Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Muslims didn’t have anything to do with it. It was an inside job.

47

12 people thought that was true 🤦

3

Only 1.5% of people had slaves in the US

2

It’s not different and if you think it is you’re just racist

-8

Look up the Arab Slave Trade my boy. They too enslaved Africans

3

Anonymous #5 8w

So 385k slave owners is a small amount to u and 1 in 4 white homes owned slaves in the South that’s just in 1860 the numbers were greater in the 1700s and if u go by states the percentage changes as well

24

Anonymous #11 8w

Why don’t they ever ask for representations from people in Africa who their ancestors were enslaved to and sold for tools

-4

Anonymous #5 8w

Reparations

-1

Anonymous #6 8w

The vast majority of Isis’ victims are also Muslims

17

Anonymous #5 8w

Maybe because they live in this country, where the profitability/toruture/exploitation of their ancestors’ labor happened in this country. Even people in the 1800s knew this much so I’m not sure why you don’t get it. The plan under Lincoln via Sherman was the give freed slave families 40 acres and a muel as reparations. Lincoln died, and Andrew Johnson overturned that policy. We could’ve done reparations right then and there to help ppl, instead black people basically went right back to slavery

18

Anonymous #5 8w

With sharecropping contracts that tithed them to the same land and old slavers under the same conditions, only to suffer for another hundred years under lynchings, Jim Crowe, the terror of the kkk, and even after the civil rights act have the federal government conspire to launch a trumped up drug war on the community to once again enslave a generation of black men for private prison slave labor.

11

Anonymous #10 8w

Everyone enslaved everyone pre modernity. This is a common white supremacist talking point fed to ppl online to deflect from the unique horrors of the European triangular slave trade. The Arab slave trade was not racialized, and was not chattel slavery where they were whipped in fields for generations. Arab slavery was often more akin to indentured servitude, with domestic roles and legal avenues for slaves to exit the system. The triangular slave trade was mass racialized chattel slavery of

35

Anonymous #12 8w

It continued into the 20th century and lasted for 1300 years. The fuck you mean “pre modern”

1

Anonymous #10 8w

Much higher volume where they were exploited at industrial scales & treated entirely like commodities w systemic torture of ppl, breaking up of families, mass killings along just the shipping routes, mass rapes, & used as a vehicle of settler colonialism with the genocide of natives & building up of entire societies’ infrastructure thru profiteering enterprises. To equivocate the two is just plain deflection & mischaracterization of the highest order. We’re not Arab either, we’re Americans

21

Anonymous #12 8w

They often castrated African Males and outsourced that to other groups so it wouldn’t be “Haram”

1

Anonymous #10 8w

It did not at any kind of relevantly comparable scale and certainly not in the manner of the triangular slave trade. You have no idea what you’re talking about and prob watched some nonsense YouTube video instead of reading through the actual records and relevant academic literature

27

Anonymous #10 8w

Yeah slavery sucks, that was a pre modern practice of eunuchs in courts, China did it too. Slavery sucks. Now why exactly are we talking about Arabs when slavery as it’s relevant to our country has nothing to do with that? Oh right it’s just a deflection

24

Anonymous #12 8w

Ain’t no one alive deserves my money for “reparations”

-2

Anonymous #5 8w

Well those people had descendants who have been regularly victimized by this country. If we can spend 10 trillion dollars on pointless wars why can’t we do right by people in our own country to rectify a historical wrong for a fraction of that?

14

Anonymous #12 8w

They did it for the Japanese

1

Anonymous #11 8w

Good for them, as long as it ain’t my money

-3

Anonymous #5 8w

Lmfao ur weird bro

6

Anonymous #5 8w

That statistic includes states where slavery was illegal abd ppl who couldn’t own slaves..if u break it down to states where slavery was legal that number increases from 1% to 25%. Then when you break it down by a state by state basis it can get as high as 50% like Mississippi.

5

Anonymous #5 8w

Reparations would be for way more than slavery…yk that right? And we’d be paying for our own reparations too lmao. The US has the money to send trillions to Israel they can use that for reparations and fixing the US

10

Yep. Welcome to conservative politics. Where comparing two dissimilar issues is their favorite way of justifying their irrational bigotry. These people are so angry about not understanding the world, but they’re too lazy to educate themselves beyond their own lived experiences. So fucking dumb. 😭

14

Anonymous #6 8w

If you think ISIS existed during 9/11, you’re not a part of the adult conversation.

1

Whites are in the middle, not on top. Indians are on top.

-5

Anonymous #11 8w

Slavery makes poverty, not wealth. The poorest states were all slave states.

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

The free states were not 25 times more populous than the slave states so that’s just wrong.

-1

Slavery creates poverty, not wealth. None of the richest states had slaves, and most of the poorest states did. The south has been the poorest part of the country for centuries.

11

Anonymous #15 8w

This chart is 10 years old…

14

Anonymous #15 8w

Free states typically had large cities and were more densely packed than the South…tf are u on about😭 this isn’t wrong ur just looking at a statistic that includes states where slavery was illegal. In the south that 1% increases to 25% and when you look at individual slave states it can get as high as 49%.

7

Anonymous #15 8w

Also, just because u didn’t own slaves didn’t mean you didn’t participate in slavery nor inspire to become as prominent as the large slave holders. Plantations needed overseers, which were all poor white men. They needed slave auctioneers, transporters, ect. So while a large percentage didn’t own slaves they still very much participated in slavery.

8

Anonymous #15 8w

The South isn’t poor because of slavery. The south is poor because of the end of slavery. Prior to the civil war the South pulled in tons of money from the free labor and agricultural market. We don’t see the South start to have high percentages of poverty until the end of the civil war when slavery ended. If this were true, states like Maryland shouldn’t be as wealthy as they are because it was a slave state…

11

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

Yeah your math is wrong. And in any case, slavery creates poverty, not wealth. The south lost the war due to in large part to having very little industry or money. The south has been the poorest part of the US since 1776.

-1

Anonymous #15 8w

As a matter of fact, prior to the civil war Mississippi, the state that had the highest % of slave owning families, was considered to be the richest state. https://www.unpaidlabor.com/blog/entry/mississippi-america-s-richest-state

6

Anonymous #15 8w

That’s false and the math isn’t wrong. U can look into urself. 75% of ppl in the south didn’t own slaves meaning 25% of ppl did own slaves. If slavery created poverty during the time it was legal it wouldn’t have been a practice especially in a capitalistic society 😭 Mississippi prior to the civil war was considered the richest state and they also had the highest % of slave owners. We don’t see the south become impoverished until AFTER the civil war when slavery was abolished. Ur history is off

10

Anonymous #15 8w

https://www.unpaidlabor.com/blog/entry/mississippi-america-s-richest-state

8

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

That’s just wrong. The north was richer in every way. The vast majority of southerners were dirt poor small farmers. A few rich people hogging wealth made the south poor, not rich.

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

I’ve never heard of “unpaidlabor.com”. Do you have a reliable source?

1

Anonymous #15 8w

The same is said about the North dude 😭 rich ppl in the north monopolized and owned most businesses. A lot of ppl who lived in northern cities were poor immigrants. But to say the south was poor prior to the civil war is inaccurate

5

Anonymous #15 8w

Ur only sources are random charts with no link😬 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=106

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

The topic is who was poor by American standards, not world standards. This is off topic. The south has always been the poorest part of the US.

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

And almost nothing has changed in 10 years.

1

Anonymous #15 8w

“Behind Britain AND northern states.” They’re also looking within the US😬 logically speaking if Slavery caused poverty, especially to those who practiced it, it wouldn’t have been a practice especially seeing that the whole goal was to make money. Slavery allowed the slave holder to make money and not have to pay a whole lot to those who worked to create said profit 😐

8

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

I never claimed rich and poor people didn’t live in the north. You made that up. But the north was overwhelmingly richer than the south before the civil war. The south literally didn’t even have butter.

1

Anonymous #15 8w

The South today is not going to be the same economically as it was 100 something years ago dude use ur brain. The South now poor because of governmental decisions, low wages, underinvestment, and its infrastructure. The only population left in poverty because of slavery are the descendants of enslaved ppl who obviously didn’t get paid for said labor..

5

Anonymous #15 8w

Being richer ≠ automatically being poor. The South prior to the civil war still generated a lot of money via agriculture…tf do u think the south capitalized on?

5

Anonymous #15 8w

And u made that up…the south had butter prior to the civil war…

8

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

The sources are listed on the charts. And you haven’t even read your own sources lmao. You just posted a link that says the southern states were poorer than the northern states and acted like it made your case. Just take the L dude this is getting pathetic.

2

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

And besides, if all the money was gone after the civil war, then it definitely hasn’t trickled down to white people today.

0

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 8w

Southern agriculture was inferior. Despite having an equal amount of farmland to the north, northern farms were far more productive. For the 19474635th time, slavery creates poverty, not wealth.

0

Anonymous #15 8w

I don’t think u read the paper. It goes into how the South became one of the poorest. Like it states, prior to the civil war it was one of the richest. Like I’ve been saying and like it says the South didn’t start seeing higher levels of poverty until after the abolition of slavery😐

4

Anonymous #15 8w

The ppl who held onto the wealth, like northern cities, inherited that wealth from their families🫩

7

Anonymous #15 8w

Logically none of that makes sense. The source I gave u states multiple times that prior to the civil war the south was well off due to the institute of slavery fo looked at the title that's basically saying "here's why the south is no longer rich since the turn of the century(aka after the civil war)" take the L bro

6

Anonymous #15 8w

Got the two mixed up, sorry

4

Anonymous #15 8w

Because they lost their wealth when slavery became illegal and then they had a whole ass war about it and then some places were so damn stubborn. They didn’t even tell their slaves until like 1970.

6

Anonymous #14 8w

Yea since slavey is still happening today in some parts of the world and sadly Africa still has slaves

-1

Anonymous OP 8w

Every country that uses prison labor has slaves. The US never ended slavery. As per the 13th amendment slavery and indentured servitude can be used as punishment by the state. That’s why we see a rise in black incarceration rates during the Jim Crow era. Jim Crow basically made doing anything while black illegal. Matter of fact, a lot of things that were made law during Jim Crow are still laws today. Jay walking and loitering.

6

This is deep if you’re 14 years old and never read a book.

-2

Anonymous #19 7w

How do they benefit?

1

Anonymous #15 7w

In your graph itself you show that the north had a 40% uptick on population. Why are we surprised that the grain and farming and baking and manufacturing were higher in the north? That doesn’t make sense. There was poverty in the south, but the removal of the income generated from Slavery was the backbone of southern economy, many southerners saw slavery as the economic stopgap. It was their peculiar institution, they needed it to stay afloat and justified a lot of it because of that necessity.

3

Anonymous c3brus 7w

The constitution was *riddled* with slavery laws and regulations. Look at the “slave codes” started in Barbados with sugar farming. Then was adopted by Britain and the colonies into the Slave Codes. This was the basics of the slavery laws, it was made for economic and political reasons. That was a large reason Britain abolished slavery, it became unprofitable. The Caribbean overproduced the sugar that was so profitable. Slavery was *always* about economics.

4

Anonymous c3brus 7w

The South built generational wealth on slave labor, that never went away, and was never repaid, that’s why “what does that have to do with me” doesn’t hold water. It *does* you are profiting both politically and economically off the back of hundreds of years of forced, unpaid labor by millions of workers. You didn’t “do slavery” but you are still profiting from it. The effects of slavery can’t end until we restructure our society with the understanding how race shaped wealth and political power.

2

Anonymous #10 7w

Man just let them speak their hyperliberal nonsense on yikyak so they don’t disturb us in our day-to-day lives

7

Anonymous #22 7w

Trust, no one cares nor should the care what your ancestors did as I does not pertain to you. I literally couldn’t care if someone was related to hitler or their grandparent was a soldier in Nazi Germany. Sure it might be bad but far in the past

7

Anonymous #5 7w

Right and it’s not their fault for their ancestors actions

1

Anonymous #9 7w

Lmfao ain’t nobody say it was y’all’s fault lmfao it’s called reparations. You know the thing that the Japanese got from the US government. You should be just as mad that the US did such horrendous things which is now owed. But ur not ur just mad at the fact that the US government owes reparations for black people and has for so long. imagine if reparations had interest you owed a credit card company or a car note or a mortgage and you faulted on payments as long as the US government has (1/2)

1

Anonymous #11 7w

For Black people. What would happen to your house your credit or your car if you owed a significant amount of money and you did not pay?

1

Anonymous #9 7w

The institutions that benefit white people and harm black people are a direct result of slavery. You can literally track the line. Slavery to lynching to Jim Crow to redlining to police brutality. When a black person gets killed in a routine police stop but white people don’t, that’s a direct result of slavery.

2