[Unperson-K]

As for "refusal to cooperate", passive resistance doesn't make the history books, hard to tell how widespread it was. No doubt the alt-righters would attribute it to "black laziness" anyway.

Of course, it is very difficult to quantify, since a lot of smaller forms of resistance went unrecorded - by its very nature, it was supposed to go undetected. However, there is good reason to believe it was extremely widespread: put 'slave resistance' into JSTOR and google books and you get thousands of scholarly works written on the ways in which slaves resisted in various different places and time periods.

But One Degree et al can't or won't do even this basic research (note I have twice asked One Degree to provide some sources to back his views on slavery). The reason is that, as One Degree has already acknowledged, they know that the weight of the evidence does not fit their preconceived views and so ignore it.

[snapdragon]

It's always a big mistake to read history backwards. We have the benefit of hindsight, the people at the time didn't.

[Sivad]

That was Kanye's point in the whole discussion, he rejected the alternative conclusion as being inherently racist (as it implies black inferiority).

It's not racist in the slightest. Any "race" of people would have accepted enslavement under those circumstances. Just look at the history of slavery in Europe, it lasted for thousands of years and that was Europeans enslaving Europeans. There were revolts and uprisings, just like in America, but most Europeans accepted their enslavement. Slavery is ubiquitous across the world and throughout history, there is no "race" of people who haven't accepted enslavement at some point in their history.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

The whole slavery thing is a very complicated issue. There were revolts there was compliance. The African American slave trade was just the end of a long history of slavery around the world. Technically they had a choice but not all choices are easy ones to make. As I said it's all very complicated and we don't really have a clear picture, none of us were there none of us experienced it.

However what I do find rather distasteful is how the liberals and liberal media have decided to attack Kanye West for being a free thinking black man who doesn't automatically conform to the liberal agenda. Bunch of racist bastards.

[Suntzu]

Most slaves were too stupid to escape or revolt.

[One Degree]

@One Degree,

What's your point though? Is this some backhanded way of you saying that Africans deserved to be slaves? Is that what you're getting at here?

No, it is a psychological factor that holds many back today. I have no doubt, when you were a child, someone kept telling you how smart you were. They told you, you could succeed. Many people, including but not limited to Blacks, don’t get this. When you combine this with a narrative of ‘whites are keeping you down’, they see themselves as victims. Successful people don’t get this because they did not live it. An educated Black man does not understand anymore than an educated white man.
This narrative needs to be broken before these kids will succeed. As a teacher, I saw what a miracle happens when you convince kids to break out of this victim mentality. If you think you are stupid and the world is out to get you, it is extremely difficult to succeed.

[Crantag]

Here's a novel idea. Kanye West is a moronic celebrity idiot, who isn't worth being listened to. That anyone takes a second thought for his utterances is merely a reflection of celebrity cult worship. He'd might as well be any other Tom, Dick or Harry with such remarks. Is he a noted historian? No? Than who gives a shit when he displays his ignorance.

[One Degree]

Kanye West is not important for what he says but for his refusal to be simply a member of a group. He is demanding his individuality knowing he will be villefied. I don’t care what else he stands for. Groupthink needs to end.

[blackjack21]

I voted other. Kanye was using 400 years starting from the present time with leftist blacks claiming that blacks are still enslaved. Kanye is pointing out that if that is the case, then slavery is a choice. Almost every place where blacks are getting shot by the police is governed by Democrats and has been for a long time. If blacks want that to stop, presumably they should change who they are voting for.

In many respects, I think this is the logical blowback from Black Lives Matter. If blacks are suffering in the inner city and the government is oppressing them, who is running that government? It's people like Rahm Emmanuel. You can blame Republicans for that, but that is essentially not accepting responsibility for your own life and your own vote, because Republicans aren't in charge of Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, New York, etc. Big cities are more or less run (and often very badly) by Democrats. If blacks want to vote for the people they claim are oppressing them, then slavery is indeed a choice.

[ThirdTerm]

I assume that there was no practical difference between slavery in the American South and serfdom in Tsarist Russia, which were institutions accepted by those who were enslaved. It required a revolution to destroy the entire system and African Americans didn't have a spiritual leader comparable to Lenin, who instigated the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Moreover, slaves and slave-owners formed a close bond in the American South, making slaves unlikely to rebel against their masters. Alexander II issued the Emancipation Manifesto in 1861, which parallels with President Abraham Lincoln's the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. By the 1860s, both countries had to abandon backward institutions to keep up with the modern era.

In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations have several hundred. Cotton was by far the leading cash crop, but slaves also raised rice, corn, sugarcane, and tobacco. Many plantations raised several different kinds of crops.

Besides planting and harvesting, there were numerous other types of labor required on plantations and farms. Enslaved people had to clear new land, dig ditches, cut and haul wood, slaughter livestock, and make repairs to buildings and tools. In many instances, they worked as mechanics, blacksmiths, drivers, carpenters, and in other skilled trades. Black women carried the additional burden of caring for their families by cooking and taking care of the children, as well as spinning, weaving, and sewing.

Because they lived and worked in such close proximity, house servants and their owners tended to form more complex relationships. Black and white children were especially in a position to form bonds with each other. In most situations, young children of both races played together on farms and plantations. Black children might also become attached to white caretakers, such as the mistress, and white children to their black nannies. Because they were so young, they would have no understanding of the system they were born into. But as they grew older they would learn to adjust to it in whatever ways they could.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

[The Sabbaticus]

This entire discussion was prompted by a literalist interpretation of Kanye's words (purposely interpreted as such by the MSM establishment.) Time: 1:18

[Patrickov]

Other.

This is a non-issue because his statement is based on an untrue condition. More importantly, it seems that he simply doesn't believe "400-years in slavery" is a true statement. We really shouldn't put something untrue up a vote.

His comment is gross stupidity and it's best to let it rot in obscurity.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I voted no. Slaves lacked the social mobility and self-awareness which could've allowed them to leave slavery. It took Fredrick Douglass, a slave who managed to move up the social ladder, and several other educated free slaves to make abolitionism a major part of 19th century American public consciousness. It was due to the fact that Fredrick Douglass and other educated free slaves managed to make works (novels, speeches, manifestos, etc.) which appealed to the ruling class of society at the time.

However social mobility for slaves in the US was near impossible. Fredrick Douglass himself was a remarkable exception to the rule. Slaves, no matter how educated or rich they became, were associated with their masters and had no freedoms whatsoever. There was no way for a slave to move up the social ladder. Once a slave, you're always a slave, always a lesser being. Even those in Fredrick Douglass's own social class thought of him as a lesser person. It's this lack of social mobility that continues to permeate to this day. White people still associate blacks with a certain class, always somewhat below them.

(This was never the case in the Middle East however)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It's actually an interesting question, because our current culture's conventional wisdom seems to be that oppression doesn't work and that people will eventually rise up and overthrow their overlords. I guess it depends on whether one regards 400 years as long enough to call it "successful oppression".

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

A successful oppression requires the oppressed to be able to communicate with ruling class. It is only through that which the suffering of the oppressed comes to light and the morality of the ruling class is put into question. Note how Communism became popular only after it became popular amongst the bourgeois and how the abolition movement started when African slaves began to write about their experiences and speak to whites about the horrors of their oppression. Had African slaves never learned to write or read, communication with the ruling class would be impossible and oppression would continue.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn

A successful oppression requires the oppressed to be able to communicate with ruling class. It is only through that which the suffering of the oppressed comes to light and the morality of the ruling class is put into question. Note how Communism became popular only after it became popular amongst the bourgeois and how the abolition movement started when African slaves began to write about their experiences and speak to whites about the horrors of their oppression. Had African slaves never learned to write or read, communication with the ruling class would be impossible and oppression would continue.

Interesting. I always thought that for social changes to happen at least some of the ruling class must be receptive to the idea and it's usually that group which then does most of the communication and organisation, such as writing and distributing pamphlets and books or trying to gain political influence, as they have the money, skills and influence to do it effectively. The further we go back in time the more this is true I think.

It's probably worthwhile to look at violent uprisings and rebellions separately because in these cases the result often depends on how ruthless the rulers are prepared to be in response. Unless they are weakened in some way by external or internal factors, maximum violence and terror puts down any rebellion fast.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

The ruling class is only responsible for making it popular among the ruling class. It takes an educated oppressed population communicating with the ruling class to actually popularize the rebellion. Therefore, the educated oppressed population does a lot of the writing and preaching that causes it to make the rebellion popular amongst the general public. The ruling class itself doesn't look at an idea and see whether or not it is appealing just like how whites didn't see the abolition of slavery as appealing. It takes communication with the ruling class from the oppressed to start a large rebellion. The ruling class never starts a rebellion as it is detrimental to it's status as the ruling class.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn

The ruling class is only responsible for making it popular among the ruling class. It takes an educated oppressed population communicating with the ruling class to actually popularize the rebellion. Therefore, the educated oppressed population does a lot of the writing and preaching that causes it to make the rebellion popular amongst the general public. The ruling class itself doesn't look at an idea and see whether or not it is appealing just like how whites didn't see the abolition of slavery as appealing. It takes communication with the ruling class from the oppressed to start a large rebellion. The ruling class never starts a rebellion as it is detrimental to it's status as the ruling class.

But without the ruling class's receptiveness or weakness a rebellion is very unlikely to succeed. That's at least my, admittedly limited, reading of history. And it seems to be the case even after people became increasingly literate. For instance, there have been countless peasant revolts across time and space but most were suppressed and the data probably suffers from bias in favour of large and successful rebellions as they are more noteworthy.

Wasn't the abolition movement essentially a religious movement in the beginning? Did the people involved have much contact with or read lots of accounts by slaves? I've always had the impression that these people regarded slavery as an abomination on principle.

[Oxymandias]

@Kaiserschmarrn

I agree to some extent. Literacy is an absolute necessary factor as being able to communicate your woes allows the ruling class to understand such woes. Peasant revolts that were suppressed has illiteracy as a factor in their failure. Furthermore, literacy at the time was only confined to the cities, not to the countryside where peasants actually lived. When modern "peasants" (i.e. the working class) lived in cities and learned how to read and write, communism was created out of a reaction to that and pushes for unionization and greater equality occurred during that time frame from those who sympathized with the peasants. Outside of that, most successful peasant revolts happened in times of crisis.

Data doesn't have bias otherwise it is not data. Historians often don't have bias about clear cut data like peasant revolts. All a historian has to do is go to the records of a particular polity and see if there are any peasant revolts recorded there. If there is x number of peasant revolts, then the historian takes it as true. The only time numbers are fluctuated is when the information itself isn't clear.

The abolition movement was a fringe movement for most of it's existence to the extent that it was non-existent for most of American history. Only after the divide between free and slave states was formed and slaves fled to the North, learned to read and write, and shared their experiences did the abolition movement hold any weight. It was through these accounts that the abolition movement was introduced to most of the American population. Without these works made by these former slaves, there would be no widespread abolition movement and the religious fervor which characterized mid-19th century America would have nothing to channel it's energy on.

Given that Life and Times of Fredrick Douglass sold close to nearly 400,000 copies (which is alot for the time) and that Uncle Tom's Cabin sold over 300,000 copies with one million sold in Great Britain, it seems to me that the abolition movement was quite widespread, not just in America, but in the rest of the world as well.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn

I agree to some extent. Literacy is an absolute necessary factor as being able to communicate your woes allows the ruling class to understand such woes. Peasant revolts that were suppressed has illiteracy as a factor in their failure. Furthermore, literacy at the time was only confined to the cities, not to the countryside where peasants actually lived. When modern "peasants" (i.e. the working class) lived in cities and learned how to read and write, communism was created out of a reaction to that and pushes for unionization and greater equality occurred during that time frame from those who sympathized with the peasants. Outside of that, most successful peasant revolts happened in times of crisis.

Data doesn't have bias otherwise it is not data. Historians often don't have bias about clear cut data like peasant revolts. All a historian has to do is go to the records of a particular polity and see if there are any peasant revolts recorded there. If there is x number of peasant revolts, then the historian takes it as true. The only time numbers are fluctuated is when the information itself isn't clear.

The abolition movement was a fringe movement for most of it's existence to the extent that it was non-existent for most of American history. Only after the divide between free and slave states was formed and slaves fled to the North, learned to read and write, and shared their experiences did the abolition movement hold any weight. It was through these accounts that the abolition movement was introduced to most of the American population. Without these works made by these former slaves, there would be no widespread abolition movement and the religious fervor which characterized mid-19th century America would have nothing to channel it's energy on.

Given that Life and Times of Fredrick Douglass sold close to nearly 400,000 copies (which is alot for the time) and that Uncle Tom's Cabin sold over 300,000 copies with one million sold in Great Britain, it seems to me that the abolition movement was quite widespread, not just in America, but in the rest of the world as well.

I think our main disagreement is with how decisive literacy and communication between the classes is. In my view it mainly serves to accelerate a development for which the conditions already exist. For instance, in Britain the legal justifications for slavery were removed by a court ruling in the late 18th century, thereby de facto domestically abolishing slavery. No widespread literature about slavery and communication with slaves was required as far as I know. And the British ban of the transatlantic slave trade in the early 19th century is, at least to some extent, attributed to the abolition movement and happened at a time when Britain was a major cultural influence on the US. I would interpret the popularity of the two books you mention as being evidence that a significant number of Americans were already critical of slavery, not the other way round, although again the widespread dissemination of information quite likely accelerated the development. I'd also say that if knowledge about the harsh conditions and plight of slaves was the decisive factor then those with first hand experience - i.e. people who owned slaves or lived with or close to them - should be dominant among abolitionists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

As for data being biased, maybe something is lost in translation. To clarify, we only know what people at the time thought was worthwhile to record which quite likely skews the data in favour of major and/or successful rebellions, because they actually had an impact or served as motivation for the successful party to record a victory.