Black slave owners
Why is it never discussed ? Black ppl owned slaves ! Google is your friend
shareLet's see.....No one cares
shareagreed...this thread will go on forever now
share
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Black slave owners
The more important question is why do most people fail to recognize that the US was not a sovereign nation until approximately 150 years after the first colonists came here. Which means slavery happened under the watch of England and was never proactive to end it due to the lucrative textile industry. I find it amazing given the glacial pace that humanity moves at in terms of political and social change that slavery ending just a few generations after our government was established seems lightning fast.
sharePlus the world has always had slavery. This wasn't some special phenomenon that occurred only on the north American continent. It was outlawed in a war that killed 600,000 almost 160 years ago. Sure, it is history, we need to know our history but I don't think we need to dwell on it the way we do much of the time.
shareThat will not matter to those who think reparations are in order at this late date. I can not begin to imagine how to structure that. The fires of slavery in the colonies started going out shortly after the colonies were founded other than those of the South. For many Northern towns and cities it was not practical to own a slave even if the desire existed to do so. Most businesses were not of large scale and owning a slave had absolute costs associated with it. A slave owner had to pay the cost of purchase and also the costs of feeding and clothing and sheltering a slave. It was just cheaper to put a son or son-in-law to work if the moral guidances were not there to tell a slave owner that it was wrong to own a slave.
shareWhat's interesting about slaves in the south, they wanted them to pick cotton on the plantations. I suppose jobs American citizens didn't want to do. Now you have the same political movement on one hand demanding that people be allowed in from other nations without permission because they do the jobs Americans won't do (pick vegetables and similar things) knowing that they'll be paid very low wages and at the same time they claim minimum wage for beginner jobs should be $15.00 an hour. What? That makes no sense. We need illegals because they do jobs Americans won't for hardly any pay.....they support that and then demand $15.00 per hour for a new hire McDonalds employee. It sounds like they still want a form of worker class slavery.
By the way, did the cotton industry go out of business once slavery ended? Since they had those jobs Americans wouldn't do? I suppose the fruit/veggie business will dry up if the illegal flow is ever shut down.
You can not compare the America of today or even of the 20th Century to the America of pre-1865 in terms of labor analysis. Social programs did not exist pre-Civil War for Americans to be choosy as to what jobs they performed. The best that could be hoped for if you did not like the careers available in the East was to become a homesteader out West which was far from being easy when available. Also, pre 19th Century the economy of scale on a plantation made it attractive to utilize slave labor moral objections not withstanding. That was already starting to die before the Civil War came to be as advances in farm technology were happening at a much faster rate than all the centuries previous combined going back to the time of Christ. The cotton gin and reaper greatly reduced the demand for labor on any plantation circa 1860 when compared to 50 or 100 years prior to 1860. The next 50 years beyond 1860 would only see the pace quicken towards mechanization. I really have to wonder about the mindset of the plantation owner circa 1860. You have to wonder if the attitude was about stifling the black population as maybe the plantation owners felt civil unrest would rise with under utilized slave labor other than the harvest period. Perhaps a resentment in that the black population would have greater under-utilization but yet consume the same resources as decades gone by.
shareI don't even know what you are talking about. You aren't replying to anything I've said or meant but you are just kind of talking to yourself.
Screaming for 15.00 minimum wage and at the same time supporting people being paid next to nothing to pick vegetables is madness. Having your cake and eating it to.
Comparing today to 1865? What? I'm not even following you.
People just hear what they want. I'll leave you to yourself.
I simply am saying that slave labor on plantations over 150 years ago has no comparison to the fight for a 15.00 minimum wage today. You are comparing apples with oranges.
shareWhat I think he's saying is that slave labor today is acceptable when it's among "illegal" immigrants, but not acceptable to legal workers, who are now demanding $15 an hour. Double the minimum wage today.
So in a sense, the argument made by plantations owners back in the 19th Century, is the same economical argument being made by current farm owners today.
There were paid slaves called indentured servants and I think they are our minimum wage workers today. That was what was referred to as paid slavery.
shareYes, paid slavery is today's "slave labor."
shareExcept I do not know who to blame more, the investors or the businesses. I think we should aim to tear down Wall Street and then go for business boycott.
shareWhy would you do that? Sounds drastic and extreme that will render no positive result.
shareInvestors are what make businesses for-profit. If there is no wall street, there is no stock market. So then the businesses will have to thrive solely on the products they sell. This would then line up as major competition because then businesses would have to find a way to increase wages to get people to work for them.
This is probably a very amateur view of economics, but I think it would really help. Then again, it could be that these businesses would conserve even more and wages may still be low. It is worth a shot.
This logic seems poorly thought out and over simplified.
If no one invested in business, we wouldn't have anything but small businesses.
Globalization required investors. And the result became mass production of products at lower costs. So, what you're implying is we head backwards and end up paying a higher premium on products.
I am anti-globalization.
I think if businesses went solely off products they sold, they would probably be forced to pay a good wage, as no one would be willing to work for them anyway. By mass producing products, somewhere along the lines, businesses found a way to keep all the profits and not increase the wage with it. It would be easier to regulate.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Have you audited the books of all these businesses to validate your claim or are you just making shit up on the spot to prove an erroneous point?
shareI am trying to get somewhere with this, but I need to study up further and be elected to an action position.
shareUnless those slaves were any other ethnic background than themselves, I would not say it is even comparable. There were certain ethnic groups that totally dominated other ethnic groups and it was very wrong. Always refer back to the majority vs. minority rule and you will see that when pointing a finger, there will always be a minority pointing back at you.
shareWhat a genius troll topic thread.
share