Chomsky on America and it's "exceptionalism"

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Yes, United States is qualitatively different from other nation states

.

Noam Chomsky on America: ‘This is a very racist society’


Professor Noam Chomsky said it would be “no small trick” for the Ferguson protests to turn into an anti-racism and social justice movement, considering America’s founding principles are slavery and the extermination of the indigenous population.

In a sweeping interview covering everything from Iraq and Syria to China, capitalism, and the protests in Ferguson, MIT linguistics professor Chomsky told GRITtv’s Laura Flanders that events in Ferguson and the protests that have followed show how little race relations in the United States have advanced since the end of the Civil War.

“This is a very racist society,” Chomsky said. “It’s pretty shocking. What’s happened to African-Americans in the last 30 years is similar to what Baptist (Edward E. Baptist in The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and The Making of American Capitalism) describes happening in the late 19th Century.”

Chomsky said constitutional amendments were supposed to free African-American slaves, which they did for about ten years. Then, he said, a North-South compact granted former slave-owning states the right to do whatever they wanted.

“And what they did was criminalize black life, and that created a kind of slave force,” said Chomsky. “It threw mostly black males into jail, where they became a perfect labor force, much better than slaves.”

Chomsky explained that as a slave owner, the concern was keeping the “capital” alive. When the states were able to exert greater control over black lives, it became their responsibility to handle strikes and disobedience. Since African-Americans couldn’t effectively fight back against this increased state control, Chomsky said it led to a subjugated labor force. He said that was the backbone to the American Industrial Revolution in the late 19th and early 20th Century, and it didn’t end until World War II.

“After that,” Chomsky told Flanders, “African-Americans had about two decades in which they had a shot of entering [American] society. A black worker could get a job in an auto plant, as the unions were still functioning, and he could buy a small house and send his kid to college. But by the 1970s and 1980s it’s going back to the criminalization of black life.”

Chomsky blamed the drug war, describing it as a racist war.

“Ronald Reagan was an extreme racist – didn’t hide it – but the whole so-called drug war is designed, from policing to eventual release from prison, to make it impossible for the black male community and, more and more, women, and more and more Hispanics to be part of [American] society,” he said.

“In fact, if you look at American history, the first slaves came over in 1619, and that’s half a millennium. There have only been three or four decades in which African-Americans have had a limited degree of freedom – not entirely, but at least some.”

Chomsky said there are some privileges for black elites, but not for the mass of the population.

“They have been re-criminalized and turned into a slave labor force – that’s prison labor,” Chomsky concluded. “This is American history. To break out of that is no small trick.”

.

Doc, this really funny, really funny

And

imagine, you guys telling our beloved Iran right and wrong

come on, come on

.

[Typhoon]

A bit rich coming from an academic given that the life of a grad student, post-doc, and assistant prof is one of indentured servitude and exploitation by his or her tenured masters.

[Heracleum Persicum]

A bit rich coming from an academic given that the life of a grad student, post-doc, and assistant prof is one of indentured servitude and exploitation.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

so

Colonel

Do you dispute facts Chomsky sayin ? ?


.

[monster_gardener]

A bit rich coming from an academic given that the life of a grad student, post-doc, and assistant prof is one of indentured servitude and exploitation.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

so

Colonel

Do you dispute facts Chomsky sayin ? ?


.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

No surprise that a pedophile like him might say that.....

Particularly a pedophile with world wide religious & imperial ambitions......

Moh was very concerned that people pay attention to what he said rather than what he was....

[Heracleum Persicum]

A bit rich coming from an academic given that the life of a grad student, post-doc, and assistant prof is one of indentured servitude and exploitation.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

so

Colonel

Do you dispute facts Chomsky sayin ? ?


.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

No surprise that a pedophile like him might say that.....

Particularly a pedophile with world wide religious & imperial ambitions......

Moh was very concerned that people pay attention to what he said rather than what he was....

.

With all due respect, Monster (BTW, welcome back), issue at hand no Moh

Issue at hand : Chomsky on America and it's "exceptionalism"

and

Monster

not engaging what Chomsky saying above no option for America

Fact is, American society, civilization, has the problems Chomsky alluding above

Question only is, Monster, WHAT to do about it, and HOW to do it

would very much welcome and look forward for our American posters view pro and con re above what Chomsky alleges


.

[monster_gardener]

A bit rich coming from an academic given that the life of a grad student, post-doc, and assistant prof is one of indentured servitude and exploitation.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

so

Colonel

Do you dispute facts Chomsky sayin ? ?


.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Moh (the pedophile) said, don't look WHO says, look WHAT he says

No surprise that a pedophile like him might say that.....

Particularly a pedophile with world wide religious & imperial ambitions......

Moh was very concerned that people pay attention to what he said rather than what he was....

.

With all due respect, Monster (BTW, welcome back), issue at hand no Moh

Issue at hand : Chomsky on America and it's "exceptionalism"

and

Monster

not engaging what Chomsky saying above no option for America

Fact is, American society, civilization, has the problems Chomsky alluding above

Question only is, Monster, WHAT to do about it, and HOW to do it

would very much welcome and look forward for our American posters view pro and con re above what Chomsky alleges


.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.

Thanks for the welcome but have not much time: will be short here. Too long already...

With all due respect, Monster (BTW, welcome back), issue at hand no Moh

With all due respect, who brought up Moh first?

Regarding American exceptionalism, I am more interested in repairing American Exceptionalism in the Space Program than what Chomsky thinks... At one time we were exceptional: first on the Moon etc....

Regarding improving race relations, I might suggest being rid of Obama and his cronies like Eric Holder as polls show that race relations have worsened under Obama's regime as has the Space Program which Obama has repeatedly tried to cut...

From what I see race mixing may solve race problems on its own...... Happening in my clan.....

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Not saying Chomsky is right .. not at all

So many different ethnics come to America with empty hand, integrate and make it big.

Therefore it is interesting to see why African Americans have all these issues

.

[Doc]

.

Yes, United States is qualitatively different from other nation states

.

Noam Chomsky on America: ‘This is a very racist society’


Professor Noam Chomsky said it would be “no small trick” for the Ferguson protests to turn into an anti-racism and social justice movement, considering America’s founding principles are slavery and the extermination of the indigenous population.

In a sweeping interview covering everything from Iraq and Syria to China, capitalism, and the protests in Ferguson, MIT linguistics professor Chomsky told GRITtv’s Laura Flanders that events in Ferguson and the protests that have followed show how little race relations in the United States have advanced since the end of the Civil War.

“This is a very racist society,” Chomsky said. “It’s pretty shocking. What’s happened to African-Americans in the last 30 years is similar to what Baptist (Edward E. Baptist in The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and The Making of American Capitalism) describes happening in the late 19th Century.”

Chomsky said constitutional amendments were supposed to free African-American slaves, which they did for about ten years. Then, he said, a North-South compact granted former slave-owning states the right to do whatever they wanted.

“And what they did was criminalize black life, and that created a kind of slave force,” said Chomsky. “It threw mostly black males into jail, where they became a perfect labor force, much better than slaves.”

Chomsky explained that as a slave owner, the concern was keeping the “capital” alive. When the states were able to exert greater control over black lives, it became their responsibility to handle strikes and disobedience. Since African-Americans couldn’t effectively fight back against this increased state control, Chomsky said it led to a subjugated labor force. He said that was the backbone to the American Industrial Revolution in the late 19th and early 20th Century, and it didn’t end until World War II.

“After that,” Chomsky told Flanders, “African-Americans had about two decades in which they had a shot of entering [American] society. A black worker could get a job in an auto plant, as the unions were still functioning, and he could buy a small house and send his kid to college. But by the 1970s and 1980s it’s going back to the criminalization of black life.”

Chomsky blamed the drug war, describing it as a racist war.

“Ronald Reagan was an extreme racist – didn’t hide it – but the whole so-called drug war is designed, from policing to eventual release from prison, to make it impossible for the black male community and, more and more, women, and more and more Hispanics to be part of [American] society,” he said.

“In fact, if you look at American history, the first slaves came over in 1619, and that’s half a millennium. There have only been three or four decades in which African-Americans have had a limited degree of freedom – not entirely, but at least some.”

Chomsky said there are some privileges for black elites, but not for the mass of the population.

“They have been re-criminalized and turned into a slave labor force – that’s prison labor,” Chomsky concluded. “This is American history. To break out of that is no small trick.”

.

Doc, this really funny, really funny

And

imagine, you guys telling our beloved Iran right and wrong

come on, come on

.

I don't care much about anything Chomsky has to say.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Interesting

So far, nobody has commented on the content of the article .. Doc doesn't like Chomsky, Monster still shadow boxing Moh, Colonel hiding in academics

Nobody so far engaged the content and argued the allegations unfunded

not good enough

Please comment on allegation from a "respected worldwide" top American scholar

and,

Doc,

Chomsky an American Icon, a world respected SCHOLAR, from MIT .. and Jewish

True, he a bit extreme even for Azari, but, he brings interesting, controversial subjects to debate

Writing him off no good, best to counter him, though not easy task

This an open fora, read worldwide, a good platform to counter a subject that is now sizzling in America.

.

[Doc]

.


Interesting

So far, nobody has commented on the content of the article .. Doc doesn't like Chomsky, Monster still shadow boxing Moh, Colonel hiding in academics

Nobody so far engaged the content and argued the allegations unfunded

not good enough

Please comment on allegation from a "respected worldwide" top American scholar

and,

Doc,

Chomsky an American Icon, a world respected SCHOLAR, from MIT .. and Jewish

True, he a bit extreme even for Azari, but, he brings interesting, controversial subjects to debate

Writing him off no good, best to counter him, though not easy task

This an open fora, read worldwide, a good platform to counter a subject that is now sizzling in America.

.

Chomsky is a self aggrandizing jerk

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Interesting

So far, nobody has commented on the content of the article .. Doc doesn't like Chomsky, Monster still shadow boxing Moh, Colonel hiding in academics

Nobody so far engaged the content and argued the allegations unfunded

not good enough

Please comment on allegation from a "respected worldwide" top American scholar

and,

Doc,

Chomsky an American Icon, a world respected SCHOLAR, from MIT .. and Jewish

True, he a bit extreme even for Azari, but, he brings interesting, controversial subjects to debate

Writing him off no good, best to counter him, though not easy task

This an open fora, read worldwide, a good platform to counter a subject that is now sizzling in America.

.

Chomsky is a self aggrandizing jerk

.

Come on, Doc .. this not about Chomsky, this about whether those issues mentioned in the article posted above valid (or not)

Chomsky a Jerk or Saint does not change on issues raised in the article

Why not comment on the issues raised in the article ? ?

The subject of the article is now on the "forefront" of Internal American happening .. deserves an unbiased debate

.

[manolo]

The subject of the article is now on the "forefront" of Internal American happening .. deserves an unbiased debate

.

HP,

There is a heavy history laying on black Americans. Chomsky brings a powerful intellect to bear on the issue although he clearly has an angle that he wants to sell to the reader.

His theory may be partially true. There are many ethnic minorities in the US and we don't hear too much about them. However, black Americans have the fact of slavery to deal with and stuff like that goes deep in race consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_ ... ted_States

I would be interested to hear if other ethnic minorities had been used on the American slave plantations.

Alex.

[Doc]

The subject of the article is now on the "forefront" of Internal American happening .. deserves an unbiased debate

.

HP,

There is a heavy history laying on black Americans. Chomsky brings a powerful intellect to bear on the issue although he clearly has an angle that he wants to sell to the reader.

His theory may be partially true. There are many ethnic minorities in the US and we don't hear too much about them. However, black Americans have the fact of slavery to deal with and stuff like that goes deep in race consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_ ... ted_States

I would be interested to hear if other ethnic minorities had been used on the American slave plantations.

Alex.

Native Americans were sometimes made slaves in the US.

Originally anyone could be an indentured servant. One of the first persons to go from indentured servitude to slavery was a black man owned by another black man.

A lot of history at the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... al_America

[Heracleum Persicum]

The subject of the article is now on the "forefront" of Internal American happening .. deserves an unbiased debate

.

HP,

There is a heavy history laying on black Americans. Chomsky brings a powerful intellect to bear on the issue although he clearly has an angle that he wants to sell to the reader.

His theory may be partially true. There are many ethnic minorities in the US and we don't hear too much about them. However, black Americans have the fact of slavery to deal with and stuff like that goes deep in race consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_ ... ted_States

I would be interested to hear if other ethnic minorities had been used on the American slave plantations.

Alex.

.


Alex .. no expert in American history, but from John Wayne cowboys films watched when kid, I remember Chinese (and from India) (I think) slaves worked on building railroad etc

Why Chinese or Indian did better than Africans brought in ?

And, in fairness, White America tried to give a push, head-start, to blacks to get started .. but, seems, did not work as good as hoped

Question is why ?

One consideration is, Chinese, or folks from India, or, in recent time, immigrants from Iran etc .. they have a high civilization at home they can relate to .. the new (ethnic) immigrants in reality "opportunity" seekers (in most cases better financial opportunity or social or political freedom or better education etc etc), they know what they want when hittin the ground in America

The blacks where happy in Africa, they did not come to America by any choice, they where "hunted", put in chain, and sail to America

Remember Charlayne Hunter-Gault ? .. she was top PBS anchor journalist .. she quit her job and moved back to S.Africa because she feels home in SA

I think there is a more profound reason for the black's situation in America

.

[Apollonius]

On the Ferguson thread we heard a statement that is typical from those who don't do a lot of reading.

Race is America's original sin. This country was built on slavery and for all the grandiose rhetoric of democracy, liberty, and a shining city on the hill, the plantation is the more realistic metaphor for this nation. That legacy still persists to the present day.

This highlights what I've been saying for years: They don't teach Americans history anymore.



America was built by immigrant labour, most of it from Europe. There are probably more people in the U.S. who can trace their ancestry back to indentured servants or convict labourers from Europe than from African slaves.


Even in its heyday the plantation was no engine for economic growth. Except for a few bankers in London and other financial capitals, running a plantation just wan't a money maker. The antebellum South had a tiny fraction the wealth of the North. This is why they lost the Civil War. Planters speculated in land and slaves, their only assets. Slave labour is almost always very inefficient.



Still, many societies practiced it. Most societies within Africa were slave societies, and again, look at where it got them.


In the Americas quite a few groups practiced slavery, especially in the region I'm located:

In 'Economic Aspects of Indigenous American Slavery' (1928) MacLeod deals at some length with the tasks to which Northwest Coast slaves were put, discusses slave raiding and the indigenous trade in slaves, and briefly details what little price data he had been able to find. MacLeod concludes that Northwest Coast slaves "produced enough for their keep and a surplus besides". His final conclusion on the economic aspects of Northwest Coast slavery is that slavery was of "nearly as much economic importance to them as was slavery to the plantation regions of the United States before the Civil War. Incredible as this may seem, it seems very definitely indicated by all the facts".

-- Leland Donald, Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America (University of California Press, 1997)

The Donald book turns out to be much more than a description and discussion of the institution of slavery among the aboriginal peoples of the northwest coast. For one thing, there is a good deal of general information about native peoples living in this area. There is also an extensive discussion of the work of other authors who have tackled the subject of slavery, both contributions to a specifically northwest coast environment, and to general observations about slavery in pre-contact America, and the world at large.


Donald quotes H. J. Nieboer's Slavery as an Industrial System: Ethnological Researches (The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1910) at length. Nieboer listed a number of cultural traits which could identify societies which were likely to practice slavery from those who were not likely to practice it, for example:

living in "fixed habitations" is more favorable to slavery than "nomadism".

if food is "abundant and easy to procure, slavery is more probable".

if "wealth" exists, slavery is more likely.

female labor may be a partial substitute for slave labor, but slaves are more likely when the status of women is relatively high.

if "militarism" prevails and warriors are more needed than laborers, slavery is unlikely.

[Apollonius]

Donald's book also includes a particularly interesting section which compares the slave raiding done by groups living on the Northwest Coast with the treatment of captives in the East. Strangely, though killing captives was one typical response in the East, especially those who were thought to impede progress back to the home village after a raid into enemy territory, live captives had value as well. Torture was one outcome. Both Donald and Snow emphasize the role of torture in the treatment of captives in the eastern woodlands and in fact, the literature refers to the "Eastern Woodlands torture complex" because almost all tribes living east of the Mississippi had a routine and highly ritualized form of torture that distinguished their societies from those further west where putting captives to work was more usual.

Northwest coast Indians were obsessed with lineage, and for that reason outsiders were not adopted. They were kept as slaves. This contrasts with the eastern woodlands where some captives were adopted into the tribe. There's a fine line between "adoption" and "slavery". Many adoptees had there feet broken, so they wouldn't run away. Most were given tasks that made them in effect slaves, even if their exact status was more akin to children. If they had children, these at least were full members of the tribe, very different from the situation on the northwest coast where the children of slaves were slaves.



I'm not sure if Nieboer is completely right about the co-relation of militarism with non-slave societies, although it might come down to definitions.


Both in the East and West, Native peoples of North America were almost always at war with one another. With the onset of the Little Ice Age, beginning in the late thirteenth century, conditions in the northeast deteriorated and competition for resources became intense. From this time onwards, all Iroquoian villages are stockaded.

Iroquois warfare throughout the seventeenth century was fueled by desires for revenge and for captives to replace lost relatives. Many captives were adopted and became full members of their adoptive nations. Others were allowed to live, but only as slaves. Those that were not incorporated in these ways were often subjected to protracted torture and painful death. In these cases cannibalism was sometimes practiced, at least in ritual form, as the torturers attempted to invest themselves with the bravery and prestige of their victims.

Torture took many forms, beginning with the removal of the finger nails so that the captive could not easily untie his bindings. Prisoners who survived the journey back to an Iroquois village were forced to run a gauntlet in which everyone, even small children, was allowed to strike or stab at the prisoner. If the prisoner was marked for death, (s)he would often be placed on a scaffold and tortured by a variety of means. Red-hot iron axes were hung as a necklace on the prisoner; fingers were burned or cut off. A prisoner might be forced to eat his own flesh. Resolute prisoners clung to their dignity, singing their death songs in the face of excruciating pain until they lost consciousness. Occasionally they would be revived so that the torture could continue, but once their condition became grave they were killed. Children were anointed with the blood of brave victims, and warriors consumed their hearts, all so that they might acquire a portion of the victim's courage. More extensive cannibalism sometimes followed.


[...]


Torture and cannibalism are at once repugnant and fascinating to many modern readers. These practices were, of course, not unique to the Iroquois; there have been many parallels from cases far removed in time and space. Thus it is possible to compare historically unrelated cases in order to say something about the cultural conditions that cause these practices to arise. As it happens, there are a half dozen conditions that are always present. First, militarism and intergroup conflict are always prominent. Second, the taking of prisoners is always an important objective of conflict. Third, there is invariably a great social emphasis on conformity, compliance, and generosity, which displaces aggression on to outsiders. Fourth, the world view must be personalistic, where all everyday occurences, both good and bad, are regarded as the doings of supernatural forces or other human beings. Fifth, sacrifice to supernaturals must be part of regular religious observance. Finally, there must be intensive inter-group competition for scarce resources, with great uncertainty about outcomes. These may not be sufficient conditions, but they are necessary ones. All of these conditions were met in seventeenth-century Iroquoia, and the Iroquois behaved as people sometimes do under those circumstances. The Iroquois were not monsters to any greater or lesser degree than any other human beings; they were only acting as many humans have done when faced with a particular set of predilictions and stressful conditions.

-- Dean R. Snow, The Iroquois (Blackwell, 1997)

[Apollonius]

In some cases, for example the Aztecs and various groups living on the northwest coast, slaves were the largest pool of victims for human sacrifice and cannibalism:

Beginning with the earliest eighteenth-century sources, cannibalism has been reported for a number of Northwest Coast groups. The historical observers usually accepted that cannibalism occurred, as did most of the ethnographers who reported it. More recently, under the influence of those who would deny the reality of cannibalism anywhere, some (e.g., Archer, 1980) have denied the reality of Northwest Coast cannibalism. In the best recent treatment of the topic, Joyce Wike (1984) accepts that cannibalism was a reality and attempts to describe it and place it in its proper context in the Northwest Coast cultures where it was practiced. Her general conclusions seem reasonable to me, and I will adopt them here. That is, the consumption of human flesh, obtained from the living, from recently killed bodies, or from corpses, occurred in specific ritual contexts. The persons consuming human flesh had a right to do so, which was either inherited or obtained through marriage transactions. In most, perhaps all, instances human flesh was consumed to pacify the appetites of a supernatural being who during the cannibal performances infused the body of the performer.

[...]

Slaves were the major living targets of cannibals. In some instances, they seem to have been deliberately acquired so that they could be killed and eaten. Individual men often sought infusion with the cannibal spirit by isolating themselves from their communities. When they returned home, they were often in a cannibalistic frenzy, needing to satiate their desire for human flesh. Some sources indicate that the most likely victim would be a slave. Among the Haida, for example, novice cannibals underwent initiation away from their villages and had to bite a piece of flesh off the first person they met on returning to the village. According to Harrison, "The chiefs, in order to save their own flesh, compelled one of the slaves to go forward and meet him". Similarly, among the Heiltsuk, when a titleholder returned to the village in a frenzy and encountered a slave or a dog, it was killed. And for all of our sample tribal units, where cannibalism was practiced there are ample data that slaves were killed by cannibals. Indeed, before slaves became increasingly rare as the nineteenth century wore on and before European pressure to stop killing slaves (and other persons, for that matter) was increasingly effective, purposely killed slaves were probably the major source of human flesh for cannibal performances.

Some of the most spectacular reports of cannibalism in the area are also the earliest. I refer to accounts in the eighteenth-century sources of what can be called the Mowachaht titleholder Maquinna's "cannibal feasts". Maquinna was the dominant titleholder in Nootka Sound in 1778 when James Cook and his crew made that landfall during Cook's third Pacific voyage. Maquinna, or someone holding the title, remained the dominant native figure in Nootka Sound throughout the maritime fur trade period and had encounters with many British, Spanish, American, and other ship's crews for the thirty years following this first meeting with Cook's men. We find descriptions of Mowachaht, particularly Maquinna's, cannibal practices in many of the journals and other sources relating to that period. A reading of these sources could easily lead one to conclude that what was involved was not the ritual consumption of human flesh but gastronomic or even epicurean cannibalism. For instance, some of the Spanish sources consulted by Warren L. Cook (1973) state that Maquinna had fattened up at least eleven young children to be killed and eaten. The sources are contradictory as to whether these cannibal undertakings were common (even monthly) or relatively rare (limited to special occasions or preparations for war).

-- Leland Donald, Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America (University of California Press, 1997)

[Nonc Hilaire]

Good set of posts, Apollonius.

The unique feature of the English slave trade was the integration into Adam Smith's 'free trade' colonial system of exploitation which completely dehumanized African captives and made them into trade goods. Indentured servitude, war captives etc. are/were types of slavery which have/had their own flavors of cruelty but the English system was particularly inhuman.

African slaves were just a link in the English trade cycle of people, cotton, spices, opium and tea. There are lots of ways to exploit human beings, but the English system inflicted on Africans in the American colonies was exceptionally ghastly and hopeless.

[Zack Morris]

This highlights what I've been saying for years: They don't teach Americans history anymore.

That's rich coming from someone who is in denial about even the most basic facts about how blacks have been treated in America. Like the time you claimed, falsely, that more whites than blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow era.

America was built by immigrant labour, most of it from Europe. There are probably more people in the U.S. who can trace their ancestry back to indentured servants or convict labourers from Europe than from African slaves.

Comparing indentured servitude to the shear depravity of American slavery is absurd. But maybe you'll cite another dubious white supremacist blog that explains just how much better blacks had it than whites in those days!

Even in its heyday the plantation was no engine for economic growth. Except for a few bankers in London and other financial capitals, running a plantation just wan't a money maker. The antebellum South had a tiny fraction the wealth of the North. This is why they lost the Civil War. Planters speculated in land and slaves, their only assets. Slave labour is almost always very inefficient.

There's a reason for the old saying "Cotton is King." Cotton was America's leading export from 1803 to 1937. Slavery was an enormously profitable institution and people have made a convincing case that the Southern plantation system, with its reliance on slavery, was economically more efficient than Northern agriculture.

Still, many societies practiced it. Most societies within Africa were slave societies, and again, look at where it got them.

Indigenous African slavery is not the reason for Africa's problems. But nice try there. Slavery seems to have worked out quite well for the United States, the Roman Empire, and many others. So this point is a total non sequitur.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America's original sin was slavery. As a nation bound by creed rather than blood, its racist past and the continued legacy thereof is a central social problem.

[Heracleum Persicum]

This highlights what I've been saying for years: They don't teach Americans history anymore.

That's rich coming from someone who is in denial about even the most basic facts about how blacks have been treated in America. Like the time you claimed, falsely, that more whites than blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow era.

America was built by immigrant labour, most of it from Europe. There are probably more people in the U.S. who can trace their ancestry back to indentured servants or convict labourers from Europe than from African slaves.

Comparing indentured servitude to the shear depravity of American slavery is absurd. But maybe you'll cite another dubious white supremacist blog that explains just how much better blacks had it than whites in those days!

Even in its heyday the plantation was no engine for economic growth. Except for a few bankers in London and other financial capitals, running a plantation just wan't a money maker. The antebellum South had a tiny fraction the wealth of the North. This is why they lost the Civil War. Planters speculated in land and slaves, their only assets. Slave labour is almost always very inefficient.

There's a reason for the old saying "Cotton is King." Cotton was America's leading export from 1803 to 1937. Slavery was an enormously profitable institution and people have made a convincing case that the Southern plantation system, with its reliance on slavery, was economically more efficient than Northern agriculture.

Still, many societies practiced it. Most societies within Africa were slave societies, and again, look at where it got them.

Indigenous African slavery is not the reason for Africa's problems. But nice try there. Slavery seems to have worked out quite well for the United States, the Roman Empire, and many others. So this point is a total non sequitur.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America's original sin was slavery. As a nation bound by creed rather than blood, its racist past and the continued legacy thereof is a central social problem.

.

seconded

Thanx, Zack Morris

Apollonius should be ashamed falsifying American history .. shows no respect to truth let alone decency

Maybe, givin Apollonius benefit of doubt, he, Apollonius, a good sample reading the same fact but understanding something totally different .. IMO the root for most conflicts

pfui, Apollonius, pfui


.

[Apollonius]

That's rich coming from someone who is in denial about even the most basic facts about how blacks have been treated in America. Like the time you claimed, falsely, that more whites than blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow era.

No. I said that in most states most lynching victims were white.

From the site:

About one third of lynching victims were white.

There were 4,743 victims of lynching between 1882 and 1968. Of those, 1,297 were white and 3,446 were black.
.
Lynchings occured in 44 states. There were more whites than blacks lynched in 25 of those 44 states.

Doc's site indicates that all states conducted lynchings. In 23 states more whites than blacks were lynched; in 20 states more blacks than whites were lynched; in 2 states it was a tie.




There are different data sets. This paper examines some of those and includes a table at the end where the data sets are compared:

Converging to a national lynching database: recent developments - Lisa D. Cook, Dept. of Economics, Michigan State University, 2011
https://www.msu.edu/~lisacook/hist_meth ... _final.pdf



Both the statistics that Doc provided and the one I linked to used figures from a survey using one of the highest total numbers counted, that compiled by Tuskegee University.

Doc's state-by-state breakdown comes up with slightly different distribution of numbers than those the site I linked to indicated, however, both agree that in most states, more whites than blacks were lynched.

Indigenous African slavery is not the reason for Africa's problems.

What makes you so sure that it hasn't been highly relevant?



Few would argue that slavery within Africa and both the internal and international slave trade are the only reasons that Africa is not well off, but many would argue that it is one major cause.

[Nonc Hilaire]

What your data is missing, Apollonius, is how many white people were lynched by blacks simply because of their color and vice versa. I bet most U.S. lynch mobs are white, and white people are typically lynched for specific reasons (frontier 'justice') but blacks were often lynched indiscriminately because just any one nigger was as good as any other. I could be wrong.

And I do thank you for keeping your academic focus. I know you are certainly not an apologist for slavery or racism, and I admire those who post relevant facts that do not fit well with their opinions. That kind of intellectual discourse is almost buried by polemicism these days.

[manolo]

Native Americans were sometimes made slaves in the US.

Doc,

Yes, I'd wondered about that. Our national anthem has the line " Britons never, never, never, shall be slaves."

The implication is that those who sing that anthem with patriotic feeling are not keen on slavery for themselves and their own. Philosophers call this a 'value system'. I think the clue is in the three nevers.

Alex.

[Doc]

Native Americans were sometimes made slaves in the US.

Doc,

Yes, I'd wondered about that. Our national anthem has the line " Britons never, never, never, shall be slaves."

The implication is that those who sing that anthem with patriotic feeling are not keen on slavery for themselves and their own. Philosophers call this a 'value system'. I think the clue is in the three nevers.

Alex.

Did you read the wiki entry at the link I posted?

[noddy]

" Britons never, never, never, shall be slaves."

'never never never' (tm) [patent pending] (*)


(*) except romans, normans and some vikings, and...