White slaves were treated much worse than black slaves

I have a question for you: Who really cares?

We can all agree that life and liberty is one's most important value. Playing the "who had it worse" game just takes away from the overall point: Slavery is horrible. Comparing whether or not Whites or Blacks were worse off during slavery is no different from comparing either or not Blacks or Jews were worse off during history. If what White slavery went through was considered a picnic compared to anything Blacks went through, does it mean that they weren't really slaves?

It's initially a dumb comparison to make and it takes away from the overall message.

 

Yeah, Dilligaf's OP was pretty stupid.

 

What is your point? Slavery is wrong no matter the race.

It was also a very long time ago. So why make an issue of it now?

 

Obviously no slavery is better than any kind of slavery. But I don't think it's good to assume that all inferior alternatives are equally bad.

One thing often overlooked with slavery is the economic pressure toward it.
While that isn't an excuse, it's definitely a good reason to expect to see it in agrarian societies.
The conflict of American political attitudes ran head-on into the economic realities and led to a perverse ideology that had long-lasting implications for US history.

There's a lot to be learned from that.

 

I feel that comparing different parts eras in time to compare slavery is like comparing different regimes in history. People end up sympathizing with the oppressors instead of the victims. In college I've heard people use insane arguments like there would have never have been a Nazi empire if Germany wasn't force to pay for WWI and that nonsense like that.

Nazis are considered the worst thing you can compare someone to, but that comparison is only based on which regime killed more people. How many times have I heard someone wanting to be more like Mao. People often sympathize with the oppressors and not the victims and that's what I think happens when people do when they try to compare which regime was worse than another.

 

Black slaves in America could be lashed for any reason or no reason at all. They were property. You could do anything you wanted to them. You did not need to convict them of a crime.

 

Also vikings, romans,. greeks, chinese and khazars all had alot of slave trading.

 

Any slave was considered property, not just blacks.

 

The Black slaves were victims of war, they were sold to the whites by the other blacks who won their local wars.

 

I'm not sure what you mean (first of all, I don't have much exposure to people claiming Mao was nice).
One can acknowledge that some slaveholders were worse than others while also acknowledging that the entire institution of slavery is wrong.

But I'm not too worried about sympathy or blame. I think we get more useful information from studying the dynamics of the situation rather than making moral judgments about individuals (who we cannot accurately imagine being in the place of).

After all I think if one walks away from learning about the Holocaust with the lesson that "Nazis are evil", he/she is not learning anything.
The true horror of the Holocaust comes from knowing that the Nazi regime was aided by many normal people not much different than you or I. That lesson is to be ever vigilant of what is taking place around you and to take into consideration the effects of policy and social customs on human behavior, not merely the unhelpful assertion that some people are just evil.

 

If you're talking about the American colonies and teh US, then no. Whites were sold on the block with blacks; but they were white . . . The blacks and whites however, worked together, ate together and their children played together. This continued up until slavery became an issue and then the propognda started.

 

slavery is and remains untouched.

The only things that changed about it is the way in which it is managed and orchestrated.

If you look at the us constitution it creates a condition of slavery in the 14th amendment, not abolishes it.

If you look at the defacto side any kid born today in the us is an indentured slave and has a debt of 40,000 roughly to pay off on their first breath.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp

While slaves existed in the English colonies throughout the 1600s, indentured servitude was the method of choice employed by many planters before the 1680s. This system provided incentives for both the master and servant to increase the working population of the Chesapeake colonies.

Virginia and Maryland operated under what was known as the "headright system." The leaders of each colony knew that labor was essential for economic survival, so they provided incentives for planters to import workers.

For each laborer brought across the Atlantic, the master was rewarded with 50 acres of land. This system was used by wealthy plantation aristocrats to increase their land holdings dramatically. In addition, of course, they received the services of the workers for the duration of the indenture.

This system seemed to benefit the servant as well. Each indentured servant would have their fare across the Atlantic paid in full by their master. A contract was written that stipulated the length of service — typically five years.

The servant would be supplied room and board while working in the master's fields. Upon completion of the contract, the servant would receive "freedom dues," a pre-arranged termination bonus. This might include land, money, a gun, clothes or food. On the surface it seemed like a terrific way for the luckless English poor to make their way to prosperity in a new land. Beneath the surface, this was not often the case.

Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts. Female servants were often the subject of harassment from their masters. A woman who became pregnant while a servant often had years tacked on to the end of her service time. Early in the century, some servants were able to gain their own land as free men. But by 1660, much of the best land was claimed by the large land owners.

The former servants were pushed westward, where the mountainous land was less arable and the threat from Indians constant. A class of angry, impoverished pioneer farmers began to emerge as the 1600s grew old. After Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, planters began to prefer permanent African slavery to the headright system that had previously enabled them to prosper.

 

the mechanics are the same, its called a bond slave.

slavery by other definitions and machinations is still slavery

 

With a typical contract for indentured servitude being 5 years, not many lived out their service obligations.

 

I'd be interested to know what section of the 14th amendment leads you to that conclusion.

 

Good for them.

 

The OP's assertion was that black slaves were treated better.
If all things are equal except that one is eventually freed by contract, the one freed by contract has it better.

The point was raised that some didn't live through the bond period.
A chance of living through it is better than no chance.

No one's claiming that indentured servitude was a picnic, only that the OP is wrong.

 

Ah the Neo-Confederate meme that slavery was OK for black folks.

You have to love the Tea Party and its panoply of bizarre ideas.

 

I don't know if you can blame the Tea Party for this.
It's the same old White Nationalist line we're used to seeing from the Stormfront crowd.

Surely that group has been absorbed into the Tea Party, but I can't imagine the average Tea Partier believes their nonsense (not that they care either way if White Nationalists gain influence through them).

 

Amen to that!! (Thank You!)

 

Judging by the other posts in other threads made by the OP, I'd say they're just another vastly misinformed Nazi we've had here.

 

The idea that there is an heirarchy of treatment that differentiates slaves based on perceived race is a non-starter. Denial of liberty based on injustice is human horror sufficient unto itself.

 

By 1810, about 2,000,000 school-age children were working 50- to 70-hour weeks. Most of them came from poor families. When parents could not support their children, they sometimes turned them over to a mill or factory owner. One glass factory in Massachusetts was fenced with barbed wire "to keep the young imps inside." The "young imps" were boys under 12 who carried loads of hot glass all night for a wage of 40 cents to $1.10 per night.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Theophilus Fisk, a Connecticut publisher and Jackson Democrat is ranked as one of the major leaders of the early U.S. labor movement. Fisk denounced wealthy White campaigners for negro rights and in 1836 gave what has been described as a “fierce anti-abolitionist speech” in South Carolina. Fisk’s anger derived from his observation that White slavery had been ignored. Fisk “found that
America’s slaves had ‘pale faces’ and as abolitionism grew in Boston, called for an end to indulging sympathies for Blacks in the South and for ‘immediate emancipation of the White (factory) slaves of the North.”.

Charles Douglass, president of the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men, described the four thousand White children and women at work in the factories of Lowell, Massachusetts in the 1860s as “dragging out a life of slavery and wretchedness... These establishments (New England’s factories) are the present abode of wretchedness, disease and misery...”

Ruth Holland, commenting on the participation of New England factory owners in the cause of abolitionism and rights for negroes in the south, observed, “It’s a little difficult to believe that northern mill owners, who were mercilessly abusing (White) children for profit, felt such pure moral indignation at (negro) slavery.”

http://www.whattheproblemis.com/docu...ere-slaves.pdf

 

class nowithstanding?

whats the difference?