"Slavery wasn't racist, it was economic!" says GOP lawmaker

[Russoslava]

Um yeah, Slavery wasn't Racist. There were a ton of Irish and white indentured servants that came to America. Slavery was not exclusive to one race. The only reason why African slaves were so common is that a lot of the waring kingdom in Africa sold their POWs as slaves to the Europeans who then brought them to America. The Africans did it, the Aztec's did it too. Slavery wasn't a race thing, it's horrible but it's not racist. Millions of wealthy European settlers came to America with African slave and white indentured servants and indentured servants are pretty much the same as slavery.

Slavery, in the American context, was definitively racist.

Sometimes, but you had people who owned White Indentured servants as well as African Slaves, Hell Native Americans Owned Africa Slaves.

[Galiantus III]

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

But the racism was a result and justification for slavery. Racism doesn't just come from nowhere. It's not natural.

[Iridencia]

But racism and slavery aren't inherently connected: a white person can subjugate another white person to slavery. Anyone could enslave someone else. Racism and slavery are separate, terrible ideas. The only reason they are connected in the American mind is that American philosophical thought realized slavery was wrong and needed a way to justify it. The nature of the slave trade meant racism was a natural answer, and here we are.

We're not talking about slavery as a wider theoretical practice, we're talking about the slavery that occurred in the United States. And it was very, very racist. Don't try to weasel out of the actual subject.

Um yeah, Slavery wasn't Racist. There were a ton of Irish

No.

(And no, the Irish were never slaves, sorry that conservative facebook meme lied to you.)

[Russoslava]

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

Yes in that context but Slavery across the board is not considered racist. Again very much horrible and it should be abolished worldwide but again Slavery isn't racist. Hell Free Slaves were still considered 3/5s of a person whether they were a slave or not.

[Aclion]

The fact that this list isn't a who's who of Democrats from the 1800s makes me inclined to ignore the whole thing. I don't think people understand just how horrifically racist things got during this period.

Also Horn was right. Slavery was entirely economic, and seen as such until around the 1820-30. It wasn't until then that it transformed into "a positive good" that " civilized and so improved[the black race], not only physically, but morally and intellectually"

[Kowani]

Slavery, in the American context, was definitively racist.

Sometimes, but you had people who owned White Indentured servants as well as African Slaves, Hell Native Americans Owned Africa Slaves.

Reminder that indentured servitude died out after Bacon’s Rebellion.

[Bear Stearns]

I mean have you guys ever had some nice loose-leaf chaw?

[Geneviev]

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

But the racism was a result and justification for slavery. Racism doesn't just come from nowhere. It's not natural.

Even if it was only a result of and justification for slavery, racism was inherent to slavery in the US.

[Fascist Soyouso]

“LOL. This is why no one believe the media (huffpo),”...
“Trump is the most racist president in American history, what does that say about all of the other presidents who owned slaves.”...
“Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist…”...
Horn later told HuffPost in an interview released on Thursday that he was being sarcastic in his response and said that his comment is by no means to be construed as “support for either slavery or racism.”
But in a follow-up statement, Horn said that although it is “never OK to own another person,” he feels that labelling the institution of slavery “is a false narrative.”

Well. That certainly is the single most cringe-inducing thing I've read all summer. That "LOL" really got me to sit down and think about how fucked it is that people like this still hold any sort of power in this day and age. I already knew and all, but wow. This is all so surreal I need a cigarette and I don't even smoke.

[Bear Stearns]

Sometimes, but you had people who owned White Indentured servants as well as African Slaves, Hell Native Americans Owned Africa Slaves.

Reminder that indentured servitude died out after Bacon’s Rebellion.

At least in America. It continued elsewhere throughout the New World and other European powers for awhile.

[Russoslava]

But racism and slavery aren't inherently connected: a white person can subjugate another white person to slavery. Anyone could enslave someone else. Racism and slavery are separate, terrible ideas. The only reason they are connected in the American mind is that American philosophical thought realized slavery was wrong and needed a way to justify it. The nature of the slave trade meant racism was a natural answer, and here we are.

We're not talking about slavery as a wider theoretical practice, we're talking about the slavery that occurred in the United States. And it was very, very racist. Don't try to weasel out of the actual subject.

Um yeah, Slavery wasn't Racist. There were a ton of Irish

No.

(And no, the Irish were never slaves, sorry that conservative facebook meme lied to you.)

No, there were indentured Irish who came to America. That is a fact, I know because it's traceable in my family history.

[Bear Stearns]

But the racism was a result and justification for slavery. Racism doesn't just come from nowhere. It's not natural.

Even if it was only a result of and justification for slavery, racism was inherent to slavery in the US.

Not at first. It became inherent when Virginia passed its first citizenship laws.

[Galiantus III]

But racism and slavery aren't inherently connected: a white person can subjugate another white person to slavery. Anyone could enslave someone else. Racism and slavery are separate, terrible ideas. The only reason they are connected in the American mind is that American philosophical thought realized slavery was wrong and needed a way to justify it. The nature of the slave trade meant racism was a natural answer, and here we are.

We're not talking about slavery as a wider theoretical practice, we're talking about the slavery that occurred in the United States. And it was very, very racist. Don't try to weasel out of the actual subject.

Stop virtue signaling and tell me where I'm wrong.

[Geneviev]

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

Yes in that context but Slavery across the board is not considered racist. Again very much horrible and it should be abolished worldwide but again Slavery isn't racist. Hell Free Slaves were still considered 3/5s of a person whether they were a slave or not.

This is about slavery in America, which was definitely racist.

[Galiantus III]

But the racism was a result and justification for slavery. Racism doesn't just come from nowhere. It's not natural.

Even if it was only a result of and justification for slavery, racism was inherent to slavery in the US.

Right. I'm explaining why racism was inherent to US slavery.

[Vetalia]

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

The 3/5ths clause was intended to mitigate the influence of slave states, not a statement of the racial value of African slaves. Slavery would have been much more widespread and its expansion much greater throughout the US had it not been for that clause.

[Russoslava]

Who needs cable TV when you have the NS Forums to watch the drama unfold.

[Ohioan Territory]

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

Yes in that context but Slavery across the board is not considered racist. Again very much horrible and it should be abolished worldwide but again Slavery isn't racist. Hell Free Slaves were still considered 3/5s of a person whether they were a slave or not.

We're talking about slavery in the American context right now.

Freed people were not considered 3/5ths of a person. Only slaves.

You're arguing a useless point. It is widely, widely accepted that slavery in the United States was a racist institution. There are countless, countless examples of Southerners justifying slavery on the basis of African inferiority.

Your example of white indentured servants is really, really weak. There were nowhere near as many white indentured servants as Africans and American-born blacks that were used as chattel slaves in the southern United States. Also, indentured servants were allowed to leave after a certain number of years. Slaves, obviously, were not. Another point: one could be born into slavery, but not indentured servitude.

I don't think you're trying to fight a bad fight, but you're fighting a bad fight. For your own sake: stop.

[Ordenstaat Burgundy]

Sorry, but slavery was an inherently racist institution to its core. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that particular fact.

[Bear Stearns]

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

The 3/5ths clause was intended to mitigate the influence of slave states, not a statement of the racial value of African slaves. Slavery would have been much more widespread and its expansion much greater throughout the US had it not been for that clause.

Indeed. The most anti-slave measure would have been to not count them as people at all, as it would have reduced the South's electoral votes and representation in Congress.

[Iridencia]

Also Horn was right. Slavery was entirely economic, and seen as such until around the 1820-30. It wasn't until then that it transformed into "a positive good" that " civilized and so improved[the black race], not only physically, but morally and intellectually"

Correct — before that, the attitude was just straight up, "they're basically animals and we are entitled to enslave them." i.e., Racist.

An institution that is "entirely economic" does not happen to coincidentally only victimize non-white people. Or are you under the impression that sailing all the way to Africa and the Americas was somehow easier and cheaper than just grabbing some peasant from your white homeland and enslaving him?

No, there were indentured Irish who came to America. That is a fact, I know because it's traceable in my family history.

And indentured servitude wasn't at all comparable to the horrors of slavery, as has been stated by several historians, if you'd bothered to actually click the link. The Irish were treated terribly, but black slaves had it much, much worse on both a personal and systematic level. Comparing the two to act as if whites and blacks got similar treatment is to try to erase the weight of American slavery.

It's like saying, "Look, I know you got every bone in your body broken one by one in a sadistic torture session, but I once broke my arm after somebody pushed me over for no reason! So basically, we went through the same thing."

[Ohioan Territory]

Yes, and those slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in the US. It was racist there.

The 3/5ths clause was intended to mitigate the influence of slave states, not a statement of the racial value of African slaves. Slavery would have been much more widespread and its expansion much greater throughout the US had it not been for that clause.

No, you're completely wrong.

The three-fifths compromise bolstered the South's power in Congress. Previous to the law, slaves were not considered people, and therefore the South could not count slaves toward their population. The three-fifths compromise allowed the South the count every five slaves as equal to three people of the population, thus giving them more Representatives in the House. The South had a ton of slaves, so it most definitely was to their benefit.

[Saiwania]

He's not wrong. People who owned slaves obviously thought the cost of their investment exceeded how much it'd cost to keep them alive and in good working condition. In that sense, it was "worth it" to a buyer of slaves to do that, unless they're too rich and didn't mind throwing money away or were sadistic and maleviolent. The Cotton Gin was said to make slaves on Cotton plantations in the US South, even more productive and increased the incentive to purchase more slaves to output more cotton if a field became even bigger to justify this.

[Russoslava]

Yes in that context but Slavery across the board is not considered racist. Again very much horrible and it should be abolished worldwide but again Slavery isn't racist. Hell Free Slaves were still considered 3/5s of a person whether they were a slave or not.

This is about slavery in America, which was definitely racist.

Racism and Slavery have nothing to do with each other. However, you have to remember African People were considered 3/5s a person whether they were freed or not. Hell Native American who owned slaves, by the way, was also not considered people either.

[Ohioan Territory]

The 3/5ths clause was intended to mitigate the influence of slave states, not a statement of the racial value of African slaves. Slavery would have been much more widespread and its expansion much greater throughout the US had it not been for that clause.

Indeed. The most anti-slave measure would have been to not count them as people at all, as it would have reduced the South's electoral votes and representation in Congress.

You have it backwards. Slaves were considered property, not people. The South didn't lose House representation when the three-fifths compromise passed; they gained more seats. Unfairly so, in fact, given that slaves couldn't vote.