No one is going to defend Slavery: it was a vile institution. But the issue is far more complex than many let on. And if you really care about the topic, you care enough to learn the truth about it, not the myths, or the leftist version of the truth -- but what really happened.
|Slavery||America got rich off slavery. We owe reparations for that. White privilege is because whites held the black man down for so long, that we need to end racism by blaming everyone who is not-black and forcing them to pay everyone who is black, to make up for past wrongs that had nothing to do with them. We also have to have a censor symbols and history that we don't like, like the Confederate Flag.||More whites were enslaved than blacks. Slavery held the economy down, and we thrived after it was removed. Economically, Slavery was likely a net burden so no reparations could be owed. American whites died fighting a war to end the slavery that Europe had given to us (and the country inherited before it was created, but ended): those whites sacrifice deserves reparations. Slavery couldn't have existed without the many blacks colluding with it, and is certainly not the fault of the majority of whites, asians and latinos who never had slaves or supported it, or came to America generations later. And while doctoring history is popular among the left, how can we learn from the past, if we criminalize discussing parts of it, or doctor the record?|
Slavery : 5 items
|⅗ths clause - |
You often hear about the 3/5ths claus; "Blacks were only 3/5ths of a human being". But think this through. What happened is we were negotiating how to get rid of slavery and create a system where Congressional votes were based on population. If the South's population included slaves (5/5ths), they'd have much more influence, and it would be harder to eliminate slavery -- so the North got a compromise that slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person (for purposes of congressional representation) in order to reduce the influence of the South/Southern States would had in congress.
Many that use 3/5ths claus in the Constitution to claim we are founded on slavery. They are getting it backwards: we inherited that from the British Empire and Spaniards and French before us -- what the 3/5th claus shows is that we were trying to grow out of it, from our very founding, and how the founding fathers tried to diminished the influence of slavery on population based representation. They were putting it on a track towards extinction and trying to wait it out. If the Constitution didn't compromise to weaken it, the South would have created their own country and Slavery would have been strengthened. Context matters.
|Slavery is about racism - Slavery is about racism, but not in the way most people think. It is about attacking America, "whites" and Christians for things they didn't do, and there's a good chance their forefathers didn't do, while ignoring what latino's, blacks, Muslims and others did in wider numbers. In fact, America is the only country in the world to fight a war to free a people that looked different than themselves. A few things to remember, in America, Free blacks owned slaves in higher percentages than free whites. Some of that was because the tax burdens were lower on slaves, so they bought out family members and kept them listed as slaves for tax benefits, but if we accept that as acceptable then we must admit that not all slaves were abused and that's a slippery slope to common sense and understanding the issue for the left. You can tell it's about hate/racism by asking about these other complexities, and watching their knee-jerk reaction accusing you of whataboutism. No one is denying that slavery existed and was bad, but to understand it, you need to understand it in context. Those that can't admit context aren't up for an adult conversation on the topic, and are more about their political agendas, which isn't about getting to the whole truth.
|Slavery didn't make anyone rich - There's a fallacy amongst the left that Slavery made the South or America rich, or "America got rich on the backs of slaves". This is debated between fake economists (leftist theologians) and real economists, with most of the real ones recognizing that slavery was not a huge economic win, and was most likely a net burden. That's part of why the North outgrew the South, and why the economy took off after it was abolished. Put simply: as proven over and over again, people will always work harder for themselves than someone else. Anywhere that says, "Slavery was free labor" discredits themselves economically by ignoring basic common sense like: Cost of capital to buy the slaves, Operating overhead to feed/house/healthcare, Security overhead, Legal and taxes, and the reality that they were generally less productive than paid workers (e.g. independent contractors/sharecroppers). That's part of what made slavery so bad -- it was harming both sides. The left won't every accept this because it destroys the divisive reparations argument: how can you owe money to someone that you lost money on? Since the left would have to give up dividing us for votes by admitting the truth, they'll take repeat the anti-science and anti-logic position, no matter what the math/logic says.
|Slavery and the New Deal - |
And so on.
|Civil War and Slavery - |
When I hear people talk about the civil war and slavery, it reminds me of a movie, "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", because I often feel that's as based on reality as their perceptions are (they were believing what they'd been told). A few facts that escape their version of the telling:
History is rich and complex, not this shallow flat "good vs. bad" or the North was righteous and the South was evil bullshit. Since I care about the uncomfortable truths, more than the comforting fictions, I often discuss these things. Not to diminish what happened, or deny the points of either side, but by remembering the truth of what really happened (from both sides). Of course, since my family came to America, long after this, I have no dog in the fight, and can look at it more objectively than many. But if we care about learning from history, we first have to give up our comforting fictions (caricatures) and learn what really happened.
My world view was formed early with things like in the 5th Grade while studying The American Revolution, I found out that what my teachers were teaching me was far from the whole truth: it had lies of omission and commission, and that if I wanted to really know something, I had to become a critical thinker: skeptical of what I was told, and to dive in a research what they weren't telling me. Lefties never got that memo, and will vehemently defend their fiction against any and all documented proof to the contrary. They hated me in school for arguing with the teacher, especially when I won, and it hasn't gotten better with age or social media. Mere facts, books, pictures or video just makes them madder. While learning something new is exciting to me, for them, conceding their heroes were wrong is ripping the foundation of their reality away. So while they demanded we speak truth to power, they didn't mean we speak actual truth to actual power. Their ego needs a flock, a safe space and their fake truth -- while mine needs the freedom to question, learn and accept facts that matched the data before my eyes. All my world view offers them is a dark and scary world with doubt, growth and enlightenment. This article is just a few examples where our realities collide. more...
Imagine the truth is not on your side and thus you can't win the war with facts and logic, but you still want to win? What would you do? The obvious answer is that you'd make the truth into a crime. By and large, this is what the left has become. Now, I'm not talking every Democrat, or even every progressive; most Democrats like most other people are just lazily plodding through life, and repeating what they hear on the news or for their friends: some lie without knowing it, some are just rooting for their team without thinking it through. But the leadership of the left, whether political, celebrity or intellectuals, do not have the truth on their side, so they need to re-define truth, history, and attack anyone that contradicts them, or their belief system and party would go extinct. This article offers just a small sampling of the evidence.
There's real history, and the left's history -- they have very little in common. Very little. When I read Howard Zinn, or Karl Marx's view of the world -- it sounds like an average far left intersectional Democrats view of the world. While it has names in common with mine, the facts have been changed to protect the guilty and convict the innocent.