what tiny percentage would risk themselves to buck the system during a war? That's why these movies and museums have nothing to do with morality, and for history it's usually a joke, or at the absolute pinnacle of production quality, it's a superficial starting point, meaning good entertainment.

Doesn't apply to anyone here, but I've been given the suggestion that I'm supposed to visit the Holocaust Museum or watch such and such film about a similar historical event. I am more interested in learning the full history from quality books and people. Movies and museums are not comparable.

[wiesiek]

Looki`n back on our history it will not work.

This is a ridiculous statement and I disagree 100% (of course, I am a history student).

Let a baby wander too close to a hot stove and see how many times they will return to get burned. Obviously, humans learn from their mistakes, which is just one of the reasons studying history is important.

sure thing Ian,
we are the clever animals, learned to change clothes done long ago
just tempo and quality vary...
and
i know our history too , so I can do such statement

BTW , ridiculous is to compare - killing/using human been thru millennia, with body simple instinctive reaction.

[grzegorz]

My point was this revisionist history trying to downplay the South's role is bunk. I know of no other nation that went to war with itself in an attempt to preserve slavery (since we're comparing countries.) The South chose to fight that war, they are proud of that fact, they should take ownership of it. Besides which, who here in this board lives in Brazil?

Yes, it takes generations just as will take generations to get passed the effects of slavery.