When mentioning being nice to slaves and love being ways to quell slave rebellion, he neglected to mention the best psychological tool that the slave owners had against slave rebellion: Christianity. As long as slaves believe in heaven and hell they're going to be more willing to accept hardship in exchange for heaven and fear rebelling over fear of ending up in hell.
Treestump & Thunderarch It wasn't christianity my ancestors were not allowed to practice. It was their own culture which is not religious at all. Christianity was use against them so that they would forget how to practice their own culture which was and is still more powerful than anything you can imagine or dream. Their are many movies about my ppl in Hollywood except they use fun characters like wonder woman or ppl like the ones in Apocolyto. They're telling the truth. But just not the entire truth. And they've always used non "black" ppl to depict who the slaves "my ancestors" really were. And who we are today. We have a long time to go at this rate of discovering the Jewels of America and those who are scattered. But no, christianity was no threat. It was my ancestors culture that was the true threat. The books that they were told not to try to read was really the documents and writings they took away from them when they took the ppl. They took their names, their tribe identity, and so. That's why the descendants scattered cling to other outside cultures and make a fool of they self. They don't have their own. It was beat out of all the ppl before us and never past down. But it had nothing to do with that christian junk. Christianity was made up to give to the ppl before us to pass down instead of the TRUTH.
While physical slavery has diminished greatly over the centuries, the slavery of the human mind has increased so rapidly that people don't even realize what is being done to them every single day.
Indentured servants were subject to having their contract extended without their agreement, and were often inherited by new masters when their old one died, thus completely renewing their contract for its original length. Working indefinately without consent is slavery. While this doesn't negate the injustice of African slavery, African slavery doesn't negate the suffering of people working in bondage as indentured servants either. That would be like saying it's okay to abuse a child as long as there have been others who were abused worse.
One injustice does not have fall in the exact category of another. Slaves *were* different from indentured servants legally. The mark of slavery did pass from person throughout his line and were classified as not human.
I get that white people weren't the first abolitionists, but wasn't England unique in allocating resources to specifically fight slavery? I'm thinking of the West African Squadron en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
They were indeed forceful when they got around to it, but that was well after Haiti had already gained its independence. Afterall, the US joined that squadron while it maintained slavery. I'll actually talk about the African Slave Patrol in a couple weeks.
The British public were largely ignorant of the way slaves were treated and when working class people found out they most often sided with the slaves - such as the Society for the Relief of the Black Poor & the repatriation to Sierra Leone (along with numerous white wives). Much of the acceptance of slavery was based upon their being "heathens" but as more became Christians the abolition movement grew.Not only did Britain send a fleet to Africa it also overthrew African states whose economy had been based on slavery & which collapsed as the slave trade ended, which was a major driver for British colonial expansion.Most white & Irish slaves (clan chiefs would also sell their clansmen into slavery for profit) were sent to Barbados not continental America, where they were known as "redlegs".
SOS DD "Adopted by"? It was a derogatory term used by southern democrats to describe whites laboring alongside their black counterparts prior to and following abolition. It's used again today by the same democrats to ascribe southern whites as racists. The irony is likely above you. However, shame on you.
+ George Jungle The Southern Democrats integrated themselves into the republican party after Civil Rights Act. They have virtually little in common with todays party, most of them have died of old age.
Hey, so um, I'm about to get real unpopular real quick. So on Indentured Servitude, it's much more, um, complex in that the "Criminals" were convicted of being the wrong ethnicity, the two examples of course being the Irish Clearances and the Suppression of the Jacobites, in the case of the Jacobites you can of course call them traitors but it was the case that many Scots who had had nothing to do with it were caught up in the sweep, in both cases you were forced to either sign the documents or be executed, I want to be very clear on this just how "Voluntary" these indentures were is super contentious, and given the points in time were the majority of them occured it is much more likely that they were coerced then not. Once brought to the Americas there was often little in the way of Centralized Authority to monitor that the Indentures were being treated within the confines of the law, and in the case of the Irish and the Jacobites racist attitudes and hatred of the "Traitors" would likely have lead to a certain reluctance on the part of many people in authority to abide by the laws rather than turn a blind eye. Then of course we get to the fact that depending where the plantation was the indentured could very well be stuck for life, as if they were far enough from any other settlement being "Freed" meant at best a very long walk with no food and water, so a sort of chain of contracts would occur with the indenture having to sign a new one each time or face starvation. Part of the problem is we have little evidence on either side and in the case of criminal acts shouldn't really expect much, especially if athouritys were turning a blind eye, so this all quickly leads down the rabbit hole of conjecture. After doing as much reserch as I could into this my Personal Oppion is that De Jure there were no white slaves but De Facto there was. I await the inevitable screaming matches that occur whenever I give my opinion on this one, -Timon
No one is claiming that being an indentured servant was a walk in the park. The point is, that period of indenture, whether voluntary, coerced or enforced, was limited. Yes many people no doubt died before there time was up. Some may have faced freedom with nothing. Yes some people were denied release at the end of their time - this may have been because they had committed a crime while indentured and their ‘sentence’ was - fairly or unfairly - increased. Whatever the reason, the extending of the contract could be challenged in court, they had rights. Slaves cannot challenge their slavery, it is for life, they have no rights and, crucially, it is/was a status passed to their children. No doubt some indentured servants were treated badly, but that was not the norm. In Britain in the 18th and early to mid 19th century some orphans and pauper children were sent to factories and mills, they had to work long hours and were not permitted to leave, they got no pay and they had no choice, so I guess, for a while, they were ‘slaves’, it was a system that was open to and was abused, but if they lived and their period of ‘apprenticeship’ (commonly 10 years) was completed, they could leave or stay on as a paid worker. Being an indentured servant or pauper apprentice meant you were in a crappy situation that could last for years, but it is was still not true slavery.
Timon Ferguson sounds like you change the meaning of a slave to include having no legal rights and such. a slave is one who is the legal property of another. If you had a contract, they were slaves. Maybe not for life, but then would you say that those slave who were freed weren't slaves in the past? A slave is a slave. one could be treated worse or better, be forced into it or "volunteer".
The claim that many slave owners were "kind" and "loving" towards the people who they enslaved depends on your definition of "kind" and "loving". It might fit an abusive person's definitions of "kind" and "loving", e.g. the definitions imagined by those rare men in modern times who have kidnapped girls or women in first world nations and kept them isolated from the world as sex slaves. Keeping someone as a captive, especially when the captors violently assault or kill slaves who flee, is not being "kind" nor "loving". ANY slavery certainly is not a healthy definition of "kind" and "loving".
#10 You seem to have intentionally forgot about about Britain's 60 year Crusade to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade via the West Africa Squadron. This is probably what people are talking about.
also don't claim to only focus on slavery in America, and then when it comes time to talk about abolitionism- suddenly switch gears to talk about Ancient China. You're being intentionally dishonest.
Um he didn't. He said he'd be *mostly* be referring to America because that's where the majority of these myths permunate from but didn't explicitly or implicitly say he'd exclude discussing anyone else.
They indeed tried, as did the US - but the African Slave Trade Patrol was almost entirely ineffective. That does not speak to the issue at hand with #10 though. This claim fails to account for the people who were actively fighting slavery for centuries (ie the slaves themselves), just to give the credit to the people who were ultimately responsible for maintaining the legality of the institution in the first place. Such a claim is like giving credit for the civil rights movement to the US congress.
Here are the Two issues with #10. #1. You said you were going to talk specifically about America. Therefore it doesn't matter what China did, or anyone else. #2. In America the White Male held the Power, the White Male was the only one with the AUTHORITY to stop Slavery. No matter how many Slave Rebellions, the only way the Slaves (of ANY and ALL Races) could stop American Slavery was by killing those in charge until the Government folded. This did not occur. So it is very true that IN AMERICA Whites ended Slavery. Because, as we are constantly reminded, it was ONLY Whites that held the Institutional Power. You want to argue that because it was also Whites who CREATED Slavery (specifically IN AMERICA as a Law with protections under a Legal System allowed by a Government) that they can not be credited for ending it... but this is faulty logic. If Whites as a whole were intent on keep Slavery in America, the ONLY way it would have ended without Whites ending it would have been an entire overthrow of the Government that supported the practice. At the end of the day, as sleazy as you feel it sounds... yeah, Whites (SPECIFICALLY in America) did 'end Slavery'. They were the only ones with the POWER to do so. This does NOT discredit the many Slaves that fought and raised hell until a small group of Whites heard them. In fact, it raises what those that sacrificed did to an even HIGHER level... because they were some how able to compel enough of the very group that held power over them to release that power and risk their status in that effort. They who had nothing were able to convince those with everything to lose... to risk it all to aid them. I mean, it doesn't get much more impressive than that.
For the record this was not a statement of position. Instead it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to how regardless of whether of not the video contained factual errors this is an emotional charged topic for both sides of the political spectrum which tends to make the already caustic you tube comments downright nasty.
This was very enlightening. I didn't know there were people that actually believed some of these myths, makes me wonder if any of them actually paid attention in History class. Still I was not aware of most of the details you went over. I'm always happy to learn more about things I have only vague knowledge about. So thank you for the lesson ^_^
As descendant of those who started the Atlantic slave trade, yes, Africans had African slaves as a consequence of wars, but only after Europeans created the demand were wars started with the main objective of creating more slaves.
One thing to note about the cirst myth is that there was reportedly a lot of "mishandling" of indentured servants' contracts, resulting in them being trapped in service for, well, as long as the one holding the contract saw fit. Also, for some reason the timespan of 18 years is stuck in my head as related to the origin of the term 'redneck'.
What an interesting video! I like that it is well balanced, tackling myths from different parts of the political spectrum. As an undergrad I did a single semester module on the Peculiar Institution - I found it a fascinating subject. Far more complex I anticipated
Caressa Clark irish slaves in the U.S. at one point was about equal to african american slaves. they were kidnapped from ireland, almost 2/3 of them. they were forced into these conctracts. they did worse jobs since they were cheaper, not bought from africans but kidnapped. white christian culture and the british empire, largely the 10 commandment.... are what mostly ended slavery world wide. idc what this guy says, hes got bias sources. anyone can go through the documents and check the numbers, they kept records on it. also... the white christian culture thing is a worldwide event, so its kindof complex to go over it on the world scale... but their colonization and the u.s. backing out of the slave trade were the absolute largest factors in ending slavery in the world. the ending of slavery involves philosphy and history. i think you need to be well versed in history AND PHILOSOPHY.
My main objection to your video is that you seem to imply that indentured servitude was just a walk in the park, then you were free of your contract, and you went your merry way. Large numbers of indentured servants never lived to see the end of their contracts. There were many many abuses of the indentured servant system that you gloss over or don't even mention. You seem to have an inherent bias against admitting that many many white people labored under a terrible system that frequently abused them as badly as anyone suffered.
James Scott Not true. He did not even imply that indentured servitude was a "walk in the park." He simply stated that chattel slavery as.practiced on the U.S. was not equivalent to indentured servitude. While he exained the differences between the two. He also commented on cruel masters of indentured servants who did not honor the contract.
You don't have to tell me what he said, I watched the video as well. I just don't believe him. He minimized the effects of indentured servitude at every turn so he could make his case for the horror of chattel slavery, which no one is arguing against. In the time of white slavery and its twin brother 'indentured servitude' the colonies were run by Planters, for Planters and indentured servants had NO rights, regardless of what a worthless, unenforceable piece of paper said. The Magistrates did as they were told. "Servants" were told of jobs serving the upper classes of British North America for a short time and then promised a parcel of land with which to start their new life. It was a crock. When they got to the New World they found out they were 'serving' by working in the tobacco fields, their 'contracts' were lengthened by years for ridiculous infractions, and if they survived their service, they found out their promised land parcel was deep in Indian country. Try reading a book like White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh. It might give you something to think about. And unlike our author here they don't use Snopes and Slate as "sources."
Yes chattel and indentured are different. Indentured servitude was often cornered, ordered or swindled. Children in Great Britain would often disappear (hence the term kidnap "kid-nap"), because they were minors a seller would co-sign on behalf on a indentured contract, families even sold their children to pay off debts. You had a choice either go into debtors prison or sign your life away on a indentured contract. Stories and movies based on a person getting dunk in a bar then finding themselves on a boat to somewhere actually did happen frequent in the poorer corners of the UK. Indentured servants were treated harsher, although they had legal protections under their contract those were rarely enforced by the magistrates themselves. It was far more common occurrence magistrates would hand wave abuses that indentured servants would bring against their contract owners. The suicide rate of indentured servants was abnormally high, and contract owners did everything they could to lock in the indentured servants indefinitely through legal means. In essence indentured servants were made slaves through Law. If you were indentured, food services for a week added 2 weeks to your contract, clothing a month, illness 3 months. Tobacco seeds, equipment 6months to a year extra on your contract from any simple research and books on the subject on this matter. If your plot of land did not produce well enough you were in debt to your contract owner dependent of the cost. This constantly rolled over yearly, go read a contract I think there are a few digitized through the Library of Congress. No one is downplaying chattel in fact what this "historian" is doing is downplaying a form of slavery (that is what indentured servitude is) as non-slavery.
Thanks for debunking the myth: Indentured servitude was NOT the same thing as slavery. People entered into the contracts willingly (although there are stories of people being duped or Shanghaied), it was a means of learning a trade and getting passage to America. I have heard that even some American Indians entered indentured servitude contracts.
I'm not offended at all, actually cynical historian you are a really good fact checker. Thank you for posting your videos. Your videos are interesting to watch :)
Dwayne Corry it's a question of sevenrity. Some treated their slaves incredibly poorly, others recognized them as an investment and those slaves led lives of (relative) comfort. None would have let them go willingly (though there were instances of slave owners manumiting their entire plantation's population upon their death) and the Master - Slave dynamic could never be called truly equal or fair, it stands to reason some were treated better than others.
IamZren89 You are twisting history around. Most slaves who wanted to stay with their owners,did so because they provide safety, food and shelter and were protected from being attacked and killed. Very,few stayed because of "good conditions " or that they "liked" they liked their owners . Especially when the civil war broke out.
Read Mark Twains biography. His family had one when he was a boy that was pretty much a loved member of his family. After the war when he became a very wealthy man he had various servants on the payroll. The blacks were the highest paid.
Of course many Masters were kind to the slaves. It would be stupid to mistreat the slaves. Mistreatment fostered revolts and revolts ended with dead slaves. That would be a financial loss. Some loved their slaves, that is why the average African American is no longer dark black. Many slaves were freed when they past their working prime. Many slaves were allowed to earn money so they may purchase their freedom. Slaves sired by master were kept on the plantation, after all they were family. In hind sight it is easy to forget the dynamics of the society that existed. Slaves often took pride in the plantations they lived on and in their owners. This is not a popular bit of history, but true none the less. After the war, when the slaves were allowed to have a last name, they often took their owners name. It was a different place and a different time...
Of course they were! To the HOUSE slaves! Field slaves were a whole different thing, a distinction the slave masters deliberately enforced to encourage division among the slaves as a whole and undermine any chance of them uniting in revolt.
I was really skeptical at first because I saw you in my recommended and honestly thought you were going to be one of those racist people that said pretty much almost everything you've disproved in this video and I usually identify as an independent and your video was very well-made well-researched thank you for linking your sources because nobody ever links their sources and your sources came from credible reputable news organizations and not places like the Federalist or whatever the equivalent would be to someone who is liberal. I knew the majority of these because I really love history and studying history and watching documentaries and the intricacies of history and also disproving common knowledge that we believe but ends up being incorrect but actually learned a couple things from your video and that is what I always try to find in a good TH-camr learning new things better factual so very good job and you definitely got a new subscriber
LOL. Wow. After the colt Yuzhan Vong finished his racing career, he hoped his owners would put him out to stud. Instead, they gave him a hoof full of tissues and a jar of vasoline and told him to stay away from the breeding mares. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I met a Black man whose grandfather was a slave and fought for the Confederacy. When asked why he said that he had every confidence that the South would end slavery after the war ended.
I saw in a video somewhere that the South did free the slaves in final months of the war. I haven't verified this yet. Another video said that slavery was collapsing on its own and mechanical farm equipment hadn't even been invented yet.
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral & political evil in any country." - Robert E. Lee
"WOMEN ARE ALL DYKES" - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw See? I can quote mine to. That doesn't mean Lee didn't fight for slavery. The letter that line comes from is where Lee says that slavery was a necessary evil. As Lincoln said in response; if slavery is a necessary evil, it's hard to imagine what isn't.
What Lee fought for in his own words; “The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” Robert E. Lee I don't think Jefferson, Madison, or Washington could have said it better. Note - All the above were Virginians.
One of the main things the kid has wrong is that the Civil War didn't start because of slavery. It had everything to do with slavery. Abraham Lincoln downplayed slavery in the beginning but admits in his second inaugural speech that it was all about slavery
Anthony Johnson was said to live in the 1600's, why is his clothing in the picture so anachronistic? It resembles the attire of individuals in the second half of the 19th Century, not at all like what people wore in the 17th Century
Indentured servitude could be voluntary, but in the beginning most were involuntary, criminals and those who had fought against the crown, and you could whip or mistreat them the same as any African slave. Children were also sold into indentured servitude & were highly prized, as you could keep them 14 years, if you didn't work them to death before that.
"Another important difference between Latin America and the United States involved conceptions of race. In Spanish and Portuguese America, an intricate system of racial classification emerged. Compared with the British and French, the Spanish and Portuguese were much more tolerant of racial mixing-an attitude encouraged by a shortage of European women-and recognized a wide range of racial gradations, including black, mestizo, quadroon, and octoroon. The American South, in contrast, adopted a two-category system of race in which any person with a black mother was automatically considered to be black."
The fact that not all institutions of slavery were the same doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of Irish men and women who were considered legal property.
I live in Wales Britain , I could never understand why some people from the US had such hatred for someone who skin was black, it makes no sense . I for one , can understand not liking a person . But that comes down to their personality , not the colour of their skin.
During the time slavery was allowed by Britain, the British sold men from Ireland into slavery in the Caribbean. That is why you can find Irish names among people in the BVI who claim a distant ancestry.
Another argument for 7. Slaves werent cheap, and they were important, so you take good care of them and make Sure they stay Well, and make Sure they function as they should
Side Note: Leopold II king of Belgium 1865-1909 owned the Belgium Congo (under the name of the Congo Free State) and I mean he owned all of that country, its earth, plants, animals and human inhabitants. They were to the last man, woman and child his personal property and were treated as such. He enslaved the entire nation. He had a personal army of mercenaries who terrorized the population and enforced the universal slavery of it's inhabitants. Each and every last human even the children were forced to do free labor for him from sun up to sun down seven days a week. Very little food production was permitted, only enough to keep the population barely alive. The population was tortured on a daily basis. Arbitrary and atrocious punishments included random amputation of limbs of children and rounding up entire villages for slaughter. There is no consensus as to the exact number of people who lived in that country during that period and more importantly the number of people who died as a result of their systematic genocide perpetrated by Leopold II for his personal gain. The best estimates put the number at somewhere between 8 and 10 million tortured to death. Yes I include dying of starvation and disease within the category of those tortured to death since it was caused by their enslavement. Keep in mind that, that number is greater than all the African slaves ever held captive in North America by those of European descent and he accomplished that in about 20 years. I am not stating this in any way to minimize the issue of slavery in the Americas. It was a horrible massive crime systematically perpetrated by one small group but with the tacit approval of the government and by extension the people well after the formation of the U.S. But I do think it is important to keep such things in perspective. We weren't the first, we weren't the last, we weren't the worst and we did eventually correct our mistakes and it has been 152 yeas since anyone has held the status of slave or slave owner in this country and 46 years since the last slave died (Peter Mills 1861-1972). It has been over 60 years since the last slave holder died (not counting those who may have, as children, been the de facto owners of slaves). While many of my ancestors did own slaves, many more were slaves themselves. Most people in this country are a mixture of ethnicity and cultures. My DNA report took days to unravel. If we were for example to punish all who are descended from slave owners and reward all who were slaves I would be slapped around a lot but rewarded even more, metaphorically speaking. Yes it is important to learn and know history and remember it in order to avoid repeating past mistakes if for no other reason, but we also need to focus on the current practice of slavery around the world as well as within our own borders. One example, over half of the "Asian Spas" in the United States keep slaves. They call them massage therapists. But they are really slaves that are exploited women held captive and are for all intents and purposes slaves. They are not permitted to ever leave the place of business. They turn over all the money earned to their owners. They cannot refuse many requests made by the men who visit such places. Fear and intimidation are used to control them and occasionally they are found dead. Most are either here illegally and are afraid of being returned to face unimaginable consequences or they have had their passports confiscated by their "owners" who paid to transport them here to exploit them. When they get too old they are sold off as domestic servants.
Even some Native American tribes ended up keeping "slaves" but they were considered prisoners of war and regardless of race, were treated equally. But it still happened.
Thanks for the good list of literature on the topic, and the solid research. The fact that none of the critical commentators can list a single serious research to back their criticism speaks volumes.
One slight objection I have; indentured servitude was still slavery. Lessor slavery, but still slavery. The prison point doesn't really make sense, as that's punishments. It's not people who are forced to sell themselves off for some reason. The thing about the Irish and indentured servitude is that they were fleeing persecution, and had to sell their freedom to get aboard boats.
"Serfdom made it unnecessary." Well, a serf was not owned by a person in the "slave" sense, but it owed upward to everybody in the feudalistic hierarchy. Was born owing money and service to the local and the royal rulers. Didn't needed chains because was not allowed to travel without travel papers signed by the local ruler, who would give such paper for payment only and a serf couldn't afford such since if he/she did it meant he already owed money to the ruler. A serf in most country was pretty much a slave without chains. People who cut traveling without papers were arrested and sent to hard labor with life sentence as prisoners. The kings did wars and they needed soldiers so they went to serf villages closed both entrance and took the men from 14 to 30 years of age. for 15 to 20 years of military service. This existed in some countries of Europe all the way to the late 1800 early 1900. Serfdom was a form of slavery.
Well, I was certainly taught in college that the Civil War was fought over States Rights. The reason is, according to the US Constitution, the states reserved the right to create it's own laws and not the federal government.
One of the biggest myths about slavery is that the Egyptians used slaves to build the pyramids. They were built partially by professional craftsmen and during the time of the Nile flood, when farmers could not work the land, the fittest males spent about three months a year labouring at the building site. There were villages set up for them which included bakeries, brewers and other food suppliers, and they got paid for their work in cash and in kind. There are even reports of these men going on strike when they didn't get their payments. One (at least) was because they weren't supplied with the makeup they used! So sorry to any Christians, but the bit about Hebrew slaves building the pyramids is bunkum. There is no record of a group of people called Hebrews or any other name associated with them, either. And for a country obsessed with keeping records (hence us knowing about the makeup strike), you'd think there would be traces of their existence at least.
In the same letter as Lincoln sent to Greley ("if i could save the union"), he also adds: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." The 1st part without this one is often used to attempt a demonstration on how Lincoln didnt care about slavery.
Many of those in indentured servitude had been transported from Britain. Between 1718 and 1775 Britain sent more than 50,000 convicts to America. On arrival the convicts were auctioned off to serve out their sentences. Transportation was one of the factors leading to the American Revolution, though this is usually overlooked. It was only after the loss of the American colonies that Britain took an interest in settling Australia, transporting 160,000 convicts between 1788 and 1868. It is well known that Australia was founded as a convict settlement and that does not seem to bother Australians. Americans are generally unaware of their convict history and prefer the term indentured servant.
Yes slavery is mentioned in documents of succession because that is the issue that was raised with the new territories such as Kansas - and the south felt that the state should be left to decide the issue. After John Brown's raid it became the focus of state rights.
In what year? There were "No Colored Need Apply" signs until at least 1965. In those days, unions, which are supposed to be so "liberal," today, were nothing but the Northern-white version of the KKK. Their point was to ensure that no coloreds could "take white men's jobs."
If you pause the video during the document part with "slave" highlighted, you'll see that 75 percent of its usage is to refer to the south as "slave holding states" not necessarily talking about slavery as an entity.
It's the little things that get me, such as that newspaper ad from 1768, taken out for the return of the Irish servant gal, Martha Carr. "She is thought to have gone off with a couple of sailors, deserted from the ship Randolph, lying at Chester town, Kent County." Sounds like the beginning of a very interesting story. Pity we'll never know what happened.
Can you explain what you meant by Chattel Slavery in the Spanish colonies? Aside from some sketchy claims present in the CIA world factbook without any further sources, I can't seem to find much information regarding this. Native Americans became serfs rather than outright slaves from pretty much the beginning of the settlements int he new world, and while the Spaniards did participate in the Atlantic Slave Trade, it was done mostly following the trend set by the Portuguese (who were the first to participate in the Atlantic slave trade) and British (who pretty much invented the triangle slave trade), not the other way around.
well done.Would love it if you would consider discussing two subjects/topics 1-the phony ignored trade embargo north vs. south 2-the fact that more than a few wealthy Southerners could pay to have others serve in the CSA in their stead Thanks
thank you. facts are so valuable. we need facts and the ability to distinguish them from fiction, the ability to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy sources
Could you do a video about penal colonies of Australia. I think transporting the poorest people out of society, for mainly petty crimes....plus the year long boat ride to a hostile land, where you're forced to build the colony from sandstone......was pretty much slavery. Im curious to know what you think
In my area iron mining was a big thing in the middle of the 19th century. The miners lived in Iron company housing and were paid in company script, which was only good in the company store. A story was related to me about a old fellows father who worked in the mines and was injured. He was carried to his house and laid on the kitchen table for the family to deal with. Granted they weren't slaves but only a notch or two above the slaves.
When mentioning being nice to slaves and love being ways to quell slave rebellion, he neglected to mention the best psychological tool that the slave owners had against slave rebellion: Christianity. As long as slaves believe in heaven and hell they're going to be more willing to accept hardship in exchange for heaven and fear rebelling over fear of ending up in hell.
Treestump & Thunderarch It wasn't christianity my ancestors were not allowed to practice. It was their own culture which is not religious at all. Christianity was use against them so that they would forget how to practice their own culture which was and is still more powerful than anything you can imagine or dream. Their are many movies about my ppl in Hollywood except they use fun characters like wonder woman or ppl like the ones in Apocolyto. They're telling the truth. But just not the entire truth. And they've always used non "black" ppl to depict who the slaves "my ancestors" really were. And who we are today. We have a long time to go at this rate of discovering the Jewels of America and those who are scattered. But no, christianity was no threat. It was my ancestors culture that was the true threat. The books that they were told not to try to read was really the documents and writings they took away from them when they took the ppl. They took their names, their tribe identity, and so. That's why the descendants scattered cling to other outside cultures and make a fool of they self. They don't have their own. It was beat out of all the ppl before us and never past down. But it had nothing to do with that christian junk. Christianity was made up to give to the ppl before us to pass down instead of the TRUTH.
Excellent point, Christianity is poison.
Amen
Same for all religions. Brahmins use reincarnation to oppress the poor.
Religion has always been a tool for control.
While physical slavery has diminished greatly over the centuries, the slavery of the human mind has increased so rapidly that people don't even realize what is being done to them every single day.
Indentured servants were subject to having their contract extended without their agreement, and were often inherited by new masters when their old one died, thus completely renewing their contract for its original length. Working indefinately without consent is slavery.
While this doesn't negate the injustice of African slavery, African slavery doesn't negate the suffering of people working in bondage as indentured servants either. That would be like saying it's okay to abuse a child as long as there have been others who were abused worse.
One injustice does not have fall in the exact category of another.
Slaves *were* different from indentured servants legally.
The mark of slavery did pass from person throughout his line and were classified as not human.
What's the classical song that was played at 5:14? It's bugging the hell me, can't remember.
It's from a set of songs by Martin Klem. Their all called "Peaceful Piano(s)," but there's 29 of them. Don't remember which one of those it is.
The cynical historian it's ok mate it popped into my head. it's Pachelbel's Canon. Thanks anyway.
I really despise people that take documents and the content out of contacts to suit their narrative.
you mean "context"?
@@benjamincurwoodno he meant people who get their content off of their contacts.
I get that white people weren't the first abolitionists, but wasn't England unique in allocating resources to specifically fight slavery? I'm thinking of the West African Squadron en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
That's true but that doesn't negate the fact that they sent a fleet to combat slavery.
They were indeed forceful when they got around to it, but that was well after Haiti had already gained its independence. Afterall, the US joined that squadron while it maintained slavery. I'll actually talk about the African Slave Patrol in a couple weeks.
The British public were largely ignorant of the way slaves were treated and when working class people found out they most often sided with the slaves - such as the Society for the Relief of the Black Poor & the repatriation to Sierra Leone (along with numerous white wives). Much of the acceptance of slavery was based upon their being "heathens" but as more became Christians the abolition movement grew.Not only did Britain send a fleet to Africa it also overthrew African states whose economy had been based on slavery & which collapsed as the slave trade ended, which was a major driver for British colonial expansion.Most white & Irish slaves (clan chiefs would also sell their clansmen into slavery for profit) were sent to Barbados not continental America, where they were known as "redlegs".
SOS DD "Adopted by"? It was a derogatory term used by southern democrats to describe whites laboring alongside their black counterparts prior to and following abolition. It's used again today by the same democrats to ascribe southern whites as racists. The irony is likely above you. However, shame on you.
+ George Jungle The Southern Democrats integrated themselves into the republican party after Civil Rights Act. They have virtually little in common with todays party, most of them have died of old age.
Hey, so um, I'm about to get real unpopular real quick. So on Indentured Servitude, it's much more, um, complex in that the "Criminals" were convicted of being the wrong ethnicity, the two examples of course being the Irish Clearances and the Suppression of the Jacobites, in the case of the Jacobites you can of course call them traitors but it was the case that many Scots who had had nothing to do with it were caught up in the sweep, in both cases you were forced to either sign the documents or be executed, I want to be very clear on this just how "Voluntary" these indentures were is super contentious, and given the points in time were the majority of them occured it is much more likely that they were coerced then not.
Once brought to the Americas there was often little in the way of Centralized Authority to monitor that the Indentures were being treated within the confines of the law, and in the case of the Irish and the Jacobites racist attitudes and hatred of the "Traitors" would likely have lead to a certain reluctance on the part of many people in authority to abide by the laws rather than turn a blind eye.
Then of course we get to the fact that depending where the plantation was the indentured could very well be stuck for life, as if they were far enough from any other settlement being "Freed" meant at best a very long walk with no food and water, so a sort of chain of contracts would occur with the indenture having to sign a new one each time or face starvation.
Part of the problem is we have little evidence on either side and in the case of criminal acts shouldn't really expect much, especially if athouritys were turning a blind eye, so this all quickly leads down the rabbit hole of conjecture.
After doing as much reserch as I could into this my Personal Oppion is that De Jure there were no white slaves but De Facto there was.
I await the inevitable screaming matches that occur whenever I give my opinion on this one,
-Timon
No one is claiming that being an indentured servant was a walk in the park. The point is, that period of indenture, whether voluntary, coerced or enforced, was limited. Yes many people no doubt died before there time was up. Some may have faced freedom with nothing. Yes some people were denied release at the end of their time - this may have been because they had committed a crime while indentured and their ‘sentence’ was - fairly or unfairly - increased. Whatever the reason, the extending of the contract could be challenged in court, they had rights. Slaves cannot challenge their slavery, it is for life, they have no rights and, crucially, it is/was a status passed to their children. No doubt some indentured servants were treated badly, but that was not the norm. In Britain in the 18th and early to mid 19th century some orphans and pauper children were sent to factories and mills, they had to work long hours and were not permitted to leave, they got no pay and they had no choice, so I guess, for a while, they were ‘slaves’, it was a system that was open to and was abused, but if they lived and their period of ‘apprenticeship’ (commonly 10 years) was completed, they could leave or stay on as a paid worker. Being an indentured servant or pauper apprentice meant you were in a crappy situation that could last for years, but it is was still not true slavery.
Timon Ferguson sounds like you change the meaning of a slave to include having no legal rights and such. a slave is one who is the legal property of another. If you had a contract, they were slaves. Maybe not for life, but then would you say that those slave who were freed weren't slaves in the past? A slave is a slave. one could be treated worse or better, be forced into it or "volunteer".
So I guess you oppose the use of the term "sex slavery," since it isn't necessarily a permanent state. Right?
Timon Ferguson thank you for saying what should be said.
Timon Ferguson amen brother
The claim that many slave owners were "kind" and "loving" towards the people who they enslaved depends on your definition of "kind" and "loving". It might fit an abusive person's definitions of "kind" and "loving", e.g. the definitions imagined by those rare men in modern times who have kidnapped girls or women in first world nations and kept them isolated from the world as sex slaves. Keeping someone as a captive, especially when the captors violently assault or kill slaves who flee, is not being "kind" nor "loving". ANY slavery certainly is not a healthy definition of "kind" and "loving".
#10 You seem to have intentionally forgot about about Britain's 60 year Crusade to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade via the West Africa Squadron. This is probably what people are talking about.
also don't claim to only focus on slavery in America, and then when it comes time to talk about abolitionism- suddenly switch gears to talk about Ancient China. You're being intentionally dishonest.
And half of the time Africa is mentioned. so dishonest
Um he didn't. He said he'd be *mostly* be referring to America because that's where the majority of these myths permunate from but didn't explicitly or implicitly say he'd exclude discussing anyone else.
They indeed tried, as did the US - but the African Slave Trade Patrol was almost entirely ineffective. That does not speak to the issue at hand with #10 though. This claim fails to account for the people who were actively fighting slavery for centuries (ie the slaves themselves), just to give the credit to the people who were ultimately responsible for maintaining the legality of the institution in the first place. Such a claim is like giving credit for the civil rights movement to the US congress.
Here are the Two issues with #10.
#1. You said you were going to talk specifically about America. Therefore it doesn't matter what China did, or anyone else.
#2. In America the White Male held the Power, the White Male was the only one with the AUTHORITY to stop Slavery. No matter how many Slave Rebellions, the only way the Slaves (of ANY and ALL Races) could stop American Slavery was by killing those in charge until the Government folded. This did not occur.
So it is very true that IN AMERICA Whites ended Slavery. Because, as we are constantly reminded, it was ONLY Whites that held the Institutional Power.
You want to argue that because it was also Whites who CREATED Slavery (specifically IN AMERICA as a Law with protections under a Legal System allowed by a Government) that they can not be credited for ending it... but this is faulty logic.
If Whites as a whole were intent on keep Slavery in America, the ONLY way it would have ended without Whites ending it would have been an entire overthrow of the Government that supported the practice.
At the end of the day, as sleazy as you feel it sounds... yeah, Whites (SPECIFICALLY in America) did 'end Slavery'. They were the only ones with the POWER to do so.
This does NOT discredit the many Slaves that fought and raised hell until a small group of Whites heard them. In fact, it raises what those that sacrificed did to an even HIGHER level... because they were some how able to compel enough of the very group that held power over them to release that power and risk their status in that effort.
They who had nothing were able to convince those with everything to lose... to risk it all to aid them. I mean, it doesn't get much more impressive than that.
Abandon hope all ye who approach the comment section...
For the record this was not a statement of position. Instead it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to how regardless of whether of not the video contained factual errors this is an emotional charged topic for both sides of the political spectrum which tends to make the already caustic you tube comments downright nasty.
translation: I'm a racist imbecile
The Glorious Winged Hussar 😂😂
Translation: People who use the word "cuckold" as a political insult are mental 10-year-olds, and a bunch of them will show up in the comments here.
Christopher Harper Digicash Indeed
This was very enlightening. I didn't know there were people that actually believed some of these myths, makes me wonder if any of them actually paid attention in History class. Still I was not aware of most of the details you went over. I'm always happy to learn more about things I have only vague knowledge about. So thank you for the lesson ^_^
As descendant of those who started the Atlantic slave trade, yes, Africans had African slaves as a consequence of wars, but only after Europeans created the demand were wars started with the main objective of creating more slaves.
One thing to note about the cirst myth is that there was reportedly a lot of "mishandling" of indentured servants' contracts, resulting in them being trapped in service for, well, as long as the one holding the contract saw fit. Also, for some reason the timespan of 18 years is stuck in my head as related to the origin of the term 'redneck'.
What an interesting video! I like that it is well balanced, tackling myths from different parts of the political spectrum.
As an undergrad I did a single semester module on the Peculiar Institution - I found it a fascinating subject. Far more complex I anticipated
what is that photo called at 3:09?
That's Giulio Rosati, Inspection of New Arrivals
I just can’t grasp the concept, no matter what date and time, anyone, ever thought it was ok to own another person...
The most respectfully given, and non-biased information on this topic i have ever seen.
Agreed.
That must be why the SJWs and the Geeks hate it so much! :P
So many crazy people these days ...
I admire his attempt but he relies on multiple flawed sources for a lot of incorrect information.
Caressa Clark I'm black and I agree.But I still had to check his sources to make sure they were legit.
Caressa Clark irish slaves in the U.S. at one point was about equal to african american slaves. they were kidnapped from ireland, almost 2/3 of them. they were forced into these conctracts. they did worse jobs since they were cheaper, not bought from africans but kidnapped. white christian culture and the british empire, largely the 10 commandment.... are what mostly ended slavery world wide.
idc what this guy says, hes got bias sources. anyone can go through the documents and check the numbers, they kept records on it. also... the white christian culture thing is a worldwide event, so its kindof complex to go over it on the world scale... but their colonization and the u.s. backing out of the slave trade were the absolute largest factors in ending slavery in the world.
the ending of slavery involves philosphy and history. i think you need to be well versed in history AND PHILOSOPHY.
Instead of mass incarceration they should make inmates indentured servants
Excellent - really enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work.
My main objection to your video is that you seem to imply that indentured servitude was just a walk in the park, then you were free of your contract, and you went your merry way. Large numbers of indentured servants never lived to see the end of their contracts. There were many many abuses of the indentured servant system that you gloss over or don't even mention. You seem to have an inherent bias against admitting that many many white people labored under a terrible system that frequently abused them as badly as anyone suffered.
James Scott
Not true. He did not even imply that indentured servitude was a "walk in the park." He simply stated that chattel slavery as.practiced on the U.S. was not equivalent to indentured servitude. While he exained the differences between the two. He also commented on cruel masters of indentured servants who did not honor the contract.
You don't have to tell me what he said, I watched the video as well. I just don't believe him. He minimized the effects of indentured servitude at every turn so he could make his case for the horror of chattel slavery, which no one is arguing against. In the time of white slavery and its twin brother 'indentured servitude' the colonies were run by Planters, for Planters and indentured servants had NO rights, regardless of what a worthless, unenforceable piece of paper said. The Magistrates did as they were told. "Servants" were told of jobs serving the upper classes of British North America for a short time and then promised a parcel of land with which to start their new life. It was a crock. When they got to the New World they found out they were 'serving' by working in the tobacco fields, their 'contracts' were lengthened by years for ridiculous infractions, and if they survived their service, they found out their promised land parcel was deep in Indian country. Try reading a book like White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America
by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh. It might give you something to think about. And unlike our author here they don't use Snopes and Slate as "sources."
Yes chattel and indentured are different. Indentured servitude was often cornered, ordered or swindled. Children in Great Britain would often disappear (hence the term kidnap "kid-nap"), because they were minors a seller would co-sign on behalf on a indentured contract, families even sold their children to pay off debts. You had a choice either go into debtors prison or sign your life away on a indentured contract. Stories and movies based on a person getting dunk in a bar then finding themselves on a boat to somewhere actually did happen frequent in the poorer corners of the UK. Indentured servants were treated harsher, although they had legal protections under their contract those were rarely enforced by the magistrates themselves. It was far more common occurrence magistrates would hand wave abuses that indentured servants would bring against their contract owners. The suicide rate of indentured servants was abnormally high, and contract owners did everything they could to lock in the indentured servants indefinitely through legal means. In essence indentured servants were made slaves through Law. If you were indentured, food services for a week added 2 weeks to your contract, clothing a month, illness 3 months. Tobacco seeds, equipment 6months to a year extra on your contract from any simple research and books on the subject on this matter. If your plot of land did not produce well enough you were in debt to your contract owner dependent of the cost. This constantly rolled over yearly, go read a contract I think there are a few digitized through the Library of Congress. No one is downplaying chattel in fact what this "historian" is doing is downplaying a form of slavery (that is what indentured servitude is) as non-slavery.
boo whooo
I feel the same way, but then some people start talking about reparations that I would have to pay.
Thank you. That was a great history lesson and you covered a lot of ground in just 14 minutes.
Thanks for debunking the myth: Indentured servitude was NOT the same thing as slavery. People entered into the contracts willingly (although there are stories of people being duped or Shanghaied), it was a means of learning a trade and getting passage to America.
I have heard that even some American Indians entered indentured servitude contracts.
Great Video! It was very informative. I hope the people going around repeating these alternative facts view this video!
I'm not offended at all, actually cynical historian you are a really good fact checker. Thank you for posting your videos. Your videos are interesting to watch :)
+The Cynical Historian, this video will hurt many a butt. I hope you have asbestos underwear, because the flames are coming.
+Vinchenzo C you mean like, this videos going to hurt his butt cuz it's so full of shit?
😂all these people fighting in the comments
now you see how a war could start over it. And it has been dead over 150 years.
Very good info. Reading through the comments, lots of sensitive folks.
20 years of indentured servitude,not a life sentence,no big deal,in a time when life expectancy was 35.
I wonder at what age your servitude could be made legal?
+Kudjoe Adkins-Battle I don't have kids.I hate them.
Clint Davis life expectancy was 35 due to high mortality rate among children and infants.
Your comment shows your bias, he never said it was "no big deal" he said its simply and factually not the same thing.
He said "many MASTERS were kind to their slaves" Is he fuckin serious😂😂😂
Dwayne Corry it's a question of sevenrity. Some treated their slaves incredibly poorly, others recognized them as an investment and those slaves led lives of (relative) comfort. None would have let them go willingly (though there were instances of slave owners manumiting their entire plantation's population upon their death) and the Master - Slave dynamic could never be called truly equal or fair, it stands to reason some were treated better than others.
IamZren89 You are twisting history around. Most slaves who wanted to stay with their owners,did so because they provide safety, food and shelter and were protected from being attacked and killed. Very,few stayed because of "good conditions " or that they "liked" they liked their owners . Especially when the civil war broke out.
Read Mark Twains biography. His family had one when he was a boy that was pretty much a loved member of his family. After the war when he became a very wealthy man he had various servants on the payroll. The blacks were the highest paid.
Of course many Masters were kind to the slaves. It would be stupid to mistreat the slaves. Mistreatment fostered revolts and revolts ended with dead slaves. That would be a financial loss. Some loved their slaves, that is why the average African American is no longer dark black. Many slaves were freed when they past their working prime. Many slaves were allowed to earn money so they may purchase their freedom. Slaves sired by master were kept on the plantation, after all they were family. In hind sight it is easy to forget the dynamics of the society that existed. Slaves often took pride in the plantations they lived on and in their owners. This is not a popular bit of history, but true none the less. After the war, when the slaves were allowed to have a last name, they often took their owners name. It was a different place and a different time...
Of course they were!
To the HOUSE slaves!
Field slaves were a whole different thing, a distinction the slave masters deliberately enforced to encourage division among the slaves as a whole and undermine any chance of them uniting in revolt.
you are a slave if you are in prison...
howard minkler one line moor ron
John Harris lol
Howard Minkler then don't go to prison...
Your an idiot
Jordan TRusso fuck your opinion
OMG where did you get the contract signed John Reid? 14:48 14:49.
I was really skeptical at first because I saw you in my recommended and honestly thought you were going to be one of those racist people that said pretty much almost everything you've disproved in this video and I usually identify as an independent and your video was very well-made well-researched thank you for linking your sources because nobody ever links their sources and your sources came from credible reputable news organizations and not places like the Federalist or whatever the equivalent would be to someone who is liberal. I knew the majority of these because I really love history and studying history and watching documentaries and the intricacies of history and also disproving common knowledge that we believe but ends up being incorrect but actually learned a couple things from your video and that is what I always try to find in a good TH-camr learning new things better factual so very good job and you definitely got a new subscriber
"It's heritage, not hate." Actually, it is a heritage OF hate.
LOL. Wow. After the colt Yuzhan Vong finished his racing career, he hoped his owners would put him out to stud. Instead, they gave him a hoof full of tissues and a jar of vasoline and told him to stay away from the breeding mares. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your trainer says to stay away from Flicka and Songbird, Vong. They want to improve the breed, not bazturize it.
Ad hominem. Nice.
not all slaves were forced to work for the Confederacy some voluntarily joined
Dakota Nelson Yeah..more than likely under duress.
Dakota Nelson, slaves were following their owner's in these instances. This was not voluntary.
I met a Black man whose grandfather was a slave and fought for the Confederacy. When asked why he said that he had every confidence that the South would end slavery after the war ended.
Islamisthecultofsin he would be sadly mistaken
I saw in a video somewhere that the South did free the slaves in final months of the war. I haven't verified this yet. Another video said that slavery was collapsing on its own and mechanical farm equipment hadn't even been invented yet.
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will
acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral & political
evil in any country." - Robert E. Lee
"WOMEN ARE ALL DYKES" - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw
See? I can quote mine to. That doesn't mean Lee didn't fight for slavery. The letter that line comes from is where Lee says that slavery was a necessary evil. As Lincoln said in response; if slavery is a necessary evil, it's hard to imagine what isn't.
Loves me some history. Objective means to understand fully, without judgement
What Lee fought for in his own words;
“The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” Robert E. Lee
I don't think Jefferson, Madison, or Washington could have said it better.
Note - All the above were Virginians.
One of the main things the kid has wrong is that the Civil War didn't start because of slavery. It had everything to do with slavery. Abraham Lincoln downplayed slavery in the beginning but admits in his second inaugural speech that it was all about slavery
Anthony Johnson was said to live in the 1600's, why is his clothing in the picture so anachronistic? It resembles the attire of individuals in the second half of the 19th Century, not at all like what people wore in the 17th Century
Indentured servitude could be voluntary, but in the beginning most were involuntary, criminals and those who had fought against the crown, and you could whip or mistreat them the same as any African slave. Children were also sold into indentured servitude & were highly prized, as you could keep them 14 years, if you didn't work them to death before that.
That's true. But, so what?
"Another important difference between Latin America and the United States involved conceptions of race. In Spanish and Portuguese America, an intricate system of racial classification emerged. Compared with the British and French, the Spanish and Portuguese were much more tolerant of racial mixing-an attitude encouraged by a shortage of European women-and recognized a wide range of racial gradations, including black, mestizo, quadroon, and octoroon. The American South, in contrast, adopted a two-category system of race in which any person with a black mother was automatically considered to be black."
The fact that not all institutions of slavery were the same doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of Irish men and women who were considered legal property.
I live in Wales Britain , I could never understand why some people from the US had such hatred for someone who skin was black, it makes no sense . I for one , can understand not liking a person . But that comes down to their personality , not the colour of their skin.
During the time slavery was allowed by Britain, the British sold men from Ireland into slavery in the Caribbean. That is why you can find Irish names among people in the BVI who claim a distant ancestry.
Another argument for 7.
Slaves werent cheap, and they were important, so you take good care of them and make Sure they stay Well, and make Sure they function as they should
Side Note:
Leopold II king of Belgium 1865-1909 owned the Belgium Congo (under the name of the Congo Free State) and I mean he owned all of that country, its earth, plants, animals and human inhabitants. They were to the last man, woman and child his personal property and were treated as such. He enslaved the entire nation. He had a personal army of mercenaries who terrorized the population and enforced the universal slavery of it's inhabitants. Each and every last human even the children were forced to do free labor for him from sun up to sun down seven days a week. Very little food production was permitted, only enough to keep the population barely alive. The population was tortured on a daily basis. Arbitrary and atrocious punishments included random amputation of limbs of children and rounding up entire villages for slaughter. There is no consensus as to the exact number of people who lived in that country during that period and more importantly the number of people who died as a result of their systematic genocide perpetrated by Leopold II for his personal gain. The best estimates put the number at somewhere between 8 and 10 million tortured to death. Yes I include dying of starvation and disease within the category of those tortured to death since it was caused by their enslavement. Keep in mind that, that number is greater than all the African slaves ever held captive in North America by those of European descent and he accomplished that in about 20 years. I am not stating this in any way to minimize the issue of slavery in the Americas. It was a horrible massive crime systematically perpetrated by one small group but with the tacit approval of the government and by extension the people well after the formation of the U.S. But I do think it is important to keep such things in perspective. We weren't the first, we weren't the last, we weren't the worst and we did eventually correct our mistakes and it has been 152 yeas since anyone has held the status of slave or slave owner in this country and 46 years since the last slave died (Peter Mills 1861-1972). It has been over 60 years since the last slave holder died (not counting those who may have, as children, been the de facto owners of slaves).
While many of my ancestors did own slaves, many more were slaves themselves. Most people in this country are a mixture of ethnicity and cultures. My DNA report took days to unravel. If we were for example to punish all who are descended from slave owners and reward all who were slaves I would be slapped around a lot but rewarded even more, metaphorically speaking.
Yes it is important to learn and know history and remember it in order to avoid repeating past mistakes if for no other reason, but we also need to focus on the current practice of slavery around the world as well as within our own borders.
One example, over half of the "Asian Spas" in the United States keep slaves. They call them massage therapists. But they are really slaves that are exploited women held captive and are for all intents and purposes slaves. They are not permitted to ever leave the place of business. They turn over all the money earned to their owners. They cannot refuse many requests made by the men who visit such places. Fear and intimidation are used to control them and occasionally they are found dead. Most are either here illegally and are afraid of being returned to face unimaginable consequences or they have had their passports confiscated by their "owners" who paid to transport them here to exploit them. When they get too old they are sold off as domestic servants.
Even some Native American tribes ended up keeping "slaves" but they were considered prisoners of war and regardless of race, were treated equally. But it still happened.
Thanks for the good list of literature on the topic, and the solid research. The fact that none of the critical commentators can list a single serious research to back their criticism speaks volumes.
When did you reenable the comments
One slight objection I have; indentured servitude was still slavery. Lessor slavery, but still slavery. The prison point doesn't really make sense, as that's punishments. It's not people who are forced to sell themselves off for some reason.
The thing about the Irish and indentured servitude is that they were fleeing persecution, and had to sell their freedom to get aboard boats.
"Serfdom made it unnecessary." Well, a serf was not owned by a person in the "slave" sense, but it owed upward to everybody in the feudalistic hierarchy. Was born owing money and service to the local and the royal rulers. Didn't needed chains because was not allowed to travel without travel papers signed by the local ruler, who would give such paper for payment only and a serf couldn't afford such since if he/she did it meant he already owed money to the ruler.
A serf in most country was pretty much a slave without chains. People who cut traveling without papers were arrested and sent to hard labor with life sentence as prisoners. The kings did wars and they needed soldiers so they went to serf villages closed both entrance and took the men from 14 to 30 years of age. for 15 to 20 years of military service. This existed in some countries of Europe all the way to the late 1800 early 1900. Serfdom was a form of slavery.
Actually the case of Anthony Johnson isn't a myth but more a misconception, he was one of first legally recognized slave owners.
A slave was a large investment. A sane slave-holder would try not to lose his property or devalue him/her by injuring them or incapacitating them.
Well, I was certainly taught in college that the Civil War was fought over States Rights. The reason is, according to the US Constitution, the states reserved the right to create it's own laws and not the federal government.
One of the biggest myths about slavery is that the Egyptians used slaves to build the pyramids. They were built partially by professional craftsmen and during the time of the Nile flood, when farmers could not work the land, the fittest males spent about three months a year labouring at the building site. There were villages set up for them which included bakeries, brewers and other food suppliers, and they got paid for their work in cash and in kind. There are even reports of these men going on strike when they didn't get their payments. One (at least) was because they weren't supplied with the makeup they used! So sorry to any Christians, but the bit about Hebrew slaves building the pyramids is bunkum. There is no record of a group of people called Hebrews or any other name associated with them, either. And for a country obsessed with keeping records (hence us knowing about the makeup strike), you'd think there would be traces of their existence at least.
In the same letter as Lincoln sent to Greley ("if i could save the union"), he also adds:
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
The 1st part without this one is often used to attempt a demonstration on how Lincoln didnt care about slavery.
Thanks for putting this up of youtube
Many of those in indentured servitude had been transported from Britain. Between 1718 and 1775 Britain sent more than 50,000 convicts to America. On arrival the convicts were auctioned off to serve out their sentences. Transportation was one of the factors leading to the American Revolution, though this is usually overlooked. It was only after the loss of the American colonies that Britain took an interest in settling Australia, transporting 160,000 convicts between 1788 and 1868. It is well known that Australia was founded as a convict settlement and that does not seem to bother Australians. Americans are generally unaware of their convict history and prefer the term indentured servant.
Yes slavery is mentioned in documents of succession because that is the issue that was raised with the new territories such as Kansas - and the south felt that the state should be left to decide the issue. After John Brown's raid it became the focus of state rights.
One of the better myth buster videos. Great video👍
Slave-maker ants have practiced slavery long before humans did.
Very true about the Irish. "Sign on the door read, No Irish need apply"
In what year? There were "No Colored Need Apply" signs until at least 1965. In those days, unions, which are supposed to be so "liberal," today, were nothing but the Northern-white version of the KKK. Their point was to ensure that no coloreds could "take white men's jobs."
Discrimination and indentured servitude are not the same as chattel slavery. Did you watch the video?
Well done, excellent video!
I already knew at least half of this stuff but it was nice to hear your narration anyway :)
The jab at 12 years a slave ignored that the amount of violence depicted took place over 12 whole years
Awesome Job, You've Earned My Sub.
In #6, is 36% the percentage of slave owning total people (including women, children, etc.), or just a percentage of households?
freemen, basically heads of household or independent men
So what do you suggest?
I see a lot of people screaming "LIES! WRONG! LIES! THIS VIDEO IS WRONG LIES!" but not a lot of people actually refuting him with evidence.
Regarding number 4, what can you tell us about foreign trade policies before the Civil War?
DUDE THANK YOU BEEN SAYING MOST OF THIS FOREVER
If you pause the video during the document part with "slave" highlighted, you'll see that 75 percent of its usage is to refer to the south as "slave holding states" not necessarily talking about slavery as an entity.
you nailed it number nine is the one people need to know the most
Lincoln said a lot of things he didn't completely believe in order to help end slavery.
Question so once all these myths are acknowledged by everybody what will change ?????
It's the little things that get me, such as that newspaper ad from 1768, taken out for the return of the Irish servant gal, Martha Carr. "She is thought to have gone off with a couple of sailors, deserted from the ship Randolph, lying at Chester town, Kent County." Sounds like the beginning of a very interesting story. Pity we'll never know what happened.
Can you explain what you meant by Chattel Slavery in the Spanish colonies? Aside from some sketchy claims present in the CIA world factbook without any further sources, I can't seem to find much information regarding this. Native Americans became serfs rather than outright slaves from pretty much the beginning of the settlements int he new world, and while the Spaniards did participate in the Atlantic Slave Trade, it was done mostly following the trend set by the Portuguese (who were the first to participate in the Atlantic slave trade) and British (who pretty much invented the triangle slave trade), not the other way around.
Alright, and afterwards you state the myth that Columbus was the first Atlantic slave trader. Why?
good video alot of people know nothing about history and just go along with what someone else says with out checking facts keep it up man
Well researched you got me to subscribe
: You sound strikingly similar to "masaman" (cool channel). Are you one in the same ?
Thanks for the video. It set a couple of things straight for me.
You truly did your research of this subject - 10 common slavery myths. Thanks for the truthful facts.
Thanks for the good informative video bro
Now that was enjoyable because it was so educational. I for one am ready to learn. And learning starts with listening.
Great video! And you're absolutely correctt on 'two wrongs don't make a right' (something the comment section should learn)
How can an event "predate" history, if history is the compilation of our past activities etc.
I would be interested to see you do a separate video on the Arab slave trade.
Thank you for this,,,,, I agree with most of the points made here except number 7
I'm glad you took a balanced approach to this politicized issue
in still trying to figure out what the difference between "endentured servitude for life" and "slave" is other than the name.
well done.Would love it if you would consider discussing two subjects/topics
1-the phony ignored trade embargo north vs. south
2-the fact that more than a few wealthy Southerners could pay to have others serve in the CSA in their stead
Thanks
thank you. facts are so valuable. we need facts and the ability to distinguish them from fiction, the ability to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy sources
Could you do a video about penal colonies of Australia. I think transporting the poorest people out of society, for mainly petty crimes....plus the year long boat ride to a hostile land, where you're forced to build the colony from sandstone......was pretty much slavery. Im curious to know what you think
In my area iron mining was a big thing in the middle of the 19th century. The miners lived in Iron company housing and were paid in company script, which was only good in the company store. A story was related to me about a old fellows father who worked in the mines and was injured. He was carried to his house and laid on the kitchen table for the family to deal with. Granted they weren't slaves but only a notch or two above the slaves.
Great job! Thank you for informing those who don't know about these truths. I think I'm going to read the comments.
Great video! Totally unbiased and historically based. Your critics must have taken the alternative history courses taught by the Alt-right!
Abe Lincoln was indecisive AF!
Well done and very informative.
LMAO! Lincoln was like, " I'ma do what ever fucking works........"