Languish.org

I knew about the muslim slave trade, obviously, but thoae numbers for America seem high to me.
Can anyone confirm or deny?
Thanks.

"
Fact 1: The first official slave owner in America was an Angolan who adopted the European name of Anthony Johnson. He was sold to slave traders in 1621 by an enemy tribe in his native Africa, and was registered as "Antonio, a Negro" in the official records of the Colony of Virginia. He went to work for a white farmer as an indentured servant.

Prior to 1654, all Africans in the thirteen colonies were held in indentured servitude and were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts for work expired. Johnson would later take ownership of a large plot of farmland after the expiration of his contract and, using the skills he had learned during his indentured labor service, Johnson became moderately successful.

By July 1651 Johnson had five indentured servants of his own. In 1664, he brought a case before Virginia courts in which he contested a suit launched by one of his indentured servants, a Negro who adopted the name of John Casor. Johnson won the suit and retained Casor as his servant for life, who thus became the first official and true slave in America.

Thus the accusation that whites "started slavery" in America is utterly untrue: blacks in Africa sold each other as slaves, and the first true lifelong slave in America was owned by a black man, not a white.

Fact 2: The transatlantic slave trade was dwarfed by the Arab or Muslim slave trade, which lasted from 650 AD to 1900 AD. It is estimated that a minimum of 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders, and that over one million Europeans were enslaved by the Muslim world during the same period.

The Muslim slave trade saw Africans exported to regions throughout the Middle East and even to India, while the Europeans were captured in raids in Spain, Italy, France, Britain, and Ireland. These raids were launched from North Africa, and during the Islamic occupation of Iberia and southern Italy, from the latter regions as well.

The invasion of southeastern Europe by the Ottoman Turks saw even more Europeans enslaved into the Muslim world—but their numbers are unknown.

The Muslim trade in slaves, both black and white, was therefore longer lasting and far more extensive than the transatlantic slave trade—but there are today no cries of "Arab guilt" or demands for reparations against Muslim nations.

Fact 3: James Oglethorpe (1696–1785) was a British general who founded the colony of Georgia in 1732. From the very beginning, Oglethorpe ensured that slavery was banned in the colony, and that Africans were barred from entering the territory. The colony's founding charter also forbid Roman Catholicism from being established in the region.

It was only in 1750, after Oglethorpe had left the colony, that the ban on slavery was lifted.

Fact 4: Many free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large.

In 1830, a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slave holding states.

Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.

Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners.

Fact 5: In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the US census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

The figures show conclusively that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves—as opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern whites, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all white Americans who owned slaves.

The fact is, there is plenty of shame to be spread around concerning slavery. Let us not forget the 500,000 Americans who died putting and end to it."

Is what true?   That there were some free blacks who owned slaves?  Yes, that's true.

Louisiana's comparatively high number of slave-owning blacks (frequently mulattoes, mind you) was well known at the time. Louisiana was an exotic and decadent place.

Blacks, when free, being disproportionately likely to be slavemasters is a little misleading. Most blacks were in the South, after all, and if they were free they had a good chance of not being poor. Slaves were the sign of wealth in the South.

Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2016, 07:45:00 AM
Is what true?   That there were some free blacks who owned slaves?  Yes, that's true.

Large amounts of mixed race in Haiti were slave owners. I thought that was generally known,

Quote from: Lettow77 on November 16, 2016, 08:26:04 AM
Louisiana's comparatively high number of slave-owning blacks (frequently mulattoes, mind you) was well known at the time. Louisiana was an exotic and decadent place.

This was common in French Caribbean colonies.

Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2016, 07:45:00 AM
Is what true?   That there were some free blacks who owned slaves?  Yes, that's true.

I mean, that proportionally so many free blacks owned slaves. 28% of free blacks owning slaves seem high to me when you keep in mind that prejudices against blacks would still be predominant regardless of economic success.

Similarly, there were Jewish guards in ghettos and concentration camps, and closeted gay people who persecuted gays. Human capacity for being a lowlife is boundless.

Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2016, 09:01:30 AM
Human capacity for being a lowlife is boundless.

Spoken like a true authority. :)

Well, there you have it.  Slavery: debunked.  Sorry, niggers.  QQ MOAR PLZ

The first slave in America was John Punch, owned by a European, Hugh Gwyn.

The numbers are tricked out quite a bit in this story.  There were 393,975 slaveowners in the 1860 census (not 'fewer than 385,000") and, while they represented a small fraction of the total population, they represented a substantial portion of the families (46% of the families in South Carolina, the highest).

I mean, of course "only a small minority of whites owned slaves" in 1860.  Only a small minority were even adults in states where owning slaves was possible!

Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2016, 09:01:30 AM
Similarly, there were Jewish guards in ghettos and concentration camps, and closeted gay people who persecuted gays. Human capacity for being a lowlife is boundless.

Indeed. Marty is kind to point out to us regularly that being a member of a minority that commonly is the victim of bigotry and intolerance does not at all insulate the victim from being bigoted and intolerant of other minorities.

Quote from: Siege on November 16, 2016, 08:45:42 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2016, 07:45:00 AM
Is what true?   That there were some free blacks who owned slaves?  Yes, that's true.

I mean, that proportionally so many free blacks owned slaves. 28% of free blacks owning slaves seem high to me when you keep in mind that prejudices against blacks would still be predominant regardless of economic success.

That 28% number is totally false. In South Carolina, for instance, there were an estimated 9000 free blacks in 1860 (estimated, because the census didn't actually record "race," just demographic data and status as free or slave).  Using the same 5-person average as the census shows for white families, that gives is about 1800 families.  The article mentions that 125 of them owned slaves in Charleston.  That's about 7 percent.  Even if they represent only half the slave owning free blacks in South Carolina, that doesn't even reach half the claimed 28% (which was for New Orleans only, anyway).

Louisiana is always going to represent an outlier in American slavery anyway, as it was French or Spanish until just 58 years before the Civil War started.   Those countries had a different outlook on free blacks and slavery.

I got as far as "Fact 1".  That's a lie.

Siege, what difference does it make to you (or should make to any of us) what proportion of free blacks owned slaves?  I don't understand the point you're trying to make... or maybe you just saw something you thought was interesting, wanted to share it with us, and there's no other motivation here? :hmm:

I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

Siege, where did you find these "facts"?  Give up a source.

yeah, Siege, the bottom line is that, even if the author twisted facts, he still had to ignore the real facts to get to a wacky and untrue set of conclusions.  "Facts" 1 and 2 are patently lies. Fact 3 is a non sequitur.  "Fact" 4 is a lie.  Fact 5 is a non sequitur.

Quote from: Siege on November 16, 2016, 08:45:42 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2016, 07:45:00 AM
Is what true?   That there were some free blacks who owned slaves?  Yes, that's true.

I mean, that proportionally so many free blacks owned slaves. 28% of free blacks owning slaves seem high to me when you keep in mind that prejudices against blacks would still be predominant regardless of economic success.

Back then, there were restrictions on manumission and there were restrictions on what free blacks could do.  To support one's family, it was often easier and cheaper for a free black to keep them as theoritical slaves and have them work with him on the farm/plantation.  It's doubtful free whites would have worked for a free black anyway, so having a workforce was out of the question.  Besides, paying white men to do a job when blacks were doing it as slaves elsewhere was not economically viable if a black man wanted to improve his condition.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist/2/

Quote
It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa ... Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Quote from: Caliga on November 16, 2016, 10:43:56 AM
Siege, what difference does it make to you (or should make to any of us) what proportion of free blacks owned slaves?  I don't understand the point you're trying to make... or maybe you just saw something you thought was interesting, wanted to share it with us, and there's no other motivation here? :hmm:

If black owned slaves, it means they are just hypocrites about their presumed persecution, since slavery was for their own good.  If they are hypocrites, it goes to show that Black Lives Matters are just a bunch of thugs intent on disrupting civil order in the US.  If Black Lives don't matter, it means there is no problem with racism in the USA.  If there is no problem with racism in the US, then there's nothing wrong with having a white supremacist at the White House to re-establish balance from Democrats supporting civil disorder.

It's all logical, when you think about it...

Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2016, 10:49:18 AM
yeah, Siege, the bottom line is that, even if the author twisted facts, he still had to ignore the real facts to get to a wacky and untrue set of conclusions.  "Facts" 1 and 2 are patently lies. Fact 3 is a non sequitur.  "Fact" 4 is a lie.  Fact 5 is a non sequitur.

But see, they're historical quirks that contradict the general narrative. 

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 10:46:28 AM
I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2016, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 10:46:28 AM
I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That slavery was bad.  You know, since black people do it too, it means it wasn't so bad.

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2016, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 10:46:28 AM
I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That no blacks benefited from the system.  But I see Languish is already trying to put words in my mouth.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:09:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2016, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 10:46:28 AM
I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That no blacks benefited from the system.  But I see Languish is already trying to put words in my mouth.

I didn't know that the "general narrative" was that "no blacks benefited from the system."  Maybe the general narrative isn't very general.

Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

I'd still like to know the source.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

There is a huge difference between being unaware that some blacks had slaves, and believing your "general narrative" that  "no blacks benefited from the system."  Most people who are not auto nerds are unaware that a Chevrolet 454 Big Block produced 255 hp, but there is no "general narrative" that  "no pickup truck engine ever produced over 250hp."

Siege:

1) Please stop frequenting whatever place on the internet you get this stupid crap from.
2) If you have actual interest in the subject there is a really good novel relating to it: https://www.amazon.com/Known-World-Edward-P-Jones/dp/0060557559

The first time a novel has been put forward as history on Languish. :o

Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2016, 12:35:39 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

There is a huge difference between being unaware that some blacks had slaves, and believing your "general narrative" that  "no blacks benefited from the system."  Most people who are not auto nerds are unaware that a Chevrolet 454 Big Block produced 255 hp, but there is no "general narrative" that  "no pickup truck engine ever produced over 250hp."

I'm saddened by how it is cool now to go about with one's ignorance. I miss when it was shameful to be so openly ignorant. :(

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

Why is it important that some black people had slaves during the slavery period of US history? What's the significance?

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 12:55:27 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

Why is it important that some black people had slaves during the slavery period of US history? What's the significance?

It's not.  That's part of what makes it a quirk.

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 12:55:27 PM
Why is it important that some black people had slaves during the slavery period of US history? What's the significance?

Yes that is the bigger issue.  It doesn't take great imagination to see what axes are being ground there.

I've noticed that a few of my fellow co-religionists have some willingness to give consideration to racist or white supremacist arguments of this nature; there seems to be a bit more of that going around lately.  It shouldn't be necessary to have to explain the problem with this or appeal to self-interest.  But just in case - if for no other reason than self-interest, this is a really terrible idea.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
It's not.  That's part of what makes it a quirk.

Siegy - and the people he's sourcing his info from - seem to impart the quirk with some significance.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2016, 01:06:38 PM
I've noticed that a few of my fellow co-religionists have some willingness to give consideration to racist or white supremacist arguments of this nature; there seems to be a bit more of that going around lately.  It shouldn't be necessary to have to explain the problem with this or appeal to self-interest.  But just in case - if for no other reason than self-interest, this is a really terrible idea.

"Did you know that Jewish intellectuals were disproportionately represented in Bolshevik leadership?"

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 01:07:35 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 01:04:59 PM
It's not.  That's part of what makes it a quirk.

Siegy - and the people he's sourcing his info from - seem to impart the quirk with some significance.

Okay, I'll let him answer that then.  So is this like the new Black Confederate Soldiers thing?

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
Okay, I'll let him answer that then.  So is this like the new Black Confederate Soldiers thing?

What's the "Black Confederate Soldiers thing"?

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
Okay, I'll let him answer that then.  So is this like the new Black Confederate Soldiers thing?

What's the "Black Confederate Soldiers thing"?

That there were black confederate soldiers, which meant that some blacks supported the CSA, which meant that the civil war wasn't really about slavery.

Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2016, 01:15:43 PM
That there were black confederate soldiers, which meant that some blacks supported the CSA, which meant that the civil war wasn't really about slavery.

Seems pretty similar then, yeah.

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
Okay, I'll let him answer that then.  So is this like the new Black Confederate Soldiers thing?

What's the "Black Confederate Soldiers thing"?

A few years ago there was book (or books) written that claimed large numbers of blacks fought in the Confederate army.  Became a popular notion in some circles.  Consensus among most historians seems to be that the large majority of whatever number 'served' as cooks, teamsters, etc. and probably only a handful actually took up arms.

As for fact 2, Oriental (to include arabic, turkish and other muslims) slave trade vs Atlantic slave trade, people like Tidane N'Diaye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidiane_N%27Diaye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidiane_N%27Diaye) have been writing on the subject, namely his book The Veiled Genocide, explained by the typical castrating practices of the oriental slavers, which explains in part why there are not so many black populations in the Middle East.

Estimates are hard to come by for the Oriental Slave trade but slave trade historian Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau offers some figures : 11 million for the atlantic, 17 million plus an even harder number to evaluate of intra-african slave trade (14 millions).

So fact 2 is more or less true it but needs some context and dwarfed is not the right word given the figures involved. The oriental slave trade is more known nowadays but yes muslim countries avoid the subject and some African countries look the other way for political reasons.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:09:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2016, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 10:46:28 AM
I'm not Siege, but to me it's just one of those interesting historical quirks that contradicts the general narrative. 

What is the general narrative that is being contradicted?

That no blacks benefited from the system.  But I see Languish is already trying to put words in my mouth.

I think the general narrative is that blacks of this time had it worst than whites of this time.

Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2016, 12:53:46 PM

I'm saddened by how it is cool now to go about with one's ignorance. I miss when it was shameful to be so openly ignorant. :(

Yeah well my grandfather used to reminisce about the days when you could get a coke for a nickel. It just made him look old and out of date.

Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2016, 12:53:46 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2016, 12:35:39 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

There is a huge difference between being unaware that some blacks had slaves, and believing your "general narrative" that  "no blacks benefited from the system."  Most people who are not auto nerds are unaware that a Chevrolet 454 Big Block produced 255 hp, but there is no "general narrative" that  "no pickup truck engine ever produced over 250hp."

I'm saddened by how it is cool now to go about with one's ignorance. I miss when it was shameful to be so openly ignorant. :(

it's the post-truth era.  Deal with it!

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 01:16:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2016, 01:15:43 PM
That there were black confederate soldiers, which meant that some blacks supported the CSA, which meant that the civil war wasn't really about slavery.

Seems pretty similar then, yeah.

Kind of, but not really.

There's fairly decent evidence that blacks did own slaves - partly (as mentioned by Viper) as a way to protect family members.

There's not really good evidence that blacks acted as soldiers.  That black slaves acted as manual labour / cooks?  Yes.  But taking up arms the evidence is scant, and fighting as uniformed soldiers there's not one shred of evidence.

Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 01:21:34 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 16, 2016, 12:53:46 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2016, 12:35:39 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

There is a huge difference between being unaware that some blacks had slaves, and believing your "general narrative" that  "no blacks benefited from the system."  Most people who are not auto nerds are unaware that a Chevrolet 454 Big Block produced 255 hp, but there is no "general narrative" that  "no pickup truck engine ever produced over 250hp."

I'm saddened by how it is cool now to go about with one's ignorance. I miss when it was shameful to be so openly ignorant. :(

it's the post-truth era.  Deal with it!

Fuck that noise. Even in the post truth era, I'm still a minority.

Note that examples of "Black owned slaves too" - in British colonies, anyways - are mostly taken from the earlier moments of slavery, in the early 17th century. The real takeaway of this "quirk" - not really a quirk - is that racialization of slavery took place over the course of the 17th century (incidentally, borrowing a lot of the conceptual tools elaborated in the crucible of Iberian antisemitism), solidifying during the 18th century into a notion of race, much more familiar to us today, than the medieval and early-modern notions of liberty from which slavery as a status, emerged.

Yes, I've often thought that racism became a necessary ingredient to justify slavery some time in the 1650-1750 period.  The ancients practised slavery on the principle of "woe to the conquered"; for a 19th century slaveholder something more was needed as justification.

Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2016, 01:22:24 PM

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 01:16:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2016, 01:15:43 PM
That there were black confederate soldiers, which meant that some blacks supported the CSA, which meant that the civil war wasn't really about slavery.

Seems pretty similar then, yeah.

Kind of, but not really.

There's fairly decent evidence that blacks did own slaves - partly (as mentioned by Viper) as a way to protect family members.

There's not really good evidence that blacks acted as soldiers.  That black slaves acted as manual labour / cooks?  Yes.  But taking up arms the evidence is scant, and fighting as uniformed soldiers there's not one shred of evidence.

there were certainly no free black regiments in the Confederacy.
A few here and there, integrated into other regiments and local militia in New Orelans.

The Wikipedia article provides first hand accounts, but they do not distinguish between slaves forced to fire on union troops by their masters or freed man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Confederate_States_Army

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 16, 2016, 01:45:57 PM
Yes, I've often thought that racism became a necessary ingredient to justify slavery some time in the 1650-1750 period.  The ancients practised slavery on the principle of "woe to the conquered"; for a 19th century slaveholder something more was needed as justification.

To simplify a complex process:

The example of total debasement given by plantation slavery increasingly shaped, and refined - like sugar - notions of total emancipation as political freedom. Note the prevalence of the language of slavery in early American revolutionary rhetoric. As long as liberty was just a matter of which form and nature of the binds that tied you to your betters, slavery was just the extreme end of the spectrum. As the demands of plantation slavery increased - and as the working conditions became increasingly inhuman - "freedom" became increasingly "pure", the mark of not being a slave. It also meant that, as it was increasingly described as inevitable, and necessary, it was increasingly becoming intolerable to the universalist rhetoric of the Enlightenment. The mounting pressures from abolitionist forced slaveowners to come up with ideological justifications where pragmatic ones (and the fictions of war prizes) had previously sufficed. Race -- a medieval notion with a long history of concern over purity of bloodlines, free from Jews, Conversos, commoners -- was reenergized thus. 

Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 02:01:32 PM
there were certainly no free black regiments in the Confederacy.
A few here and there, integrated into other regiments and local militia in New Orelans.

The Wikipedia article provides first hand accounts, but they do not distinguish between slaves forced to fire on union troops by their masters or freed man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Confederate_States_Army

I'm generally a big supporter of Wikipedia, but some topics are so controversial you simply can't trust it.

This is one of those topics.

Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2016, 02:03:25 PM

Quote from: viper37 on November 16, 2016, 02:01:32 PM
there were certainly no free black regiments in the Confederacy.
A few here and there, integrated into other regiments and local militia in New Orelans.

The Wikipedia article provides first hand accounts, but they do not distinguish between slaves forced to fire on union troops by their masters or freed man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Confederate_States_Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Confederate_States_Army)

I'm generally a big supporter of Wikipedia, but some topics are so controversial you simply can't trust it.

This is one of those topics.

well, other information I found is just as contradictory as Wikipedia.
Bottom line is, yes, there were free blacks fighting for the Confederacy, as soldiers.  But not terribly much and usually as part of local militias to defend against looters and criminals.

Again, it seems to be a case of false truth.  It ain't false to say that there were black men fighting for the Confederacy, but it's false to say they represented any significant number or always did it of their own free will, and it's certainly false to pretend the total number of black men enlisted in the CSA actively fought the unions.

Quote from: Oexmelin on November 16, 2016, 01:11:00 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2016, 01:06:38 PM
I've noticed that a few of my fellow co-religionists have some willingness to give consideration to racist or white supremacist arguments of this nature; there seems to be a bit more of that going around lately.  It shouldn't be necessary to have to explain the problem with this or appeal to self-interest.  But just in case - if for no other reason than self-interest, this is a really terrible idea.

"Did you know that Jewish intellectuals were disproportionately represented in Bolshevik leadership?"

:o really?

*furiously searches teh internetz* 

Come on dudes, I am grinding no ax.

It is just a curious fact of life that no liberal ever heard about. And I wonder why.
Maybe it disrupts the narrative, or maybe educators don't think the snowflakes are ready for it, or maybe it's a way to minimize the occupation of school safe spaces.

Regardless, I doubted the original source had the numbers right, since Army retired old dudes are not known for political neutrality, and this tipic is clearly politically charged.

How does it change anything?  Slavery was a part of the American colonies from the beginning.  I don't see how it particularly matters if not all of the slave masters were white.  What narrative do you think is being disrupted?

It sure caused a strong reaction here.

Quote from: Siege on November 16, 2016, 06:31:27 PM
Come on dudes, I am grinding no ax.

It is just a curious fact of life that no liberal ever heard about.

Hmm . . .

Jones' book received a lot a commentary when it came out in places like the NYT book review, and the Guardian, it won a Pulitzer, he was on NPR, interviewed by Jim Lehrer, etc. and a lot of discussion was about the historical basis.  So LOTS of liberals heard about it.

Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2016, 01:15:43 PM

Quote from: Jacob on November 16, 2016, 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
Okay, I'll let him answer that then.  So is this like the new Black Confederate Soldiers thing?

What's the "Black Confederate Soldiers thing"?

That there were black confederate soldiers, which meant that some blacks supported the CSA, which meant that the civil war wasn't really about slavery.

Over a million Russians under arms for the Axis, and millions (with an "s") of Chinese, Indonesians, Indians, etc., under arms in service to the Japanese puppet governments.  So I guess WWII wasn't really about living space and violent resource extraction?

Quote from: SiegeIt is just a curious fact of life that no liberal ever heard about. And I wonder why.

Dude, if you really wanted to shout "gotcha!" at liberals, why not bang on about the Crimean and North African slave trades?  You know, the three or four million white people kidnapped and sold to the Turks and Arab states?  At least that one counters the narrative (the one that barely exists, although God knows that right-wingers think it does) that Western Europeans are somehow uniquely evil.  It also would jive with your well-attested hatred of Muslims, and I'll even cop to it being not very-well-known outside of history-oriented circles.

But guess what?  No liberal is remotely surprised to learn that free black people owned black slaves.  It is not surprising, in the slightest, to discover that anybody of means, in any society where slaveholding was legal, owned slaves--in much the same way that it would also not be surprising to discover that they owned houses.  It does not meaningfully detract from the idea that America was and is a white supremacist state.  (But hey, don't give up: if you can find a few hundred thousand white slaves in the American South--especially if they were owned by black slaveowners--then you'll have achieved a real coup!)

It helps a lot, obviously, that liberals tend not to be impervious to facts, and are more comfortable with contemplating nuance and ambiguities.

The Cherokee owned black slaves too.

Trail of Tears: JUSTIFIED.

And now blacks drive Cherokees.  So chew on that one for a while.

:lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2016, 08:00:30 PM
And now blacks drive Cherokees.  So chew on that one for a while.

I even destroyed one! :o

Don't think I've ever seen a black in a Jeep product.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2016, 08:09:41 PM
Don't think I've ever seen a black in a Jeep product.

Well, not with all that corn and racism out there.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2016, 08:11:37 PM
Well, not with all that corn and racism out there.

I lived in Dodge City for 15 years pinhead.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2016, 08:13:36 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2016, 08:11:37 PM
Well, not with all that corn and racism out there.

I lived in Dodge City for 15 years pinhead.  :rolleyes:

You've smoked away all memory of how popular those champagne Jeep Grand Cherokees with the gold trim packages were back in the day with all the church-going Department of Madea employees, blessed by God in Jesus's name, amen.

There's the old Seedy.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 08:23:38 PM
There's the old Seedy.

Yeah.  Because we would've caught your ass in an Acura Integra in 1996.  Save it, Bo or Luke Duke.

I prefer Cooter.

Hey, you never told us what you roll in when you're on "patrol" anyway.

When I was repoing cars back in the '95, the chocolates loved the Civics.

FYI.

That's because you live in a dirtball state.  Now get back to tweaking the exhaust on your low-rider Tiburon, Dayton Shore.

 :lol:

Not long until Seedy's sugar jag wears off.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2016, 08:38:50 PM
Not long until Seedy's sugar jag wears off.

He got into a Patti LaBelle Peach cobbler.

I'll be rolling out the 2017 Toyota Ambien in about an hour or two, yeah.

Us olds and our pills.

Quote from: Siege on November 16, 2016, 06:31:27 PM
It is just a curious fact of life that no liberal ever heard about. And I wonder why.

It's not that unknown; they even did an episode of A Different World on the subject.  Whitley discovers her black ancestors owned slaves and feels so ashamed that she her life slides into a downward cycle of self-destructive behavior culminating in her marriage to Dwayne.  Just kidding, she got over it by the end of the episode; and why she started dating Dwayne still remains one of television's greatest mysteries.

Those glasses got Dwayne plenty of tail.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 09:40:22 PM
Those glasses got Dwayne plenty of tail.

Not everybody could wear a high fade cut like that, either.  I know I couldn't.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2016, 08:38:50 PM
Not long until Seedy's sugar jag wears off.

I called it.  :D

I was taught that blacks owned, and still own, slaves in both High School and College. Very Liberal professors seemed very aware of it and every history I have read on the subject mentions this. So how it is outside the "general narrative" or something no Liberal knows is beyond me.

Well actually it is clear to me. It is essential to create this lie in order to advance conspiracy theories as facts and discredit historians.

:lol:  Okay Valmy. 

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
:lol:  Okay Valmy.

Why is that funny? Seems pretty on the money.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
:lol:  Okay Valmy. 

I care about history. Making up lies about how slavery is presented in history does not amuse me. I challenge you to find ONE historical study on the subject that supports your supposed "general narrative". Hell find me a High School textbook.

Seems an odd thing to teach in high school. I was never taught it.  It really isn't historically significant and there are many more important things to cover in limited time/space.  Which is why I said it was a quirk.  You guys read way too much into things sometimes.

In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2016, 11:01:01 AM
I care about history. Making up lies about how slavery is presented in history does not amuse me. I challenge you to find ONE historical study on the subject that supports your supposed "general narrative". Hell find me a High School textbook.

We never learnt in high school that black americans had black slaves ;)

TBH, we never learnt in school either that there were slaves in New France.  So I guess we fit that liberal narrative here about slavery.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

it's also a little different for us, Canadians, than Americans.  Slavery was never as widespread as in the Southern US, and we never were a central place for slave trade.  Cotton and tobacco didn't grew that well here, and regular farms didn't require as much workforce as the american&carribean plantations.  Besides, the British needed fighting men to repulse any potential american attack, so having freed men who could join the militia was much more useful than slaves.

Yeah, it is a total secret that blacks held slaves, you have to really dig around to find any kind of mention of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slaveholders

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 11:26:40 AM
Yeah, it is a total secret that blacks held slaves, you have to really dig around to find any kind of mention of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slaveholders

you have to read about it.  That's hard.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 11:05:23 AM
Seems an odd thing to teach in high school. I was never taught it.  It really isn't historically significant and there are many more important things to cover in limited time/space.  Which is why I said it was a quirk.  You guys read way too much into things sometimes.

:lol: Okay, Spicey.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 12:43:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

:D :hug:

You know, the slaves that built the White House were paid very well, considering the time period.

So "general narrative" is a Languish trigger term.  Got it.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 01:05:39 PM
So "general narrative" is a Languish trigger term.  Got it.

Well I think it is just some rhetorical device being used to make a claim with no support. :o

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 12:43:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 12:43:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

You specifcally remember NOT being told that blacks could own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that blacks could NOT own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that ONLY whites owned slaves?

Is it possible, counselor, that you actually weren't told anything at all about the allowed races of slave owners, and are simply projecting your assumptions onto your education?

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

They don't talk about slavery in the South, only States rights.

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 12:43:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

You specifcally remember NOT being told that blacks could own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that blacks could NOT own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that ONLY whites owned slaves?

Is it possible, counselor, that you actually weren't told anything at all about the allowed races of slave owners, and are simply projecting your assumptions onto your education?

I'm gonna take his defense here, and I'll say it was #1 for me, and I guess it was the same in his province.

Mulatto slaveholders were a not uncommon fixture of XIXth century colonial Spain, fwiw. Spaniards tended to mix up with the natives and black slaves more than anglosaxons did, sometimes even openly, but discrimination and the caste system still vetoed the mulatto sons of wealthy colonials from acceding to higher education and reputable jobs. So to the plantation it was.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

I was never taught that there were high schools in Canada, so I guess I would (if i were like you) use that fact to support an argument that the general narrative is that there are no high schools in Canada.

Luckily for me, I know that that is not how evidence works.

Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

They don't talk about slavery in the South, only States rights.

I don't think he meant southern Quebec when he referenced "the south."   :P

I was never taught that Lutherans specifically owned slaves, but presumably some did.

Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 01:38:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 12:43:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

You specifcally remember NOT being told that blacks could own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that blacks could NOT own slaves?

Or do you specifically remember being told that ONLY whites owned slaves?

Is it possible, counselor, that you actually weren't told anything at all about the allowed races of slave owners, and are simply projecting your assumptions onto your education?

I'm gonna take his defense here, and I'll say it was #1 for me, and I guess it was the same in his province.

That is functionally identical to #4, if you are saying you were not told #2 or #3.

What were you told about the Irish owning slaves?

Assuming you were not told they could, and not told they could not, did you assume they could not?

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 01:48:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

I was never taught that there were high schools in Canada, so I guess I would (if i were like you) use that fact to support an argument that the general narrative is that there are no high schools in Canada.

Luckily for me, I know that that is not how evidence works.

Are there high schools in Canada though?

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
What were you told about the Irish owning slaves?

Not much.

Quote
Assuming you were not told they could, and not told they could not, did you assume they could not?

That is not what BB said.  That is not what I said either.
But since we are taught that blacks were imported to the US as slaves, that freed black men did not have the same rights as white men, I guess it never occured to any of us, in high school, without internet at the time, that there could have been black slave owners.

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2016, 02:20:00 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 01:48:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

I was never taught that there were high schools in Canada, so I guess I would (if i were like you) use that fact to support an argument that the general narrative is that there are no high schools in Canada.

Luckily for me, I know that that is not how evidence works.

Are there high schools in Canada though?

There not "high" per se.

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 17, 2016, 02:33:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2016, 02:20:00 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 01:48:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".  I think about as complex it got was mentioning that not all whites owned slaves, and some blacks were free.

Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

I was never taught that there were high schools in Canada, so I guess I would (if i were like you) use that fact to support an argument that the general narrative is that there are no high schools in Canada.

Luckily for me, I know that that is not how evidence works.

Are there high schools in Canada though?

There not "high" per se.

don't the anglos use "High school" in Quebec?

Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 02:31:03 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
What were you told about the Irish owning slaves?

Not much.

Quote
Assuming you were not told they could, and not told they could not, did you assume they could not?

That is not what BB said.  That is not what I said either.
But since we are taught that blacks were imported to the US as slaves, that freed black men did not have the same rights as white men, I guess it never occured to any of us, in high school, without internet at the time, that there could have been black slave owners.

Weird.

I was never taught that free black people had restrictions on what they could own. I don't recall every being told anything specific about whether they could own slaves, but at the same time I can't recall a time when I was not aware that black people did in fact own slaves.

So maybe Marty is right about this latent liberal racism around black people not being slaveowners, but it is a uniquely Canadian thing?

Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 11:48:51 AM
you have to read about it.  That's hard.

:lol:

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 02:59:47 PM
So maybe Marty is right about this latent liberal racism around black people not being slaveowners, but it is a uniquely Canadian thing?

I would file it under "Canadian high schoolers don't know every detail of US history".

Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 03:07:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 02:59:47 PM
So maybe Marty is right about this latent liberal racism around black people not being slaveowners, but it is a uniquely Canadian thing?

I would file it under "Canadian high schoolers don't know every detail of US history".

Also under "The general narrative in Canada is that no blacks benefited from the slavery system in the antebellum US South."  Maybe Canadian schools should teach that lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

Well, there is an easy check on this I suppose. My son, in 11th grade, is taking AP American History. I shall check his textbook, and see what they were taught...

Page 346 of "The American Pageant, AP Edition".

Quote
"...Many free blacks owned property...Some, such as William T. Johnston, the "barber of Natchez", even owned slaves. He was the master of fifteen bondsman..."

So there you go. Turns out that this was yet another large helping of bullshit from our alt-right friends.

Here is some interesting stuff from later in the next couple of pages...

Quote
"Ironically, the supression of the international slave trade fostered the growth of a vigorous internal slave trade, as upper South states like Virginia became major sources of supply for the booming cotton economies of the Deep South. Most of the increase in the slave population of the United States came not from imports, but from natural reproduction - a fact that owed something to the accident of geography that the slave South lay outside the area where tropical diseases took such a grisly human toll."

I find this interesting in contrast to having finished up the podcast on the Haitian revolution, where slavery was so deadly that basically they had to keep re-importing the entire slave population every year or two, because they basically just all died off from disease and poor treatment long before they did any procreating.

Quote
...
"Above all, the planters regarded their slaves as investments into which they had sunk nearly $2 billion of their capital by 1860. Slaves were the primary form of wealth in the South, and as such were cared for as any asset is cared for by a prudent capitalist. Accordingly, they were sometimes, though by no means always, spared dangerous work, like putting a roof on a house. If a neck was going to be broken, the master preferred it to be that of a wage earning Irish laborer rather than that of a prime field hand, worth $1800 by 1860 (a price that had quintupled since 1800). Tunnel blasting and swamp draining were often consigned to itinerant gangs of expendable Irishmen because those perilous tasks were "death on niggers and mules." "

That is fucking harsh when your overall ranking of value falls below "niggers and mules".

Okay, so it's in the AP History book.  Big whoop.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 03:51:55 PM
Okay, so it's in the AP History book.  Big whoop.

I don't think it is a large or small whoop, just disproving your claim that it was not taught in high school. Another alt-right pile of crap.

Go find something else from brietbart to regale us all with...

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 12:43:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
In high school grade 10 I took an optional course in US history.  Pretty sure that "blacks also owned slaves" wasn't mentioned - thee's only so much nuance you can fit into a one term class for 16 year olds.

Mind you as an adult with a history obsession I certainly knew that fact.  But I wouldn't be shocked if someone didn't.

I am not sure why you bring this up.  There is a difference between "it isn't always taught that blacks owned slaves" and "the general narrative is that no blacks ever owned any slaves."  If you were taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves, that would support one position in the discussion.  If you taught nothing on the topic, then what you were taught is neither here nor there.

It wasn't that I was "taught that no blacks ever owned any slaves" - it was just that when slavery was discussed, only whites owning blacks was ever mentioned.  Just "white slaveowners, black slaves".

Seriously?  I mean, I know that parochialism is an element of, like, every high school history curriculum, but they didn't mention Spanish/Indian or North African/European slavery?  (Or comparisons to serfdom in Eastern Europe?)  I'm not sure if they ever made a point of American black slaveowners, but they did make a point of black slave traders in Africa.

And obviously I'm assuming that classical slavery was mentioned, but I know that's not what you meant.

I will say that the Crimean slave trade was not taught in my high school, and if they mentioned the East African trade, then I don't recall it.

"ZOMG the liberals were hiding that black people owned slaves!"
"No they weren't, that is pretty known..."
"It is not part of the narrative! Totally unknown until now!"
"Uhh, if you look at the wikipedia section on US slavery, there is an entire section about. You know, the most commonly accessed general knowledge resource in the world?"
"Well, maybe, but it sure as hell was not taught in schools! This was never part of US history!"
"Here is a textbook that they use in schools, today, right now. And it states it right here on page 346."
"BFD, some high school textbook says it, so what? I am out"

Such stories are very much mainstream right - even if they share the same whiny outlook with the alt-right, and the same cooky belief about how the "liberal elite" has confiscated The Real American History (which they rarely bother to articulate beyond America, Fuck Yeah).

Meh.  The alt-right is the mainstream right, except louder, more obnoxious, and more prone to dank memes.

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 03:57:32 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 03:51:55 PM
Okay, so it's in the AP History book.  Big whoop.

I don't think it is a large or small whoop, just disproving your claim that it was not taught in high school. Another alt-right pile of crap.

Go find something else from brietbart to regale us all with...

Why are you trying to make this political?

Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2016, 04:07:21 PM
Seriously?  I mean, I know that parochialism is an element of, like, every high school history curriculum, but they didn't mention Spanish/Indian or North African/European slavery?  (Or comparisons to serfdom in Eastern Europe?)  I'm nhneot sure if they ever made a point of American black slaveowners, but they did make a point of black slave traders in Africa.

Slavery, in the US curriculum, has (rightly) been a crystallizing focus of scholarship and teaching in ways that they have not, in Canada. High school education about slavery has more nuances (hard to believe, I know), and more ongoing discussion than is usually the case, in Canada, where it is treated mostly by contrast with the more Southern colonies. Conversely, Native history is more cursorily treated in the US than it is in Canada.

That being said, the last years have seen a backlash against even teaching slavery, rather than mentioning it "en passant", in some States.

Seems like a weird thing not to teach, especially considering Canadians weren't terribly implicated in it, and were at the time part of the major force that put a stop to the trade (the British Empire, which remains problematic but at least took a firm stand against hardcore chattel slavery early on).  At the same time, it seems like it'd be really hard to discuss the colonization of the New World (or ancient history, or Middle Eastern history, etc) without teaching slavery, even if the lesson amounted to what we learn about Anglo-Canadian colonization, which amounts to fur trapping, French people, and the Seven Years War.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2016, 04:24:35 PM
Seems like a weird thing not to teach, especially considering Canadians weren't terribly implicated in it, and were at the time part of the major force that put a stop to the trade (the British Empire, which remains problematic but at least took a firm stand against hardcore chattel slavery early on).  At the same time, it seems like it'd be really hard to discuss the colonization of the New World (or ancient history, or Middle Eastern history, etc) without teaching slavery, even if the lesson amounted to what we learn about Anglo-Canadian colonization, which amounts to fur trapping, French people, and the Seven Years War.

I could see it not being taught explicitly, there is a lack of time after all.

What I find laughable is the idea that not mentioning it is somehow akin to denying that blacks owned slaves, and people actually now pretending to be all surprised to find out they did in some cases.

You would have to be pretty willfully obtuse about the history of slavery to not realize that it happened in a huge and varied number of contexts beyond "white Americans owned black Africans fullstopendofstory".

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 04:16:19 PM
Why are you trying to make this political?

:lol:

The OP is from an article published in the New Observer Online, a right wing outlet that appears to have some interesting views about race and Nazi Germany at least judging from the book promotions and ads they are running (e.g.: a replica catalog of the 1937 Nazi exhibition on degenerate art, the "March of the Titans: the Complete History of the White Race," "Nova Europa: European Survival Strategy in a Darkening World")   Individual "Facts" from the article were recently quoted by Stormfront.

Siege might be interested to know that the same website that published this gem of factual material also runs pieces attacking America's "illegal aid to Israel":
http://newobserveronline.com/suit-usisrael-aid-advances/

The article includes a picture with the helpful caption:

Quote: How the Jewish lobby works: Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt, right, head of a so-called "civil rights" organization, was one of the enthusiastic attendees at the signing of the $38 billion handover to the Jews-only state of Israel. The Jewish state, which Greenblatt and the ADL of course support, has racially-based immigration and citizenship policies, and builds walls to keep out non-Jews—all policies which Greenblatt and the Jewish lobby opposes in America and all European nations.

It's a nice companion to the anti-semitic book promotions placed liberally around the site.

Congrats on your new "friends" Siege.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 04:41:33 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 04:16:19 PM
Why are you trying to make this political?

:lol:

The OP is from an article published in the New Observer Online, a right wing outlet that appears to have some interesting views about race and Nazi Germany at least judging from the book promotions and ads they are running (e.g.: a replica catalog of the 1937 Nazi exhibition on degenerate art, the "March of the Titans: the Complete History of the White Race," "Nova Europa: European Survival Strategy in a Darkening World")   Individual "Facts" from the article were recently quoted by Stormfront.

Okay, then take that up with Siege.  Berkut was going full Berkut on me for just saying I thought the topic was an interesting historical quirk.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 04:48:22 PM
Siege might be interested to know that the same website that published this gem of factual material also runs pieces attacking America's "illegal aid to Israel":
http://newobserveronline.com/suit-usisrael-aid-advances/

The article includes a picture with the helpful caption:

Quote: How the Jewish lobby works: Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt, right, head of a so-called "civil rights" organization, was one of the enthusiastic attendees at the signing of the $38 billion handover to the Jews-only state of Israel. The Jewish state, which Greenblatt and the ADL of course support, has racially-based immigration and citizenship policies, and builds walls to keep out non-Jews—all policies which Greenblatt and the Jewish lobby opposes in America and all European nations.

It's a nice companion to the anti-semitic book promotions placed liberally around the site.

Congrats on your new "friends" Siege.

Yes fight among yourselves, that's not at all what they want. :rolleyes:

Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:58:46 PM
Yes fight among yourselves, that's not at all what they want. :rolleyes:

Silly man, arguing is not fighting.  Jews argue for exercise.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
Silly man, arguing is not fighting.  Jews argue for exercise.

A very agonistic culture. :yes:

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 04:16:19 PM
Why are you trying to make this political?

Because it is.

Why are you trying to make it non-political?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 05:09:33 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:58:46 PM
Yes fight among yourselves, that's not at all what they want. :rolleyes:

Silly man, arguing is not fighting.  Jews argue for exercise.

Is there anything Jews can't do? :)

Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 05:12:01 PM
Because it is.

Why are you trying to make it non-political?

Umm because my post on page 1 was apolitical.  As were my subsequent posts.  I made a casual observation and you guys seem to want to tie me to some alt right BS.

If the glove fits.

The American Pageant! :)  That brings me back.  Especially to the question of how that title was chosen... :hmm:

Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 05:23:17 PM
If the glove fits.

Glove sounds too nice a way to describe it.

Hello Mihali!

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2016, 05:26:40 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 05:23:17 PM
If the glove fits.

Glove sounds too nice a way to describe it.

Go on.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 05:49:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2016, 05:26:40 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 05:23:17 PM
If the glove fits.

Glove sounds too nice a way to describe it.

Go on.

Nah, I'm cool. :)

Disappointing :(

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 05:56:47 PM
Disappointing :(

Now that your team runs the country, you've got to up your trolling game if you want bites.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 05:56:47 PM
Disappointing :(

It happens in life. :console:

:lol: Yep

Quote from: Oexmelin on November 17, 2016, 05:37:27 PM
Hello Mihali!

:cheers:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 04:48:22 PM
Congrats on your new "friends" Siege.

Hey...do you think--when the time comes--Siegy and Marti are both going to be in the same camp? 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 08:18:46 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 04:48:22 PM
Congrats on your new "friends" Siege.

Hey...do you think--when the time comes--Siegy and Marti are both going to be in the same camp?

Siege will be the Kapo.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 08:18:46 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 04:48:22 PM
Congrats on your new "friends" Siege.

Hey...do you think--when the time comes--Siegy and Marti are both going to be in the same camp? 

If history is anything to go by, marti will be the one putting seigy in a camp. He is polish after all, they have experience.

Quote from: HVC on November 17, 2016, 08:28:34 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 08:18:46 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2016, 04:48:22 PM
Congrats on your new "friends" Siege.

Hey...do you think--when the time comes--Siegy and Marti are both going to be in the same camp? 

If history is anything to go by, marti will be the one putting seigy in a camp. He is polish after all, they have experience.

Going to be kinda tough not to wake everybody in the barracks when he's trying to take off Siegy's boots after getting him drunk on two week old apple juice.  WITH COOPERATION COMES PRIVILEGE

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 05:20:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 05:12:01 PM
Because it is.

Why are you trying to make it non-political?

Umm because my post on page 1 was apolitical.  As were my subsequent posts.  I made a casual observation and you guys seem to want to tie me to some alt right BS.

Of course. All your posts are apolitical. They are just 100% consistently on the side of the alt right BS by chance, and always defending bullshit like this just by pure coincidence.

There is no historical "quirk" here, there is just some politically racist bullshit you are apolitically cheering on and getting stiff about. Like you don't care for Trump, but support him completely, in a apolitical manner.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 05:20:50 PM
... because my post on page 1 was apolitical.  As were my subsequent posts.  I made a casual observation and you guys seem to want to tie me to some alt right BS.

You made a claim about the "general narrative" that is only held by the right (ad the most ignorant portions of the right, at that).  The fact that you think such a claim is "apolitical" says much about your lack of self-awareness.

I do want to thank you for demonstrating that your "general narrative," while not true in the US, may very well be true in Canada, of all places.  That was a surprise. 

Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 08:52:39 PM
I do want to thank you for demonstrating that your "general narrative," while not true in the US, may very well be true in Canada, of all places.  That was a surprise.

grumbler sees your general narrative, and raises you: Vice-Admiral Narrative.

Quote from: Oexmelin on November 17, 2016, 04:13:22 PM
Such stories are very much mainstream right - even if they share the same whiny outlook with the alt-right, and the same cooky belief about how the "liberal elite" has confiscated The Real American History (which they rarely bother to articulate beyond America, Fuck Yeah).

it's always funny when they tell you the media ignores a story and you point them, left or right, the newspaper articles discussing about it.

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 08:51:13 PM
Of course. All your posts are apolitical. They are just 100% consistently on the side of the alt right BS by chance, and always defending bullshit like this just by pure coincidence.

There is no historical "quirk" here, there is just some politically racist bullshit you are apolitically cheering on and getting stiff about. Like you don't care for Trump, but support him completely, in a apolitical manner.

:huh:  What are the other data points that show how I so closely align with the alt right?  I'm still not sure what the alt right is.  Maybe Our Most Senior Poster is right and I lack self-awareness.  Because this backlash really took me by surprise.

Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2016, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
Now obviously a single Canadian high school class in US history isn't going to go into the detail that a US class would (in particular a class in the south).

They don't talk about slavery in the South, only States rights.

It varies by State but perhaps ironically South Carolina has one of the best history curriculum out there and does a very good job covering the war they started in particular. Or at least they did last time I read an audit of the states in this are a few years ago.

Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 10:17:08 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 08:51:13 PM
Of course. All your posts are apolitical. They are just 100% consistently on the side of the alt right BS by chance, and always defending bullshit like this just by pure coincidence.

There is no historical "quirk" here, there is just some politically racist bullshit you are apolitically cheering on and getting stiff about. Like you don't care for Trump, but support him completely, in a apolitical manner.

:huh:  What are the other data points that show how I so closely align with the alt right?  I'm still not sure what the alt right is.  Maybe Our Most Senior Poster is right and I lack self-awareness.  Because this backlash really took me by surprise.

Uh, you were the one who introduced us to Breitbart.

It may come as a surprise to you guys, but outside of the US, American slavery is not given a lot of time in history classes, outside of college/specialized courses. Most nations focus on their own history. American slavery is mentioned usually in the context of the American Civil War and that's it.

Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2016, 02:59:47 PMSo maybe Marty is right about this latent liberal racism around black people not being slaveowners, but it is a uniquely Canadian thing?

Where did I say anything of this type?

I gotta say I kinda enjoyed seeing the liberal einsatzgruppen commando descending on poor Beeb after he said something so innocuous.  :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 04:36:55 AM
It may come as a surprise to you guys, but outside of the US, American slavery is not given a lot of time in history classes, outside of college/specialized courses. Most nations focus on their own history. American slavery is mentioned usually in the context of the American Civil War and that's it.

Glad you could point out something only tangentially related.

Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2016, 04:59:46 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 04:36:55 AM
It may come as a surprise to you guys, but outside of the US, American slavery is not given a lot of time in history classes, outside of college/specialized courses. Most nations focus on their own history. American slavery is mentioned usually in the context of the American Civil War and that's it.

Glad you could point out something only tangentially related.

It's related to the lynching of BB at the hands of your einsatzgruppe.

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 04:36:55 AM
It may come as a surprise to you guys, but outside of the US, American slavery is not given a lot of time in history classes, outside of college/specialized courses. Most nations focus on their own history. American slavery is mentioned usually in the context of the American Civil War and that's it.

It may come as a surprise to you, but no one except you would expect or assume that American slavery would get a lot of time in history classes outside the US.  That's the way history classes in any country work; there is only so much time, and a practically infinite amount of history to cover, so choices have to be made as to what to include and what to exclude.  No one but you would think it plausible that Polish schools spend significant time on American slavery at the expense of something more meaningful and useful to the students.

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 06:05:13 AM
It's related to the lynching of BB at the hands of your einsatzgruppe.

You really love to make Nazi references, don't you.  Mike Godwin wants his law enforced, so you lose that argument and should stay out of the thread henceforth.

Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2016, 08:16:09 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 06:05:13 AM
It's related to the lynching of BB at the hands of your einsatzgruppe.

You really love to make Nazi references, don't you.  Mike Godwin wants his law enforced, so you lose that argument and should stay out of the thread henceforth.

I do? What was the previous one I made?

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 04:36:55 AM
It may come as a surprise to you guys, but outside of the US, American slavery is not given a lot of time in history classes, outside of college/specialized courses. Most nations focus on their own history.

Oh sorry, you have my sympathies :)

Siege's facts concerned the entire African slave trade which involved many nations. Hey weren't slavs sold in Egypt in huge numbers by the Venetians?

Doesn't even fucking address the Hittites and salt mines.

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 09:33:29 AM

Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2016, 08:16:09 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2016, 06:05:13 AM
It's related to the lynching of BB at the hands of your einsatzgruppe.

You really love to make Nazi references, don't you.  Mike Godwin wants his law enforced, so you lose that argument and should stay out of the thread henceforth.

I do? What was the previous one I made?

Sorry*, but you went Nazi and so have lost and are out of the argument and thread.  That's the law.




* Not

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2016, 08:09:41 PM
Don't think I've ever seen a black in a Jeep product.

I have seen lots of jews in german cars.
If arabs built cars, we would be riding in them too.
#shamelessjews

Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2016, 12:13:09 PM
Siege's facts concerned the entire African slave trade which involved many nations. Hey weren't slavs sold in Egypt in huge numbers by the Venetians?

Shit. Good point. Thanks.

Quote from: Siege on November 20, 2016, 09:02:09 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2016, 08:09:41 PM
Don't think I've ever seen a black in a Jeep product.

I have seen lots of jews in german cars.
If arabs built cars, we would be riding in them too.
#shamelessjews

I'd rather drive a KrautArab car then get all my information from neo-Nazi news feeds.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2016, 12:15:48 PM
Yeah, well you and the rest of us are history nerds.  I would bet most people are unaware that some blacks themselves had slaves.

No, it's pretty well known. It just doesn't change the fact that the slavery economy was not a good thing.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 21, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
I'd rather drive a KrautArab car then get all my information from neo-Nazi news feeds.

I'd rather do it in reverse order.