Imagine the U.S. without slavery

[RobMoney$]

Imagine if there had been no slavery in our history.

No Civil War.

Any Blacks here would have had to immigrate here and want to be here with no sense of entitlement.

How would have Africa worked out?
Would there still be constant civil unrest and tribal genocide or would a great black state have risen up and taken its place in today's modern world?

In Europe there are the English, French, German, Spanish, Dutch etc etc etc; did we missed out on this sense of nationalism and pride because of slavery?

Would we be indeed a United States or still as divided as we are now?

If people had hatred, divisiveness and superiority/inferiority in their hearts and minds, it would have come out in other forms, it DID come out in other forms, the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Algonquin, the Dakota...
Perhaps the South would have just enslaved these people instead?

Slavery is clearly wrong. We were hardly the only country doing it and were more than a couple thousand years from being the first country to implement it, but that doesn't justify it. That said, I would have to believe that many of the descendants of slaves in this country are MUCH better off than they would be if slavery had not existed in this country. We also wouldn't enjoy the diversity of race and culture we have in this country.


Discuss

[DroppinScience]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

Imagine if there had been no slavery in our history.

No Civil War.

Any Blacks here would have had to immigrate here and want to be here with no sense of entitlement.

How would have Africa worked out?
Would there still be constant civil unrest and tribal genocide or would a great black state have risen up and taken its place in today's modern world?

In Europe there are the English, French, German, Spanish, Dutch etc etc etc; did we missed out on this sense of nationalism and pride because of slavery?

Would we be indeed a United States or still as divided as we are now?

If people had hatred, divisiveness and superiority/inferiority in their hearts and minds, it would have come out in other forms, it DID come out in other forms, the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Algonquin, the Dakota...
Perhaps the South would have just enslaved these people instead?

Slavery is clearly wrong. We were hardly the only country doing it and were more than a couple thousand years from being the first country to implement it, but that doesn't justify it. That said, I would have to believe that many of the descendants of slaves in this country are MUCH better off than they would be if slavery had not existed in this country. We also wouldn't enjoy the diversity of race and culture we have in this country.


Discuss

Are you saying if there was no slavery in America's history or no slavery in the entire world's history, period?

In either case, we'd emerge with a society a lot less divided along racial lines. I suspect race wouldn't be as huge a factor in defining America either. Sure, with immigration, there'd still be a society with many different cultures but it may be less pronounced.

Anyways, I have to take issue with the descendents of slaves being much better off today than they would be if slavery had not existed. Well, I guess if you were to talk to Colin Powell or Michael Jordan, they may agree with you (but that's still a fucked up line of reasoning). But with ghettos in the North (this includes crippling poverty, violence, lynching, etc... yes, there is racism in the north, it's not only the south) and Jim Crow laws that only stopped in a relatively recent amount of time in the South (the 1960s are hardly considered the distant past), you wouldn't be far off in thinking that conditions for blacks in America is still a lot like a 3rd world country (just check infant mortality rates or the conditions of Hurricane Katrina victims). Yeah, maybe AIDS rates are much lower in the U.S. than in many African countries, but this is a small consolation for many black Americans.

[Documad]

I'd say that it would have changed the whole nature of our country, and not just in the south. We would have been less likely to become a superpower I guess.

I don't think that I could imagine the US without slaves anymore than I can imagine the US without the extermination of native peoples. The success of our country in the early days was built on the backs of slaves. We couldn't have had the southern crops we had (and exported). But the north depended on southern slavery too. The north made goods out of raw materials from the south and sold goods to southerners in exchange for the southern money that came from slave labor. Many northerners decided to oppose slavery in the 1800s not because of religious or political belief that it was wrong but because they were jealous of the competitive advantage it gave the south. Of course, in other ways slavery also crippled the south because they were able to rely upon slave labor rather than moving forward once industrialization came.

We should also be aware that our slave trade had a huge impact on nations outside of the US, including nations within Africa.

[RobMoney$]

I do not understand the whole United States was built on slavery thing. The US as we know today is due to the industry that flourished in the North and East, which had only 2% of the black population. I'm not going to argue they made people in the South rich (even though less than 8% of people had any slaves), but that type of economy was going the way of the dinosaur anyway. Europeans play this high and mighty role how they got rid of slavery first. Would they have been so socially loving if they did not have the whole Industrial Revolution going on?

Slavery sustained the dominant economy of the South, no question, but to say the country was built on slaves is something I am not sure I buy. All of the poor Europeans who came to live in the slums and work in those factories I think would have a difference of opinion. All of the Chinese and Asians who helped on the railroads would also like to get their fair props too.

I guess I am asking for historical reference and not looking to get into some heated debate. I'm just not a fan of using "white guilt" to alter history. When I was going to Temple, I had a great class on African American History (teacher was actually not an old white guy). He was blunt and honest and equally made everyone in the class feel bad about their cultures part in the slave trade (including all the Africans that sold each other into slavery).

I remember a piece that 60 minutes did on "Back to Africa Tour Groups". They interviewed one of the owners of the company from Africa and he mentioned how baffled he was that all the black Americans who came on these tours had no clue that there was a good chance one of his ancestors was the person who sold their ancestors to the Europeans.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by DroppinScience

Are you saying if there was no slavery in America's history or no slavery in the entire world's history, period?

I guess when I say "Slavery" I'm referring to the period in time that most Americans associate with the term, (17 & 1800's) and the effect it had on the world as a whole. Although we're all aware that slavery and indentured servitude have roots in almost every society in history (including modern day).

Originally Posted by DroppinScience

In either case, we'd emerge with a society a lot less divided along racial lines. I suspect race wouldn't be as huge a factor in defining America either. Sure, with immigration, there'd still be a society with many different cultures but it may be less pronounced.

Racial discourse dates back much further than the US's 400 year history. Do you really believe in a society such as the US, arguably the most diverse culture in the history of the planet, that bigotry would play less of a role if slavery never existed? I don't buy that.

Originally Posted by DroppinScience

Anyways, I have to take issue with the descendents of slaves being much better off today than they would be if slavery had not existed. Well, I guess if you were to talk to Colin Powell or Michael Jordan, they may agree with you (but that's still a fucked up line of reasoning). But with ghettos in the North (this includes crippling poverty, violence, lynching, etc... yes, there is racism in the north, it's not only the south) and Jim Crow laws that only stopped in a relatively recent amount of time in the South (the 1960s are hardly considered the distant past), you wouldn't be far off in thinking that conditions for blacks in America is still a lot like a 3rd world country (just check infant mortality rates or the conditions of Hurricane Katrina victims). Yeah, maybe AIDS rates are much lower in the U.S. than in many African countries, but this is a small consolation for many black Americans.

Last I heard, there isn't an forced female circumcision going on the the ghettos of the US and Katrina was a horrible tragedy, but in a large portion of Africa it's "Katrina" every day of the year. I can only go by my own judgement and if given the choice between North Philly, South Bronx, Southside Chicago, or somewhere in Africa, I know where I'd choose.

Any "sense of entitlement" there may be is not the result of slavery. It is the result of having entitlements PERIOD...welfare etc.
People of African descent (whose ancestors were slaves) that were not born and raised in the US don't have that sense of entitlement.

[RobMoney$]

I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies.
My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as Agrarian Pre-Capitalism.

[afronaut]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

No Civil War.

Don't be so sure about that.

[RobMoney$]

Let's not kid ourselves.

[Documad]

It's been a long time since I studied this part of history, but as I understand it, in the 1700s and early 1800s (prior to the invention of the cotton gin and other mechanical agricultural implements) the US provided most of the world's cotton and tobacco at enormous profit to the United States. Central america (where slaves were also imported) provided most of the world's sugar and rum, etc. It was no accident that the areas that were best suited to growing those crops were the areas where slaves were brought. It was no accident that those crops are all labor intensive, or at least they were prior to the cotton gin, etc. Landowners didn't import slaves because they got off on the power trip. They did it because it was to their economic advantage to do so (hard working, low cost labor, for backbreaking jobs that had to be done by hand). Where were the cotton mills? In the northern US and in England. So while those areas had much fewer or no slaves, they also benefitted tremendously from the labor of slaves. England and the NE US exported their linens to other countries at a big profit. Tobacco has a similar story, and sugar, etc. Once slavery was abolished, it was replaced by other forms of exploitation such as sharecropping or low wage jobs in Cuba, etc., where US corporations continued to exploit workers (who were conveniently of a different race) until the citizens of those countries kicked the US corporations out.

I'm no expert, but I find it far more likely that slaves were in the american south because it made financial sense than that american men in the south were inherently more evil. People in history tend to do things that are in their interest.

I went to an interesting museum in Alabama that featured the history of US agriculture, the invention of the cotton gin, etc. I had never seen an actual cotton gin before that.

I think PBS did a series on slavery and the US economy. It was based on a book. It was a few years ago.

Anyhow, virtually every history book I read on the civil war starts with this discussion, and it usually includes a discussion of whether US slavery might have ended at some point without the civil war because technology was starting to make it less profitable. (I would suppose that instead of freeing the slaves, the US landowners might have sold them further south because the slave economy thrived there for a longer period of time.) But you could also argue that the citizens of the NE US waited too long time to take up arms against the south -- was it a coincidence that they waited until they didn't need the slave labor for their cotton anymore? All of the civil war books I've read indicate that arms were taken up for economic and political reasons rather than to stop slavery.

P.S. the western US wouldn't have been the same without the Chinese immigrants or the Mormons. The American midwest wouldn't be the same without the Germans, Swedes, etc. Our economic history is based upon waves of immigration, voluntary and involuntary. When you travel within and outside of the US you still run into evidence of that immigration. It's fascinating.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by Documad

Anyhow, virtually every history book I read on the civil war starts with this discussion, and it usually includes a discussion of whether US slavery might have ended at some point without the civil war because technology was starting to make it less profitable. (I would suppose that instead of freeing the slaves, the US landowners might have sold them further south because the slave economy thrived there for a longer period of time.) But you could also argue that the citizens of the NE US waited too long time to take up arms against the south -- was it a coincidence that they waited until they didn't need the slave labor for their cotton anymore? All of the civil war books I've read indicate that arms were taken up for economic and political reasons rather than to stop slavery.

While most History books will tell you the Civil War was a battle about states rights, it was manifested through the issue of slavery in large part.
Of course there was the whole tariff issue too, but when people start throwing around the term 'states rights' they're trying to mask the real issue.
The war was about slavery, period. Oh, of course, it wasn't couched that way. But slavery had been a stumbling block from the beginning of the United States. In the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Missouri and Maine entered the Union together, so that the balance in the Senate would be maintained. That balance meant that the South had veto power over any bill to end slavery. With the admission of California as a free state in 1949, and the westward expansion, it was inevitable that the South was going to lose its ability to veto a bill to end slavery. That was the basis for the states' rights arguments, and the inescapable reason for the decision to opt out of the Union.

Cut it any way you like, it was slavery that was at the bottom of it. Naturally, the South didn't tell their young men, most of whom did not own slaves: "You're going to war to fight for slavery." They said: "You are going to war to fight for our freedom", but in the end it was slavery at the bottom of it all.

Pre-war, the federal government was extremely weak relative to the individual states power to govern themselves. The Civil War hugely strengthened the Federal government, starting a trend that has continued to this day. The irony is that the rebellion provoked that large jump in federal power, something that wouldn't have happened at nearly that pace had secession not occurred.
Typically before the Civil War most Americans saw themselves and referred to themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers etc, first before they saw themselves as Americans. The Civil War helped change that dynamic into seeing ourselves as Americans first and foremost. Who knows what else would have been changed and what Butterfly Effect would result, be it good or bad.

[RobMoney$]

Originally Posted by Documad

I'm no expert, but I find it far more likely that slaves were in the american south because it made financial sense than that american men in the south were inherently more evil. People in history tend to do things that are in their interest.

Slaves were in the South out of necessity.

Expanding European empires in the New World lacked one major resource -- a work force. In most cases the indigenous peoples had proved unreliable (most of them were dying from diseases brought over from Europe), and Europeans were unsuited to the climate and suffered under tropical diseases. Africans, on the other hand, were excellent workers: they often had experience of agriculture and keeping cattle, they were used to a tropical climate, resistant to tropical diseases, and they could be "worked very hard" on plantations or in mines.

http://africanhistory.about.com/libr.../aa080601a.htm


Any major world power in history has used slavery. Obviously, most via conquest instead of purchasing.
Even if the US didn't import slaves, they would have just wound up in other countries such as Brazil or the West Indies.
USA imported 500k slaves (4%). Brazil brought in 4 million (35%).

Raw numbers found here.

It's my contention that if America did not import slaves, they would still not have stayed in Africa. The Portugese and British had a market for them with the African Kings and Merchants. The US was just one of several markets they sold those slaves in, (actually one of the smaller markets).

[Schmeltz]

Originally Posted by RobMoney$

Even if the US didn't import slaves, they would have just wound up in other countries such as Brazil or the West Indies... It's my contention that if America did not import slaves, they would still not have stayed in Africa. The Portugese and British had a market for them with the African Kings and Merchants. The US was just one of several markets they sold those slaves in, (actually one of the smaller markets).

I think that's on point, but you're not using it to come to the right conclusions. It is difficult to imagine a historical trajectory for America that doesn't include slavery because slavery was an integral part not just of the American economy but of the global economy, especially in the trans-Atlantic region where it formed one of the corners of the triangular exchange of labour, raw materials, and finished products that shaped the interaction of Africa, the Americas, and Europe for centuries. If the thirteen colonies had deliberately shut themselves out of that trading pattern they would have vastly weakened their economic potential vis-a-vis powers like the Portuguese and Spanish who had no such qualms.

Given this context, I think it's at least fairly accurate to say that the early economy of the USA was powered by slavery, inasmuch as slavery powered a substantial portion of international exchange at the time. A USA without the slave trade and its attendant benefits, relying entirely on its own resources for subsistence, would have grown much more slowly.

I might also add that this grander historical picture doesn't really excuse in any way the perpetuation of racially stratified slavery in which people of one race were explicitly defined as directly inferior to people of another, with all sorts of quasi-scientific and religious justifications created to absolve the perpetrators of their horrendous misdeeds. That slavery persisted in America for so long past the evolution of the Enlightenment and the growing social consciousness of the contemporary Western world is something I have always found somewhat unsettling. There's no need to feel guilty about it, but it's hard to ignore - especially when you consider how long it took to get from the Civil War to civil rights.

[DroppinScience]

RobMoney may want to rethink his notion that blacks in the U.S. have it soooooo much better than in Africa.

This article says HIV rates for blacks in the U.S. rivals some African nations (which surprised me too).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/condi...ort/index.html

Report: Black U.S. AIDS rates rival some African nations

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The AIDS epidemic among African-Americans in some parts of the United States is as severe as in parts of Africa, according to a report out Tuesday.
"AIDS in America today is a black disease," says Phill Wilson, founder of the Black AIDS institute.

"AIDS in America today is a black disease," says Phill Wilson, founder of the Black AIDS institute.

"Left Behind - Black America: A Neglected Priority in the Global AIDS" is intended to raise awareness and remind the public that the "AIDS epidemic is not over in America, especially not in Black America," says the report, published by the Black AIDS Institute, an HIV/AIDS think tank focused exclusively on African-Americans.

"AIDS in America today is a black disease," says Phill Wilson, founder and CEO of the institute and himself HIV-positive for 20 years. "2006 CDC data tell us that about half of the just over 1 million Americans living with HIV or AIDS are black."

Although black people represent only about one in eight Americans, one in every two people living with HIV in the United States is black, the report notes.

The report uses just-released data from UNAIDS and existing CDC and Census data to highlight grim statistics:

• AIDS remains the leading cause of death among black women between ages 25 and 34. It's the second-leading cause of death in black men 35-44.

• In Washington, more than 80 percent of HIV cases are among black people, that's one in 20 residents. iReport: AIDS in Washington's older population

"Five percent of the entire population (in DC) is infected... that's comparable to countries like Uganda or South Africa," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN for the recent "Black in America" documentary.

According to this report, if black Americans made up their own country, it would rank above Ethiopia (420,000 to 1,300,000) and below Ivory Coast (750,000) in HIV population. Both Ethiopia and the Ivory Coast are among the 15 nations receiving funds from the President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief. The United States has given about $15 billion to PEPFAR nations in the past five years.

The Black AIDS Institute says it's not criticizing the federal government for helping poorer countries cope with the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it's saying the "AIDS epidemic [in the U.S.] is not getting the kind attention that it merits." Video Watch more on the new report on AIDS and African-Americans »

"We understand the needs of black folk in Johannesburg (South Africa)," Wilson says. "Why can't we understand the needs of them in Jackson, Mississippi? We understand the needs in Nigeria or Botswana, why not understand the needs of Los Angeles or Oakland?"

Wilson says more needs to be done to prevent the spread of HIV in this country. The report states that the U.S. government "increased spending on HIV prevention, treatment and support programs for low-income countries dramatically, at the same time that domestic remained all but flat."

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, domestic prevention efforts make up the smallest part of the HIV/AIDs budget, the 2009 budget request includes $892 million for domestic HIV prevention efforts, the same as in 2008.

In this report, Wilson and others urge the federal government and private foundations to significantly increase funding for HIV prevention and treatment programs. The report also calls on international agencies to hold the U.S. government accountable for failure to address HIV/AIDS epidemic in its own country (despite lauding it for its PEPFAR efforts). It also urges black communities in the United States to fight the stigma and overcome prejudice associated with being infected with HIV.

"Peggy" found out 10 years ago that she was HIV positive. The fact that she's asked us to not use her real name is an example of the stigma that's still attached to having the virus that causes AIDS, especially in the African-American community.

"I don't really talk to many other people about it, 'cause I guess maybe, they don't want to talk," says the 27-year-old Lake Charles, Louisiana, woman. Others like her, she says, are still too ashamed to admit they have HIV.

Marvelyn Brown, 24, of Washington, is more open about her status. She learned she had HIV when she was only 19, after one time of unprotected sex while in a monogamous relationship.
advertisement

Brown has told her story in a book, "The Naked Truth, " and to CNN in last week's special report, "Black in America." She regularly addresses community groups, trying to help educate blacks about the risk of of HIV and AIDS.

The report was funded by the Ford Foundation and the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

[RobMoney$]

So Phill Wilson, founder of the Black AIDS institute is claiming that "AIDS epidemic [in the U.S.] is not getting the kind attention that it merits."

Now I wonder why he would say something like that...

I'm not sure whether Phil Wilson is correct or not in his claims, I'm just saying he's a little partisan, don'tcha think?

[QueenAdrock]

He may be partisan, but the data is not. Wilson didn't make the report; he just read it and commented on it. You can see in the report itself (which is co-authored by UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and CDC, the Center for Disease Control) that it points to his assertion that "the AIDS epidemic isn't getting the attention it deserves." The data is astounding, one out of every TWO people living with HIV/AIDS in America is Black? That's ridiculous. And it's in no way biased or skewed, seeing who the authors are. I think anyone who reads the data from the report will come to the same conclusion that Wilson did.

[RobMoney$]

So are you & DS saying that African Americans would be better off in Africa?

[QueenAdrock]

I'm not saying they'd be better off there, but to say they have it so much better here isn't quite correct, either. As you can see from this particular report, the AIDS epidemic in some areas of the United States is on par with some third-world African countries such as Uganda. I personally believe that a lot of Blacks have a tough time in America with racism, poverty, disease, etc. It's not to say they'd have it "better" in Africa, but to even see it comparable in some respects (when we're supposed to be light years ahead of third world countries) is somewhat alarming. Like the article states, perhaps we should start focusing on problems at home as well as other nations. Bush and others recognize the problems Africans have, but problems that are occurring in the black population in America are sometimes overlooked or oversimplified and that needs to stop.

[DroppinScience]

Well, at least the U.S. has apologized for slavery now!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ery/index.html