anasawad wrote:Africa was lots of kingdoms and empires.
By the standards of multiculturalism, a tribal sub-Saharn African mask is at parity with Michelangelo's David. I just don't happen to agree. Africa is a big place, and wasn't populated exclusively with sub-Saharan blacks. Carthage and the Phonecians weren't black, but did occupy a lot of North Africa. At their peak, the Phonecians were more powerful than the fledgling Romans. Clients paid tribute to either Sidon or Tyre. When Alexander the Great defeated Tyre, that ended for the Greeks. When the Romans won the Punic Wars, that ended for Rome.
Numidia was nomadic Berbers of North Africa. Again, it wasn't sub-Saharan Africans, and it was subject to Rome.
The interesting sub-Saharan West African states were the Songhai Empire, the Mali Empire and the Ghana Empire as they were extensibly trade based and had significant quantities of gold. Whereas, a state like the Kingdom of Dahomey was built on traditional African slavery. The Sao civilization of Central Africa was somewhat significant in the same way that the Algonquin peoples in North America were as metal workers. However, the Sao and much of Africa didn't develop larger states until Islam overtook them in the 16th Century.
Early South African civilizations like Mapungubwe and the Kingdom of Zimbabwe were traders in gold. They were one of the few sub-Saharan civilizations to build in stone. However, to compare a recent civilization like the Kingdom of the Zulu to their European counterparts before colonization is rather absurd. The Europeans had long built municipalities in stone, and were circumnavigating the globe. The were still pre-capitalist, but were on the cusp of greatness last seen during the Roman Empire.
Egypt is still the main civilization or Empire by Western standards. Ethiopia had aspects of it, but Egypt and maybe Carthage are the only ones that really impressed Europeans.
anasawad wrote:Historically they weren't "savages" as much as you would like to make them seem as.
Well, compared to post-Renaissance Europe, they seemed that way to Europeans. Saying the Native Americans were "savages" is also not according their civilizations their accomplishments, but rather seen in contrast. For example, in Northern Europe, the Celts dominated for a long time, but never built anything that looked like an Empire. The fights between Romans and Celts is seen easily as a clash between Iron/Bronze-aged cultures and Classical culture of Ancient Rome. Clearly, the Romans were more advanced.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Hey everyone, we have someone that is bringing up what a victim he is. Let's go ahead and acknowledge Blackjack's hurt feelings, and maybe he'll discuss the topic and stop bringing up his blubbering victimhood.
I never claimed to be a victim at all. My father's ancestry is directly tied to the founding of the United States, and they were not exactly victims, unless you want to see their claim to "equality" as that of their not being the first born sons of the landed class and being "butthurt" about that. It's you Irish people who are constantly snivelling about how you weren't able to resist Rome, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans or the "English."
The Immortal Goon wrote:That would be a more proper response if someone had stated that the Black Plague was the best thing to happen to Europe.
Well, again, it was terrible for the individuals that went through it. However, it also led to the end of serfdom and villainy in much of Europe. The Peasant's Revolt in England was directly attributable to it. Whereas, serfdom lasted in Russia into the 19th Century, where they had serfs working in factories.
SolarCross wrote:It is worth stating that the reason for that is that white slaves were completely unavailable because at the time of colonisation of the Americas slavery had long been be abolished throughout Europe (possibly due to the influence of Christianity).
It wasn't so much Christianity as the Peasant's Revolt and subsequently the writs of manumission. For example, my father's ancestry traces back to Norman knights. They held lands, but they also held serfs they called "villeins." It wasn't quite the same as slavery, although the term "serf" or servant essentially means the same thing. They did have to pay duties to the lord of the manor, and they could not leave the demense as they were technically bonded by the land.
SolarCross wrote:In contrast Africa had no such prohibitions. Hence why slaves were available from Africa but not from Europe.
Africa had states that were built on slavery, and had them from time immemorial. There just wasn't any sort of plague that gave skilled working people an advantage in a pandemic induced depopulation.
Suntzu wrote:Not really true. A multitude of sources were tried but the African slaves were the only ones that could survive. Millions of new world Indians were enslaved but they didn't seem to last long.
Well, Native Americans knew the territory and how to live off the land. Africans did not.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Specifically, I doubt your claim that different slaves were bred for different purposes, and I doubt that you will provide evidence for this claim.
There is little doubt they had the sophistication to do that according to social status, but there is also little doubt that some slave owners bred their slaves in a manner no different from their livestock.Slave breeding in the United States
In the antebellum years, numerous escaped slaves wrote about their experiences in books called slave narratives. Many recounted that at least a portion of slave owners continuously interfered in the sexual lives of their slaves (usually the women). The slave narratives also testified that slave women were subjected to arranged marriages, forced matings, sexual violation by masters, their sons or overseers, and other forms of abuse. Skeptics maintain that reports from witnesses were apocryphal, and never specified a particular place in which breeding practices were alleged to have occurred.
The historian E. Franklin Frazier, in his book The Negro Family, stated that "there were masters who, without any regard for the preferences of their slaves, mated their human chattel as they did their stock." Ex-slave Maggie Stenhouse remarked, "Durin' slavery there were stockmen. They was weighed and tested. A man would rent the stockman and put him in a room with some young women he wanted to raise children from."
There is also a theory that says breeding was like banking and more or less a way of increasing the money supply.
Ned Sublette, co-author of the The American Slave Coast, states that the reproductive worth of "breeding women" was essential to the young country's expansion not just for labor but as merchandise and collateral stemming from a shortage of silver, gold, or sound paper tender. He concludes that slaves and their descendants were used as human savings accounts with newborns serving as interest that functioned as the basis of money and credit in a market premised on the continual expansion of slavery.Were there ever human breeding programs?
There was intentional interbreeding of Irish and African slaves in England's Caribbean colonies:
It would be interesting to see if African-Americans and Afro-Carribeans would share their DNA so we could study their ancestry and see if there are significant European influences, or if their is a statistically significant degree of relation to a person of common ancestry, suggesting breeding. We could establish this scientifically now.
Human breeding is Eugenics.
It used to be very popular with the left until the Jews started campaigning against it after WWII.