That’s government ran public schools for ya. I learned about it in the 6th grade cause I was at a Christian school then. But the teachers there taught about all kinds of slavery. Even in Bible class they would talk about slavery in the Bible. When I was in public school they tried to give you the impression that the west was the only society that ever practiced slavery.
Majority Asian and majority white societies are the most civilized. Ironically, these are the countries that apparently need to be even more progressive. No, not the ones that will not even let women walk outside with her shoulder exposed, the societies with too many white people. Even if they are indigenous to the region.
The Americans didn’t destroy the Barbary pirates, they existed for a while after the war and just stopped raiding American ships. America was paying millions each year to not get raided but Jefferson said no more when he came into office. The US had two wars with the Barbary pirates, the first was with Tripoli and the 2nd was with Algiers
I would categorize the slave trades into 5 different categories, 3 is too small actually: 1. The internal Sub Saharan African slave trade 2. The Transatlantic slave trade with Europeans 3. The Trans-Saharan Trade with the Amazigh Berbers of North Africa 4. The Indian Ocean Trade with the Arabs of Oman, India, and Persia 5. The Red Sea Trade where slaves went to Yemen.
Ok Rudyard, you’ve peaked my interest. The KKK were based off an African organisation? I’m definitely gonna need more info on that lol. Really love the content by the way man!
Mine came in 1702, had multiple plantations, and an 1848 census bureau shows we had no less than 48 slaves…. And I feel absolutely 0 guilt over it. Never inherited any of that wealth or land and I didn’t perpetrate slavery. I won’t feel bad about something I myself haven’t done.
55:01 In fact, there was no civil war in Brazil over the abolition of slavery. Slavery was peacefully abolished in 1888, by Princess Isabel with the so-called "Lei Áurea" (Golden Law).
Yes on paper, but nothing changed culturally for those slaves which is why there was a federalist revolution within 4 years which served to end slavery in reality.
@@Chris-es3wfthe federalist coup happened because of former slave owners. They're the political power behind it. In fact, it can also be seen as a political struggle between the older elite, based in the state of Rio de Janeiro and a newer elite, based in São Paulo and Minas Gerais.
Brazil was the last to abolish slavery in the Western hemisphere, Britain had already enforced the slave trade ban by destroying Brazilian slave ships, and a natural disaster (drought) diverted the Brazilian military away from slave-catching.
54:00 The British also benefitted by forbidding slavery because they had a virtual monopoly on industrial power. Without slavery or the technology to make industrial machines, Britain made it very hard for anyone to catch up.
This is a misconception. The main competitors at that time were Europeans or western, whose workforce were not slaves. On the other hand, slaves are not very good for long chains of activities, which characterized the industrial world. Even at Roman times, specialized work was not done by slaves, typically, although there were slave specialists, but they were relegated to the menial and heavy jobs. There are complex reasons for that, but for a post in yt, that must suffice. The important issue is that attaining industrial superiority was not one of the motivations for ending slavery, or at least it doesn't make sense to be one.
@@notsocrates9529 They are mad because they are incentivized to be mad for click bait. They do it since when someone looks up Whatifalthist in the algorithm they come up. Also Marxists aren't good faith and don't deserve to be treated as such.
@@History102-qg5oj Much of modern internet media is clickbait outrage polarization. I happen to think red edit is even more toxic than facebook or twitter. Marxism is dense in the sense of lots of different varieties. Trotskyites are absolutely dishonest across the board, it's all they can muster. I do think if you engage with Marxism like Rudyard and his father you will notice things like THE RED TERROR and be like lol you are not merely replicating robbespierre, you are doing it intentionally wtf. the other things is marxolo didn't notice that temporary dictatorships ... aren't. More or less marxism integrates a lots of ideas, including ideas from adam smith, but replicating the roman empires "dictatorship" idea was stupid but not as stupid as reiterating robbespierre. also Marx was fucking his best friends wife, make of that what you will and apparently was a neglectful parent. Also he was truly anti semitic, the worlds worst self hating jew. But if you dredge through marx you WILL be exposed to all the leading ideas of western civilzation - including the fucked up ones! Also marx writes badly. I thought it was the translators' fault. Nope! It sucks EVEN IN GERMAN. He just writes these walls of text and yeah there is a thought in there but omfg convoluted. Maybe it really is all driven by jealousy and envy and dishonesty. Ugh. Marx was right about Hegel being a dork tho.
Adding a bit more detail about Louisiana slavery. Most slaves from across the Atlantic arrived in Louisiana only at the beginning of the 18th century from northern Senegal along the river valley that led into Mali. This area was heavily Muslim during the time and the French secured many slaves from the aftermath of religious wars in Africa such as the Char Bouba War. Due to many of these slaves being educated in their home countries due to Islamic scholars and due to the hostile environment of Louisiana killing many colonists at the time, Louisiana slaves had a much easier time integrating with the local French population and this gave birth to the unique "non-white" ethnicities such as Creoles and Redbones. It wasn't until the American Civil War that the Anglosphere race dynamics made it's way into Louisiana which changed the whole social structure of the state and removed the middle-class urban populations from power and moved the state capital to Baton Rouge where most of Louisiana's German population lived.
In 1831, Brazil, pressured by the British, passed a law that technically ended the Slave Trade (Feijó law), but everyone choose to ignore the job of actually enforcing it, it became know as "lei pra inglês ver" (law for the english to see), in 1850 the law Eusébio de Queirós was passed and it ended definitely the Brazilian slave trade.
Have you or would you do a series or long form video on human slavery. I'm talking about human slavery in general and touching on each culture and time period. Obviously it would be a pretty massive undertaking. However I think it would be invaluable to your channel, viewers, history and society as a whole. It's important to shed light on a condition of humanity that has been so wide spread and impactful over the course of our shared history. If more people were aware of that shared history, you may be able to bridge the gap so to say.
1619, Yes, the 1772 ruling that slavery was and has been illegal in Britian, specifically England since 1068, that absolutely terrified the American slavers. Yes, the British - native treaty prevented the Americans from expanding west also angered and threatened a lot of Americans. However, this affected, bothered, or threatened such a small percentage of the American population that there is no way these were the biggest reasons for the war of independence. Indeed, the few it did effect were amongst the most wealth, influential, and powerful but unlike today the colonies were so decentralised and unpopulated that the oligarchs had no where near the wealth, influence, and power of the modern American oligarchs.
Not really. The English High Court's decision was that Parliament hadn't legalized slavery, therefore it wasn't legal in England. Not applicable to the colonies, which had their own legislatures & laws about slavery, so the precedent didn't threaten colonial slavery at all.
@timstarr01 it absolutely did. The 1772 Somerset case was a Virginian slaver who returned to England with his slaves, so not only did the abolitonist movement threaten colonial slavers but the prescedent case involved a American colonist. In fact, in the Northern Colonies that later became Canada, slavery was made illegal 1793. Britain had outlawed the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 and across the rest of the Empire in 1833. It wasn't the biggest or most important reason but it was a reason. To say the colonies and later the United States was founded for and on slavery is utterly false!
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 Nope. The ruling merely said slavery was not legal in England, because the British legislature hadn't legalized it. It said nothing about slavery in England. The colonial legislatures had. Thus, the ruling didn't and could never apply to the colonies. (I would argue that the colonial laws were also invalid, but not because of Somerset.) Canada's decision to abolish slavery is irrelevant, as a colony it could do what it wanted, but couldn't do anything affecting slavery anywhere else even if the rest of the USA had remained British colonies. We banned the slave trade in 1808, right after Britain, but we'd already promised to do so before then. Also, only the slave trade was banned by Britain in 1807, but it was banned for everyone, not just the British empire. Slavery in the British colonies was not banned then, and slavery throughout the entire British empire wasn't banned in 1833, either, merely slavery in the British Caribbean and the Cape Colony, not India, where debt slavery continued until later. BTW, you also have the facts of the Somerset case wrong. The slave owner wasn't from Virginia, he was from Boston: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
What can I do to be part of your team? I am a motion designer, it would be awesome to compress your long content in fast paced short documentary series.
We didn't commit genocide in the Philippines. We moved civilians into new housing to separate them from the combatants. They weren't used to living in high-density before, had bad sanitation, and cholera epidemics broke out - which threatened us as much as them. Many died, but it wasn't intentional, and we did everything we could to fight the epidemics.
Can you review the books “a history of the Muslim world by Michael cook”, “manipulation of human behavior”, “science and civilization in China” & “Oxford handbook of contemporary phenomenology”
I'm glad you made this video, it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, honest wife, $75k biweekly and a good daughter full of love ❤️❤️❤️
I raised 75k and Christina Ann Tucker is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Christina A. Tucker is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!
< I know that woman(Christina Ann Tucker) If you were born and raised in new York you'd know too, No doubt she is the one that helped you get where you are!!!!
52:00 Ruddy butchers this bit about evangelicals. Modern leftists are biologically and culturally the descendents of New England Yankees (remember when he said Massachusetts and South Carolina will never agree on anything). So yes it was evangelical Protestants, but they were the 19th century left. They even had vegetarianism and communes and wacky parallels like that. The "Bible Belt" is the SOUTHERN Baptist Convention, lol, definitely not the ones who ended slavery.
7:16 - Africans had no valuable goods other than slaves? 🤔 If I am not mistaken, the main reason different European nations started trading in Africa is because they wanted gold, diamonds, and various crops. In fact, Europeans were attracted to the gold in West Africa because they learned about the legend of Mansa Musa, the medieval ruler of the Mali Empire who depressed the price of gold throughout Africa and became the wealthiest man in history. Didn't you learn about the 3 G's in high school history (Gold, God, and Glory)? That applied to European contact with Africans just as much as it applied to the Native Americans. If Africa had no valuable resources outside of slaves, Atlantic slavery and colonialism in Africa would've never happened.
Can you suggest a book on the Abbassid Caliphate? Especially where historians prove that the Abbassids hit degeneracy. I just wanna find out more details of it. PLS
It is still important to continue to study the history of the African slave trade in the United States no matter what. I am a Haitian-Canadian, so I can't speak to what education is like in the states or how they go about it, but it is important to study history to understand how it reverberates into our modern world and to do our best to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
Weird fact - according to one thing I read (maybe unverified) - the Yiddish/Russian word for slave is Robot... and the first robot science fiction used the word for that very reason.
There definitely were strong central governments in Africa. These governments were as large as any in Europe at the time but Africa is so large that your prospective is a little warped. Smaller cultures were raided for slaves and the larger more powerful empires worked with European slavers
26:54 I've always wondered why there is such big interest by Westerners to cure malaria. It's really more for them than it is for us, because we get by just fine. No one in my family or community has died from malaria, it's more like a flu that takes you out for a few days and then you're fine.
Europeans dont have to aplologize for being the most successfull civilization. Whatever we did to other people, they would have done to us too, if they had the chance. If anything we were even more humane than most other civilizations.
This is literally almost leftist logic of "if were raised like this robber you'ld have become a robber as well, therefore no punish robber". Not even necessarily telling u to apologize, just stop being the reason Cthulhu always swims left.
@HenryThree 300$ more a month than the mortgage. I should have the house paid off in 14 years. I bought it 2 years ago with a 30 year loan. Not paying any more interest than necessary.
@@roscoejones374 When it comes time to raise the rent, do you break the news to yourself face-to-face in front of the mirror, or do you just take the easy route and send yourself a text?
Well first you need a computer, an internet connection and an email account. Then you just need his email address and you can send him an email. He might have one on his channel.
Mostly right-on, but sugar wasn't valuable merely because it's addictive. It was a food preservative, in the days before refrigeration, same as spices. So, the sugar trade from the Western hemisphere was analogous to the spice trade from the East Indies - wildly profitable not just because it made stuff taste better, but because it enabled a lot more food to be stored instead of spoiling, similar to salt.
The etymology of the word "slav" you talk about is incorrect. It has nothing to do with the english word "slave". "Slav" comes from the slavic word "slava" - meaning "glory". "Slav" - "a person of glory", "slavs" - "people of glory"
You´re inverting the order of the origins. Is a metonimy. Slavs were named first. Then, as so many slavs were forced into slavery, they became a proxy for the term (forced labour).
@eunoiavision7567 The etymology of "slave" is disputed but the oldest known mention of a derivative comes from a post classical latin byzantine derivative of hellenistic greek - "sclavus" which is either interpreted as "to despoil a slain enemy"; or as it is attempted to be cemented as correct by English scholars from 12th century onwards as "sclavus" deriving from "slav" (as slavs were popular as slaves during the early middle ages, as is the norm with any group of people who couldn't defend themselves properly during times of strife), although the root of "slav" is much older (proto-indo-european origin). So I guess what you believe entirely depends on what your bias is P.S. In the vid Rudyard mentioned that the slavs were: the Russians (although Russia is the largest country by landmass and as so is very diverse ~ 72% of Russians are ethnic Russians and it has a large part of them aren't slavs; or in other words Russia is about 2/3rds slavic); the Poles and the Czechs but this statement was incomplete as the Slovaks, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrin and Bulgarians are slavs as well P.S.S. I don't blame Rudyard for saying what he said as most sources outright not even mention the dispute and instead side with the 12th century onwards British scholar bias. So he probably isn't even aware Source as far as the dispute of the root of "slave": the Oxford dictionary
When I think of Arab slavery, I think of Moses and the Israelites. Funny to think that Arab slavery was possibly therefore 3000 years behind the times.
Just a minor correction. Brazil didn't have a civil war when slavery was abolished. What happened was a coup d'etat against the Monarchy. The result was the end of the Brazilian Empire and the beginning of the first Brazilian republic.
I do my own research on the same topics my focus is more in foundational black Americans and their lineage. Its hard to say the welfare state is reparations when everyone is eligible to receive welfare. The point of reparations is to pay back to a specific population for a specific reason ie Civil Liberties Act of 1988. We all know the rising tide theory is a fallacy. Also, slaves didnt survive in America because the crops were better, they survived because American chattel slavery was the only slavery in history to be self-sustaining in that slaves were breaded and born into slavery. Lastly to the 1619 tidbit, Rudyard always does an amazing job associating the social and emotional cues that predict societies but I think in an effort to not pander to the woke crowd he may have inadvertently removed the social and emotional cues like anti-blackness that drove slavery. Pre Bacon’s rebellion there were a bunch of different type of slaves or low class citizens. At the point the indentured servants and back country farmers were promoted and black people were relegated to permanent slavery the transatlantic slave trade business began, and everybody had to have a slave. Thats ironically 100 years before independence post Bacon’s rebellion (1676 - 1776) of new life breathed into the lives of immigrants and europeans seeking fortune in the new world. The 1619 Project simply shows how deeply embedded anti-blackness was woven in the creation America, albeit probably later than the book describes. Yes, its in their self-interest to break the will of their slaves, but is it? Like Rudyard just examined how slavery has been abundant throughout history. It usually has always been religious or war related. In America it began as a business and evolved into specific racial slavery. Indentured Servant’s and slaves once worked fields together, but once they’re promoted it would’ve made since that they still interacted with those same slaves but they rarely did.Hell speaking of Virginia their race based slavery laws were on the books by 1661. In fact we know how serious America got about separating black from human in terms of not letting slaves read or write. And yes you may say any of those things could have made slaves revolt and hurt the slave owner bottom line so its just business but like we said slavery has been going on, slaves have always been treated poorly, matrilineal slave inheritance? “mother-fucking” or the practice of forced incest? Or simply the BLACK CODES? Seems a bit more motivated than just simple self-interest or business.
I am not voting in this election, but I found a relevant news story to this discussion that I would like to share, especially for all those people who are rooting for Kamala Harris. According to the “Irish Times” in an article dated 23 July 2024, Kamala Harris is a descendant of an Irish slave owner in Jamaica Hamilton Brown, from Co Antrim, was paid equivalent of €11m in compensation by British government to free slaves after ban. Presumptive Democratic nominee and US vice-president Kamala Harris has Irish roots but not in a way that she is likely to embrace. Ms Harris is the daughter of Donald J Harris, who was born in Jamaica, and Shyamala Gopalan Harris from India. Genealogical research carried out by Northern Irish historian Stephen McCracken reveals Ms Harris’s four-times-paternal-great-grandfather Hamilton Brown was born in Co Antrim in 1776, the year of the US Declaration of Independence. Brown emigrated to Jamaica, then a British colony, and became an enthusiastic slave owner on the sugar plantations that were the mainstay of the island’s economy. He opposed the abolition of slavery across the British Empire in 1832 and went to Antrim to replace his slaves with workers from his native county.”
When you say "Black people didn't reproduce in the middle wast as they did in the New World", is that true broadly of the Caribbean? My understanding is only really the US has positive growth rates, and the sugar plantations in the Caribbean or mines in South America needing constant input from Africa to maintain numbers.
Wait, the true ancestral motherland of African Americans is not overwhelmingly Northwest sub-Saharan Africa for the whole country? Guess my Maryland bias is showing. However I might be wrong but I think is worth at least considering that would give me partial rightness. Is there maybe incongruity by the implied vs explicit criteria being different? I have in fact met lots of different ethnicity clusters of sub-Saharan Africa in America and they were all in one sense African American, but it was by a definition that would include Elon Musk as African American and for me at least that is not rigorous a definition required. Excluding voluntary migration (which is also Nigeria heavy in my experience) the African Americans as in African Americans having a completely unique distinctly American culture of their own dang near every single time their distal ancestry was the anglosphere black-Moor (more accurately described as Arabized) ancestry with of course unsurprisingly generous spritzing of western European admixture.
40:15 - To say that African Americans received reparations through the welfare state is to suggest that most African Americans today have benefited from welfare, and that they are the only ethnic group who've received or are still receiving welfare benefits. Additionally, America may have ended slavery and Jim Crow but it gives little agency to the enslaved and free African American pioneers who protested and revolted to end these systems in the first place (Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and MLK are notable exceptions - not the rule). Legislators wouldn't have lifted a finger had it not been for the African Americans who experienced this oppression fighting to end it. If it weren't for African Americans and other minorities dreaming of a pluralistic civil society, we would not have the America we have today. You can criticize the Left's political agenda all you want but you are just as much a victim of right-wing rhetoric and propaganda.
Do this but for the Slavs, I would like to see how they got forcibly emigrated and where they wound up e.g. ex yugoslavia, i presume, since Romania was rome's penal colony and the hungarians live in mountainous terrain.
@@bevbevan6189 last i saw hungary's flatlands are surrounded by mountains. this makes it fairly defensible which is why they survived/didn't get assimilated.
Great video. I have to disagree on the Barbery piratas. America did Hit them hard, but so did the Dutch and the Britain many times. They where destroyed by the French when they occupied Algeria in 1830
49:15 - You put all the blame on Haiti for its current condition as if France didn't force Haiti to pay reparations for their loss in the revolution, and the United States didn't forcefully isolate Haiti throughout the 19th century and occupy them for 19 years in the early 20th century. Furthermore, Liberia was not simply started by free African Americans. The American Colonization Society (ACS), an emigration organization largely made up of white missionaries, slaveholders, and politicians from the North and South, were responsible for the whole Liberia scheme. It was a plot by the ACS to remove free-born African Americans from the United States to subvert them from educating slaves and inspiring them to revolt (Read David Walker's Appeal and revisit Nat Turner's Rebellion). I really encourage you to read more because you are making it seem as if African Americans and the rest of the diaspora are almost entirely responsible for their condition and that the Europeans who committed these atrocities were more innocent than they actually were. It is historically incorrect to suggest this when examining actual primary source evidence.
@@marcuscole1994 it’s not even about arguing with Rudyard for me. I’m also a gen Z kid who happens to be a Ph.D. student in US history that is fighting misinformation wherever I see it. People eat this 💩up on the internet and then everyone wonders why society is so f’d up. I’m just doing my part to fight the lies.
Actually, Nigeria is the dominant country of origin for black Americans as a whole as most Black Americans have roots in Virginia if you go back far enough. The domestic slave trade brought slaves from Virginia to much of the Deep South which was formerly backcountry. The only black American who primarily come from Congo and Angola are those from the Carolina/Georgia coast. These blacks form a distinct ethnicity called the Gullah/Geechee. Similarly, the Louisiana Creoles in Southern Louisiana are the only group who primarily have their African ancestry from Senegal. While the two latter groups did have a significant influence on Black American culture and ancestry, these two latter groups have never made up the majority of black Americans outside of the two previously mentioned regions. If you want to learn more, there are various studies about the origins of African American English that trace the settlement patterns of blacks throughout the south.
@@marcuscole1994 It varies depending on where in the Gulf Coast. Some black people in certain areas of the gulf coast have Louisiana Creole ancestry and don’t know it. Black Americans who are not Louisiana Creole or Gullah in terms of ancestry tend to be mostly Nigerian. At least half of black Americans in Southern Louisiana, far Southeast Texas, and the extreme south of Alabama and Mississippi will have Louisiana Creole ancestry. But in the US in general, the majority of Black Americans will be of mostly Nigerian ancestry.
@@maryelizamoore7870 I know I’m one of those black Americans from Southern Louisiana woe. We know the region of Africa we came from. It’s Mali and the Congo. From North Carolina to Maryland they have Nigerian blood. Florida to South Carolina black Americans are mostly descended from Gullah people and have Congo blood too.
@@maryelizamoore7870 I’m one this black Americans you’re talking bout south Louisiana we know our bloodline is from Mali and the Congo some Ghana too. Black Americans from Florida to South Carolina have Gullah blood and have Congo and Senegambian blood too. Nigeria is Maryland and Virginia
@@marcuscole1994 You are from South Louisiana which is Creole Most creoles do have Ancestry from Senegal. country. I clearly mentioned this in both of comments. However, Black Americans who are not Gullah or Creole are primarily from Nigeria. There have been studies on this. South Louisiana and The Carolina/Georgia coasts are unique region with a distinct ancestry from other black Americans.
If the lack of protection from strong centralized governments lead to becoming a slave, why weren’t the Native Americans used as slaves? These people also had no government to protect them. And they were much more available than having to cross an entire ocean to get slaves. What lead to using African people as slaves rather than Native Americans?
The Native Americans did not have immunity to European diseases. Also, Native Americans were poor slaves. Black Africans were known to be better laborers physically than most other races.
Your comment on Marxism is only half right, yes you are inherently extracting value, but Marx certainly agreed that capitalists had to better layout thier layout. And of course the workers wage isn't extracted value, and marx certainly believed you can invest in human capital and that wages differ across industry.
9:59 no they didn't. Slave trade didn't even make the bulk of their GDP. 11:30 been a while so I can't remember the source but this probably isn't the case. It is said the high numbers are using the peak numbers to calculate the entire extent which gives wrong answers because those peak numbers were the exception. And remember Western skavery was industrial, hard to see preindustrial anything having a larger scale. Okay, while Europeans didn't successfully raid, they did successfully instigate and worsen a lot of wars. Well, Portugal at least did so and that's who I am more familiar with. While they did bring New World Cotton, the Old world already has its own cotton variant that was already widely grown in Africa Well, what do you mean by metal work?. If you mean Metallurgy, no Europe didn't introduce better Metallurgy to Africa. They did introduce some more intricate metal products like locks of guns. 36:32 While he's right that power shifted to the coast, state formation in the Sahel and Coast were not started/driven by the slave trade. Polity formation is like at least Nok old, so we're talking 1500 BC and Kingdoms proper at least 1st half of the millennium. These were not states founded to trade externally, they preceded the trade by a while. Akan states like Bonomanso, Yoruba states like Benin, Ekiti and Oyo have been there since the first millennium, Kongo has been there since 1300. They did not form to trade, trade did not make up the bulk of their GDP or tax revenue in value. However, yes it did become important to those states after a while. Also, there were "good guys" states and peoples that didn't do the slave trade like say Nri but by the very nature of the topic they're small actors. Of ur recommendations, yh. The John Thornton book is what people should start with. Is Atlantic Worlds book is also good for the whole slave trade and the world it produced.
Embarrassed that America had a slave trade? Kind of weird that you don't see it as a slave trade before America became a country. I thought it was existent before America. But if you want to make it a proprietary of America, ok.
Nah. Muslims want White women more than anything else. It’s absolutely racial, otherwise they wouldn’t treat Whites as breeders and allow Blacks to procreate, which they didn’t.
