The Mundane Horror of American Slavery 

And they both know who is in charge, and the dynamic never changes.

@@lolitabubbles26 if you were born in the south and wanted to help these people, a way you could have helped someone’s lives is buying whole slave families to keep them together.

They whipped them

I was thinking the same thing but I might say mule or draft horse - a tool (which hurts to even think) - as opposed to a dog which one _might_ consider part of one's pack or family.

In fairness, most dog owners I know would also protect their pets from harm, whereas most slave owners would only go so far as to provide shelter and maybe food if they were lucky

A lot of them also say that it was the slaves fault for allowing themselves to be enslaved.

krishna murthy jeeeeeeeeeeesus

Yet now they out here saying we should lick police boots and thank them for putting rubber bullets into our eye sockets

@@piedpiper1172 for the love of God no! Nice name btw. I think if you voluntarily take the oath you(meaning cops) should be held to a higher standard. Had a cop say he doesn't like being lumped in with the bad cops, said "you 2a guys don't want to be lumped in with mass shooters". I replied " the difference is we go after mass shooters how many bad cops you go after?" The moral of the story is no one should paint with such a broad brush.

Joe Jackson I am often reminded of a German saying: “What do you call ten people having dinner with a Nazi? 11 Nazis.” To knowingly tolerate unjust people is the same as being unjust. This is why we say all cops are bastards. They have allowed the bad cops to go unpublished so long we no longer trust the police. It is the fault of the “good cops” for letting it go on so long.

Yes, you can easily run away to avoid the whip for a short time. But food is difficult to come by unless you steal it, as everyone who is your friend is next door to hungry already. And stealing food is probably going to precipitate an even worse punishment than whatever infraction was already hanging over your head. Slaves sometimes ran away to hide in the woods for a day or three, but they usually ended up walking back on their own, driven by hunger.

@@ComradeOgilvy1984 Fredrick Douglass tells some awful stories about being hungry all the time when he was a slave.

@Glinkling Smearnops It is true. Read the accounts. www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/10/514385071/frederick-douglass-on-how-slave-owners-used-food-as-a-weapon-of-control

@Glinkling Smearnops Hunger and starvation are not the same thing. The purpose of owning a slave is to consistently get a large amount of menial labor completed in a timely fashion. A slave who has bigger muscles but is less compliant does not necessarily get more work done, in fact it could easily be the opposite. Having many big muscled slaves who are less compliant hanging out together has a huge potential downside.

​@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 Mr. Weems used the word "hunger". Apparently people who disagree with him are *provably* too stupid to know the difference between hunger and starvation. Not really a surprise...

Jakob Schulze Jack London’s “People of the Abyss” (a book where the author does just that but in late-Victorian London) there’s a scene where he flees the filth of a homeless shelter back to his fancy hotel and Turkish bath

or the annoying one where a reporter spends 24 hours in a solitary confinement cell. like dude...you will never understand the mental torture it does to you when you know you are genuinely locked in there forreal. And do 10 years of it.

Exactly. There's a reason why psychologists have examined those states of being and realized that they're akin to actual torture.

I think it depends on how you are treated. In the film “Black like Me”. the protagonist has his skin darkened by chemical treatment so its will take many months for his skill to return to his normal color. He never gets over the shock of being treated by whites they way he has been treated. Even people he has known do not see past the color. I think it is very hard really to change one’s appearance that much if you are pretending to be a homeless person. Even a talented actor would find it hard to stay in character long enough.

Exactly, especially with those people in the social experiments who "grasp" the reality of poverty. They could never understand

@Glinkling Smearnops prideful ignorance is a special American quality,you wear it well.

@Glinkling Smearnops You just made my top five list of the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Glinkling Smearnops “Derp. Derp. Derp” “Them Coloreds was better off as slaves than they was in Africa. Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk!” And I’m sure you think that this was an original and profound statement.

@@archer1949 Right? Id rather be free as a hunter gatherer in the forest than a slave in a technological utopia.

Glinkling Smearnops, you’re very special. Just like the school you used to attend.

A great example of this in more modern times is (BREAKING BAD SEASON 5 SPOILERS!!!!!!) the relationship between Tod and Jesse once he's captured

Like something straight out of a skin crawling exploitation horror story.

@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 I'm sorry I don't know what point you're trying to make

@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 I'm just asking you to clarify. I mean, if you have perspective that is true then I wanna know about it. Marketplace of ideas and whatnot.

Just sounds like public holidays and accrued leave here.

@@PapaSmurf11182nd his argument boils down to "slavery was good for dem negro yeee haw" by saying that Africa was a worse alternative

@@balanced2482 it was

You can, but slavery is still pretty f”d up.

@Glinkling Smearnops well, of course because they are dogs, you can't treat a human like a dog and think that that's love.

Pimpin ain't easy.

@@gortrobot578 I'd argue that the love shown to dogs can have a dark undertone of control and contempt. Few owners focus on the dog's needs for their own sakes, or develop a partnership of equals. Instead, they train the dog to fulfill their own need for unconditional devotion and obedience.

Anyone in the ancient world would think you were crazy for saying something like that.

Get the context but these little inconveniencies and benign examples like it sound more like a paternal approach you might get from a parent or grandparent and less like that of a someone who does it just to lord power over you. That said if their biggest accomplishment is your existence you might be inclined to be rebellious but if they claim their progeny to be their greatest accomplishment yet got a long list of accolades that your society recognizes as far greater then the inclination might be the opposite of rebellious. Completely understand what was meant by the example and how it applied to the particular institution but the very example seems like one of the softest and most benign aspects of a stern upbringing approach.

Thomas Jefferson...went a considerable step further. To read his writings...you'd get the impression that he intended for himself to be the Father of a new race of people chosen from slaves. It seems...eerily familiar to someting else I'd read earlier in life.

@@wj3186 jefferson was next level on that approach but that wasn’t too odd in the extreme wing of the abolitionists John Brown and the like. Southern gentry had a stern paternalistic approach at their best nature, while at the same time seeing people as property. Yet the approach of northern gentry was not truly benign towards those outside their class and any approach that showed concern for workers was about as rare as those of extreme abolitionists. Not seeking to equate anything by no means but these were competing approaches to basic manual labor here a couple centuries ago.

He should have spent more of that anal retentive energy teaching his soldiers to not shoot at the guys wearing grey instead. Might have saved him some bother down the road, lol.

Mental death 'by a thousand cuts'

Wow, that really knocked the wind outta me...

@@thundy9124 I think he knows that. He’s disappointed not ashamed. Huge difference.

Thundy Iike you give a shit

Trundy, only if the current generation, use agency to eliminate ALL vestiges of barriers to FULL freedom and equality. But, they refuses to take action, instead, settling for the status quo. And, at the same time, we find that there are groups that espouses white supremacy, neo nazis, proud boys, oath keepers, and so on.

@@chrisper94 you must put freedom over equality. Only then every man and woman will be equal. We must prioritize liberty to allow men and women to work and rise to great heights.

or hire them and pay them as servants, provide housing for them as well. I don't think just freeing them is enough, let alone a safe idea since even with freedom, they'll pretty much end up homeless, starving, or worse. Either way, being a slave and being free at that time are not great choices.

If American slave owners were really following scripture by owning humans, they'd see Hebraic slavery was nothing like the way they treated those they so called owed.

@@juanpauloarcillas7600 Of course, that would take a lot more effort and when you don't even consider them human, why do that? After all, you wouldn't pay a dog or a cow, they should be thankful for being fed by you "for free", when all you ask of them is to permanently be under your complete control.

Manumission was often illegal or heavily restricted.

They were often not allowed so mute point

Actually that's the messed up part. If you where born and raised in that environment you would see slavery as no big issue because your friends neighbors and family at that era would not

@@almalone3282 so the people conducting the Underground Railroad saw slavery as no big deal?

@@gorehammer1 those where a minority compared to the average southerner at the time just like flat earthers in our time

@@almalone3282 what a bad comparison, flat earth had been disproven for centuries, and it's like saying that abolitionists are as dumb as flat earthers, or that flat earthers are noble on any way alternatively.

@@operationd--msday that's not the comparison The comparison is the population difference between abolitionists vs pro-slavary in the south, yes if you took all the abolitionists and put them in a room it would look like a lot, but spread them among the general southern population at the time it would be around the same size as flat eathers in modern time

on the surface it doesn't look too bad but when you look at it like that... god, how horrifying

YER FOND OF ME LOBSTER, AIN'T YE?

...who is this addressed to?

The Lighthouse is a masterpiece. One of the true great critiques of toxic masculinity. One that doesn't come across as preachy or subtly misandrist.

@@mycaleb8 There is no such thing as toxic masculinity, only irresponsible use of ones own leverage over other people.

Amazing videos subscribed and liked.

@Scott Johnston In a modern perspective yes. If you look at it through the lens of time I actually think Chomsky is more right.

@Jonathan Norway I know and the US was stupid enough to elect a vice president that abused that loophole and even used innocent people to fill that loophole... But srsly you guys should get that loophole fixed asap

@MultiBagram yh it means that your country should remove the possibility for slavery.

@MultiBagram you’re stupid the 13th amendment was written when the civil war ended,… and still they could remove it now… that under no circumstances slavery would be allowed

@@chainmail5886 No, they are all as bad as each other.

I always love the argument that it's "better than Africa" when Africa was actually a pretty great place to live in during the 16th century before slavers ruined it. People forget that Europeans originally went to Africa to trade for gold, not people. The Mali were the richest people in the world, and most of the gold in the world had come from them. Timbuktu was the cultural center of the world. Where as the grandest libraries in Europe could boast hundreds of books, Timbuktu had thousands of books. They had public education (mostly for religious reasons), with one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of literacy. Europeans burnt (figuratively, they didn't personally do the burning) the whole region to the ground. Africa was the only continent to not increase in population in the 17th century. To say slavery is "better than Africa" is like burning down someone's house, letting them sleep on your floor, and telling them the floor is better than their house.

@@thewest8630 I'm interested in your statement where did you get that info o.o?

@@TheRoyalKnightPain19 my college class on the history of Africa.

@@TheRoyalKnightPain19 If you're still interested, what happened during the height of the Atlantic slave trade (17th-18th century) and of the Islamic slave trade (19th century), was that Africa was deprived of its population. Numbers vary, but the estimates are that about 12.5 million people were deported to the Americas from the 1500s onward (the Islamic slave trade had gone on since the 7th century, so maybe up to 17 million to the Middle East and Asia). A great deal of African states fell apart as their population was depleted from slaver raids and wars by other states eager to get European weapons and goods. The result was that by the time of the Scramble for Africa (1885-1900s), there weren't any strong, centralized states to oppose European expansion. Africa was riddled by civil and slaver wars, its population hollowed out, and greatly impoverished overall (gold mines in the Mali Empire, which had made up 50% of gold production in the Old World, had dried up).

That second paragraph just sounds like life. NOT DISAGREEING BTW

@MaxSt Arlyn shut the hell up, you racist neo-confederate arsehole

@@electronworld4996 Looks like his comment got deleted, whatever it was :)

On top of everything you mentioned, your shitty boss OWNS your wife and children, and could sell them off if he wanted, and there's absolutely nothing you can do because you're still stuck in that pit. If you even attempt to escape, you could be beaten or executed, including your family too. All because of the _color_ of your SKIN. Seriously, the day the Confederacy was defeated and the day that slavery was outlawed deserve to be celebrated.

Agreed.

@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 What makes him a charlatan?

@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 Like what, for example?

Carnivorus perhaps it has something to do with the Constitution that says all men are created equal, you only find that in The United States.

I've heard of colonialism being justified as means to civilize peoples. I've heard of mass kiIIings being used a way to purge evil. I didn't think there would be more awful apologetics in store, to surprise me. well, now I've heard of slavery, being justified as a tool to civilize supposed "savages"

@SuperSaiyanJohnCenaTrappedInADeathStarPokeball thank you

Strangely I see lots of apologist from your types whenever the subject of the Arab slave trade comes up.

@Lex Bright Raven And? EDIT "and youre a piece of shit for it." You seem to be confusing yourself with other people.

@@CuckHunt and youre a piece of shit for it.

Only people with depraved minds could ever be part of chattel slavery and sleep at night

I don't know where in Florida you're living but my entire childhood education was focused on two subjects - slavery in America and essentially WW2. I'm going to specifically call you a liar and one with malicious intent- the case of the man hanging from the tree was a suicide and either you didn't take the time to look that up or your purposefully trying to muddy the waters. I would say that our education system focused too much on slavery, the sins of americas interactions with natives, and the civil war. Comparing this to the lack of knowledge people have of many worldwide atrocities with far higher death tolls (there were literally around 3500 black people hung in America in total. Like, ever.) Such as the killing Fields of cambodia, the Holodomor, the Great leap Forward, Stalin's purges, and the Islamic slave trade, among others, I would say that we grossly overly emphasize the education of the impact of the horrors of slavery. Don't know you but I got to be real my dude I don't believe a single thing you're saying. You've lied about the suicide and either you went to school back in 1948 or you're lying sack of shit

That's not my experience. I remember learning about slavery every year after entering high school and my first year of college.

@@makinbacon3124 lol, holy shit the balls on you to just straight up lie like that. Wow, man, I know you far right idiots have smooth brains.. but, man, it’s one thing to spew your nonsense, but to tell a bold face lie like that? I’m sure you have citations to back these claims, but I’m more interested in those sources.. “Around 3500 black ppl lynched” lmao dude.. holy shit.. you’re so pathetic.. than this anecdotal nonsense you’re spewing too, “slavery & WW2 all I was ever taught in school” gibberish, is just equally pathetic..

@@DarkSideOfTheBrightSide huh. Seems like RU-vid deleted my reply to you. Pretty par for the course. How does the NAACP rank as a source? naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/history-lynching-america What's funny is the one single day with the most lynchings was actually eleven italian-americans en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_New_Orleans_lynchings There are some estimates that put lynched blocks in America all the way as high as 4,000, and some that list them less than 3,000. Pretty interesting body count for a subject that has dominated American guilt and justified the horrors of reconstruction. In comparison, 1,862 Japanese Americans died while in and possibly because of internment camps in world war II. As for my personal experience, yeah no s*** I'm being a little hyperbolic but the focus of American and world history from middle school all the way through high school was hilariously focused on only a few historical periods. Most of this having to do with "disenfranchised" people. I went to a lot of school so it was most telling in the inner city schools that I went to that were predominantly black in which most of our history and geography classes where Afrocentric. It literally became a running joke. I learned more about world war II (specifically Japanese internment and Jewish Holocaust), American slavery, Stonewall riots and the modern gay rights movement, and the civil war (while leaving out reconstruction which I found interesting as an adult) then almost any other subject. Of course there was general skimming on other historical subjects but surprisingly lacking was any real focus on the holodomor, Pol Pots killing fields, the Great leap Forward and the horrors of Mao Zedong, the Spanish civil war and the atrocities committed by the Republicans (they always found a way to mention Guernica though), the massacres and genocidal psychopathy of the Japanese Army during world war II (I would argue was worse than the Germans), Stalin's purges, the list goes on and on. But yeah sure, let me give you proof about my childhood experience lol. Go look up the lynchings for yourself dude. Challenge your held belief. No one is saying that lynchings arent horrible, but there is a reason why we focus so much on them. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes Or go back to believing what you want to believe it's cool. Also, my voting record would imply different, but go ahead and assume everyone who disagrees with you is far-right. Seems more like you just went off the deep end.

@@DarkSideOfTheBrightSide no response? Just shit talking and running away like a bitch. Word. Sounds like some low level content for sure lol

Pretty much what is was like when I was drafted into the army in 1969.

@@Gwaithmir hell is the epitome of reason

@@evanv7420 Did you mean "epitome"? Would you mind explaining that statement?

@@Gwaithmir I shouldn’t have assumed, but I thought you implied that you might have gone into Vietnam. If you are a Vietnam vet, i hope you are doing well, if you aren’t, i still hope you are doing well. The phrase I said was coined during Vietnam. That hell means senseless destruction. That the worst horrors of war for you to see are the ones that you can’t fully understand why they happen or what you are fighting for

@@evanv7420 I served three Vietnam tours in the 101st Airborne and one tour in the 1st Armored Cavalry.

@@dvforever Um, they did. Not the reparations part, but resettlement in Africa. That actually happened and it didn't really work out. This was due in no small part that the then current generation had never even known thing one about their ancestors' homeland and those who could have told them anything had long since passed away and the knowledge of such things went with them. Combined with the fact that the land that had been chosen for them for resettlement was very less than habitable and you have a well and truly nightmarish clusterfuck in the making.

dvforever Black Americans have just as much of a right to this country as White Americans. Just because it’s hard to heal doesn’t mean sending us away will solve the problem.

@@zandaroos553 Absolutely. (I didn't want to engage in a pointless argument) The thing about American history is sure it was all white guys at the top, none of my ancestors were at the top of anything, doesn't mean all that history doesn't belong to all of us. I'm glad that who built the Whitehouse and similar history is finally being openly discussed. In South Carolina I toured Drayton Plantation, it was a rice plantation; I was hoping to see some signs of that. The tour guide was showing some plaster form work on the ceiling, "Artists from Italy were brought over just to make these plaster moldings on the ceilings." The moldings were uneven- you will never see amateurish work like that anywhere in Italy. It was obvious that an enslaved person had seen this done, or was told about it and then figured it out. It looked like the first attempt of an intelligent person who was good at figuring things out. The history of rice plantations used to be told that Bob Englishman came over from Portsmouth and set up a rice plantation. Well Bob Englishman didn't know squat about rice, Africans from the Niger River had cultivated rice at the same time the Chinese had. They were the people who established the biggest money crop, after tobacco, before cotton. My take on American culture up to about 1900 was it was 1/3rd Euro, 1/3rd African and 1/3rd Amer-Indian. Throughout North America, especially the arctic, when Europeans first came over, they either adopted native ways or they died. The Pilgrims, those fussy uptight jihadists left the Netherlands because their kids started learning Dutch. Plymouth had been a Wampanoag village, crops had already been planted (Jack Weatherford wrote a book on this whole topic), they grew corn, squash - Amerindian. Disease had wiped out the village, the few survivors moved to another village, the Pilgrims basically just moved in. Then they fought with them and stole their land... The Protestant New Englanders also made several really violent raids on the French Catholics in Quebec. They wanted to defend God and steal whatever they could. And if you wore a hat when you entered a house they figured you were a Quaker - - subject to immediate execution. Bigotry seems to have been a favorite hobby for a lot of people. My grandmother told me once that if you put three people in a room two of them would figure out what's different about the third and then give that person a hard time.

dvforever So how is it going to be better to send us to a continent we have little connection to the culture, economy and people of where we would be seen as outside colonizers? We would lose everything we built here. You can’t just ship away you’re problems plus why does it have to be the black people that gotta leave, why not the whites? Most of them have been here for less time then us, they should go back to Europe before we “go back” to Africa!

dvforever I said “the whites should go back to Europe” to point out the ridiculousness. Not as an argument for fucking segregation. The American identity is deeply interwoven with both black and white history, all we’ve wanted historically was acknowledgement of this and full integration into America society. Because, and I can’t believe I have to quote basic civil rights legislation, SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL

To be fair, they had a life expectancy of three years; they weren't likely to get to settle down and have kids in such short time.

@@ahmedamine24 That depends very much on when and where you're talking about.

It wasn't as bad, and it also didn't exist side-by-side with chattel slavery for all that long, and to a large extent in different areas (Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware were the only places you found large numbers of both; south of that there were fewer indentured servants and north of that fewer slaves, even when slavery was still legal) so the comparison isn't terribly relevant.

@@brucetucker4847 I think it is, if only because it highlights how horrible slavery was.

For the life of me, I can't see why the South would ever cling to chattel slavery when indentured servitude is so much more economical. For example, since slaves would be your property: it was in your interest to provide medical care to them on your dime. Indentured servants, on the other hand, have to provide their own and usually need to go further into debt to get medical care. However, it cannot be understated that the advantage of both is that you don't need to provide a PPO or HMO to retain them as employees so they'll both save you a bundle in the long run.

I'm English and as an 18 year old travelled to Portugal to witness the revolution. I have never seen such a happy people. I will always have a soft spot and respect for the Portuguese.

Social media is the biggest reason people fail back ground checks these days.

"not the same as slavery" wow a semi-honest socialist, keep up the good work cumrag.

@@GayvonFartin no socialist literally considers wage slavery comparable to chattel slavery. It's a metaphor because both systems feature exploitation of another's labor for profit. It's not meant to be taken as a literal comparison. Besides, how does pointing out a rather creepy thing companies do constitute socialism? The comment you were replying to was, in no way, talking about capitalism or socialism. Maybe that particular user has repeated socialist talking points in other places or advocated for socialism/against capitalism but that isn't displayed here. This might be the worst strawman I've seen considering it not only insinuates that the commenter you were replying to was a socialist, despite no evidence existing for that either way in this comment thread, but also gives an impressively poor understanding of the concept of wage slavery, so impressive that it implies that the commenter lacks basic reading comprehension. A reactionary strawmanning people because they lack reading comprehension? Clearly I jest for no one has ever heard of such a thing...

@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat What a spergy butthurt wall of drivel. "But but that's not what socialists mean!" Then take up that beef with your stupid comrades and their buzzword slogans. Just look at his subscription box for god's sake instead of typing more useless BS.

@@GayvonFartin aw, did someone wet their pants this morning? Gee, I'm sorry but maybe you should go ask your mommy to change your diapey. No, but seriously, I figured from your "cumrag" remark that you were going to reply with nothing but insults. I forgot to note how childish the "cumrag" remark sounded in my original comment and I was not disappointed in how juvenile you managed to make yourself in your reply. Kudos, now go play while the adults talk.

The real problem socialists seem to have with slavery is brand loyalty.

@@DrCruel what?!

@@BrentWalker999 Socialists don't like anyone else but them enslaving people.

@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 Okay but he never remotely said that Confederates were Socialists, calm your tits. Lol

@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 hey genius, 'Stomped' on the Slaves Face Forever" was not meant to be taken literally, understand?

@Betty Better not much you can do with your freedom if you're still being constantly restricted on where you go, what you do and even if you can vote.

Betty Better The conditions that people are in today are a result of the conditions of the past. Go tell a black person in real life that they want to be servile, how would any normal person react to that? Don’t be ignorant, what you’re saying is stupid

@@mojave5664 indeed. When you look back at the past, many of the problems in black communities aren't necessarily their fault, for example lack of quality education because of funding gaps dating back over a century, and even drugs being funneled in by the CIA. I can't say the problems aren't there, but I can say black people don't deserve all the blame and that we need to take responsibility to fix it. I gotta say this is a pretty good paragraph.

@Betty Better "Go to the inner city and look what they did with their freedom....nothing." I don't even know where to begin on this comment. I could literally write a book in response explaining it, but I am pretty sure it would go in one ear and out the other.

@Betty Better " no one restricts blacks from going where they please no one restricts what can do, and no one restricts them from voting" NOW, being the key word. Can you seriously not comprehend that generations of racism, being pushed into poverty, bad education, violent hostility WELL AFTER slavery can have a permanent effect on a population? Are you really that dense?

yeah holy shit. i know im 2 years late but i randomly stumbled acrosd this video and when i heard "imagine you have no agency and no control over your life 24/7 with no breaks" and i was like god tjat sounds so much like my life with my abusive parent. i dunno why but tjats like the best descriptor of how i feel and even mow that theyre gone i still have that feeling entrenched deeply inside of me

slavery had no HR dept.

Really? You have no idea how much happens every day in the richest country in the world, in the best families in your city.

@@JRobbySh The existence of rape now doesn't make the raping of slaves then null.

@ "sexual advances were just not common with puritan slavemasters" Yeah no. Modern geneology pretty much dismisses this myth. The average African-American genome, for example, is nearly a quarter European, and almost 4% of European Americans carry African ancestry. That simply doesn't happen if slave/slave master relations were rare.

How do we know if it was or wasn’t consensual?

If only chomsky was not a bosnian genocide denier...

But all other statements, he's pretty damn wrong.

bonus points if they starve, beat, whip and... assault.. you and the people around you

Good kids need to.know how awful it really was i hate it when people erase the horrors of history

@@atheistechoes9594 Agreed. And sometimes those horrors are especially awful in their mundane nature.

Some Northern States has slaves and did so throughout the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Confederate Territory. With a 21st century mind and experience, it’s also hard to grasp just how many North and South were gradualists (including Lincoln) and not abolitionists. The South would’ve done better economically without slave labor. Especially considering the conditions and hours per week, of their factory/mill workers.

This is an interesting thought exercise. Most folk assert it would have died away very soon. Perhaps. But in that case why send hundreads of thousands to their death in war, wreak your economy for generations and ruien your reputation. Why not say, ok, free the slaves. And in four years there will be a new election and well kick that fella out. Just maybe they wanted to keep slavery for ever?

Russell Miles Why not just pay their workers in company script? Like for the White miners? Slave labor, without purely working men to death like in South America and the Middle East wasn’t cost effective back then.

@@andrewcart8117 I think that's actually how things became after the war ... constantly kept people indebted and trapped.

@@p.cowart7286 it is what they did. That is exactly what share cropping is.

America began with the bizarre paradox of being a slave nation founded with Enlightenment language and principles. I think you're onto something about them knowing they were wrong on the subconscious level and feeling like they had to justify themselves with convoluted logic and mythology. And I think it still goes on. It's today's conservatives always qualifying their racism with, " I'm no racist but.."

Servitude was fading out in europe and just then the rich wanted cheap labor for brutal work in the colonies. they had to double down and work hard on the double think. They could not kidnap their own poor or start wars in Europe to enslave the citizens of other countries. They also were "Christians" - and later the ideas of the enlightenment were read and discussed by the affluent. Even monarchs read them (they were often impressed, not that they intended to apply them right here and there. No giving up on power, that was seen as interesting in a distant future). Chattel slavery faded out with the end of the Roman empire, although they had servitude after that. But chattel slavery became a no, no. In those days children were left to die (newborns) if the family had too many children or the child did not seem healthy and strong. That practice also ended when they became Christians.

"If you look at slavery in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, there was no underlying philosophy to it." There was underlying philosophy to it. Aristotle covers slavery in Politics; he says some people are naturally free and some people are naturally servile (with Hellenes like himself naturally free and barbarians naturally servile, leaving aside the issue of Hellenes enslaving each other in war, which Aristotle called slaves by law and not by nature). In Book I he writes, "But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule, and others be ruled is a thing, not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." He does acknowledge that "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." but lays out why he thinks this is not the case.

@@Uyarasuk Aristotle was a truly disgusting individual.

@@Uyarasuk But that is my point. The argument is not moral in nature. Aristotle isn't saying "oh this is for their own good". He's saying "they are too weak to be anything else". Thucydides says essentially the same thing. His argument is rationalist in nature, not moral. He isn't tugging at heart strings. He is stating what he believes to simply be a point of fact. And it further speaks to how the Ancient world viewed slavery. It wasn't some God given mandate, nor was it a great civilizing mission, nor was it a right laid down by the founding fathers of whatever polity. It was simply a state of nature. The strong dominated the weak. It was a byproduct of the never ending clash of classes, polities and civilizations of the ancient world. It was an acknowledgement that either the Athenians enslaved others, or they would be enslaved themselves. The argument is entirely secular, and entirely based on a rudimentary basis of natural law. There's no larger ethical, religious, or philosophical component. No attempt to justify it on anything other than the cold hard reality of the era. No appeal to any greater good or moral standard. And admittedly... its not wrong. The Athenians did keep themselves out slavery so long as they kept those around them in slavery. Because that was the reality at the time.

@@jimmycakes7158 Really? That's your argument? "Other people did it too so we weren't the only bad ones"? Other than being a weak argument, it's bullshit. The Emancipation Proclamation made Slavery unconstitutional but all of the Northern States had abolished slavery on the state level between 1774 and 1804. Slavery was (And still is) a vile and indefensible atrocity that was (and is) practiced by people not fit to live among civilized people. People who seek to justify it are even worse.

@@n3Cr0ManCeD The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT make slavery unconstitutional, it merely confiscated the human chattel of rebels in areas then not under Union control. Slavery continued until 1865 in DC, the border states, and parts of southern states. The 13th Amendment was what made slavery unconstitutional in December, 1865. Also, there were still legal slaves in some northern states up until 1865 because most of the northern states didn't free their slaves, they merely banned acquiring or importing new ones. Most of the slaves in those states were never freed, they were sold to southern states, mostly to cotton plantations in the Deep South. (I'm not trying to defend slavery with this, merely to poke holes in the high horse many northerners like to pretend to on this issue. The South fought to keep slavery, but for the most part the North did NOT fight to abolish it, and in fact many northerners became very irate when they felt Lincoln was hijacking the war for abolitionism.)

@@brucetucker4847 I think your last paragraph is probably the most honest and realistic statement in this argument (on a grander scale not just this comment thread) there is no morale high ground here, just the recognition that it was really fucked up things that America was doing.

@@brucetucker4847 Not to be mean here, but have you lost your mind? If there is a war between 2 sides, the one that rebelled, and attacked the other one to KEEP slaves, thats the asshole side. You can look down on the asshole side and if you wanne argue that doesnt mean plp from the north can look down on the plp in the south today I will happily agree. Now If I argue that everyone in the world can look down on assholes today that say retarted things like "the south should have won" or "there were slaves in the north too, so what the confederates did wasnt that bad" you surley can agree with me.

@@alexandermarquardt597 I thought I explicitly said I wasn't defending the Confederacy. But the historical facts are that there was still slavery in some northern states and the Emancipation proclamation didn't end slavery. Calling people assholes doesn't change those facts.

Dear lord, Candace Owens is not equipped to explain anything to anyone lol

A pattern in holocaust accounts seens to be that practising oppression turned German soldiers and officials hateful to compensate for the cognitive dissonance, rather than the hatred motivating the constant gratuitous evil deeds on a personal level. Perhaps this monster started off as just a callous bureaucrat and then developed his hatred as he executed one monstrosity after another and had to face himself in the mirror.

@@ahmedamine24 What you just said is related to what I mentioned in a different response to someone else. When they were just subjects of the British crown, it was no big deal to be a lord over others - but once the plantation owners began speaking of freedom and rights, they needed to come up with excuses to deny freedom and rights to their slaves. You look at the writings from people before and after the Revolution, you'll see how the bigotry was rather mild in the 18th century, by comparison to the venomous, vicious, hateful racism it became in the 19th century.

Source?

I am not sure whether that qualifies as "breaking" him. Towards the end of the trial,he probably knew he was getting hanged anyway and decided to drop the act.

Ehm... sorry, but source? When the balls did that happen? The best they got out of him was admitting that during the war he regarded Jews as the Reich's enemies, and at the time his conscience was calm with it. That's it, the best they got out of him. There was no "breaking" and no dramatic confession of grand evil to my knowledge. And after a few days? I'm sorry, but WHAT THE BALLS ARE YOU ON ABOUT? Eichmann was interrogated prior to the trial for NINE MONTHS. His confession totaled over 3 thousand pages. Presenting the case to the court alone took the prosecution the better part of 2 months. The trial in its full length, between its official beginning and the verdict being read, lasted 8 months. What did the prosecution do in "a few days?" Spoiler alert: real-life trials take a ton of time. You sure you didn't mix up the case with the newest episode of Law & Order? Have you actually read Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem? Followed the trial, or read up on it after the fact? Eichmann wasn't this big evil mastermind, he was a grey mouse behind an office desk, not a grand schemer but a boring bureaucrat keeping the machine of death running, the sort of man who would ask his momma to pack him clean undies when he went off to work at the concentration camp. That's Arendt's conclusion, mind you, though she put it less colourfully. This notion that he had this grand "mwhahaha, I was evil all along!" moment is a disgraceful, moronic lie, turning the memory of one of humanity's worst crimes against itself into that of a cheap cartoon. And the sight of people above eating it up without doing even a simple Wikipedia search to realise how disgraceful a lie it is truly horrifies me.

Are you ok by the way ?

But I’ve also heard some super super liberal people downplay the plight of the Irish in the United States and the racism and pain they faced, calling us just another White colonizer and that indentured servitude wasn’t that bad. So both sides of the aisle have really left us down when it comes to Irish treatment in the United States, I try to raise awareness for it when I can. Really hope you see these two comments and discuss it sometime. Love the channel.🙂🇮🇪🇺🇸

The fact that one group was treated horribly while another was treated twice as horribly doesn't mean the first group didn't suffer...we Irish were fortunate that after a generation or two in another country we were able to "pass".

@@retriever19golden55 this phenomenon of downplaying one groups hardships because "they don't have it as bad as this other group" is known in some circles (I have encountered it in the LGBTQ+ community) as "playing oppression Olympics". It can be used as a tactic to divide and conquer by people who doesn't want us to have rights, sometimes goes hand in hand with respectability politics.

@@connorplankey5392 Straw man

The Irish were sold into slavery by Cromwell and “transported “ to the Caribbean . The Irish Slavery myth isn’t false as much as it is suffers from a lack of understanding of the different periods of history . Ironically many of the Irish who were sold to the Caribbean would run away and get caught up in the Golden Age of Piracy , they would make a lot of money and settle in some place Georgia or the Carolinas . I think you see how the vicious cycle is repeated ... Expect their slaves didn’t get to taste freedom for around 200 years .

Even worse, imagine being friends with your oppressor's children thinking you were friends, only to have that image destroyed in an instant at 7.

Hey at least pragerU acknowledges that the civil war was about slavery

@@bigmoniesponge Yeah, but many other conservatives don't