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.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."