The Benefits of Slavery in America?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am curious as to what people are going to say, besides all the economic reasons and such.
Why would one assume it somehow had to be benefit America?

The point of it was to benefit Europe. There's a better case for that, historically.
 
What benefits?

This "diversity" thing is a bunch of bullcrap. It has no benefits whatsoever.

I challenge you to name one - and I mean it, just one concrete benefit of this so-called "diversity".
Here's a benefit (a few):

A.1. You learn about cultures that you normally wouldn't, helping to create empathy for those cultures
A.2. Without learning about other cultures, it's too easy to think your own is better
A.3. If you, or the general populace, has a notion that your own culture is better, then during war, it becomes morally easy to destroy a conquered people's culture and supplant your own
A.4. Destroying other nations' culture is generally considered a bad thing

Scenario A is exactly what the Japanese did. They had a very insulated culture.

B.1. You get to try foods that you normally wouldn't, when the immigrants come to your country and bring their recipes.

C.1. New ways of thinking can be introduced by immigrants in the scientific fields.

D.1. Products that are familiar in one culture can be brought to a new country, where those products might benefit the new nation.

I can't think of any others at this moment.

Overall, the notion of forced diversity that is common in politically correct thinking is a load of crap, in my opinion. "Diversity" has some benefits, but forcing it on groups is a load of crap. (I've dealt with forced diversity here at the office; it's totally stupid.)
 
Here's a benefit (a few):

A.1. You learn about cultures that you normally wouldn't, helping to create empathy for those cultures

School is also an excellent place to learn about the world. If another nation particularly interests you you could go there on vacation. Importing lots and lots of poor people from a certain culture wont enlighten the general public about that culture one bit.

A.2. Without learning about other cultures, it's too easy to think your own is better

It's very easy to think your own is better even with knowledge of the other, its more a question of what type of person you are.

A.3. If you, or the general populace, has a notion that your own culture is better, then during war, it becomes morally easy to destroy a conquered people's culture and supplant your own
A.4. Destroying other nations' culture is generally considered a bad thing

Scenario A is exactly what the Japanese did. They had a very insulated culture.

Yes. Good thing you yanks destroyed it and replaced it with your own then... :lol:

B.1. You get to try foods that you normally wouldn't, when the immigrants come to your country and bring their recipes.

Yes, thank god for the thousands of American immigrants who came to Sweden and shared their recipies for such delicasies as hamburgers and pizzas. Recipies do not spread except with migration and only ethnic Turks can make kebab.

C.1. New ways of thinking can be introduced by immigrants in the scientific fields.

D.1. Products that are familiar in one culture can be brought to a new country, where those products might benefit the new nation.

Do they have to actually immigrate to do this though? I don't think any of your points are very convincing.
 
There were marginal benefits in specific areas, but overall the effect was extremely negative, and America would have been much better off without it. (And that's not even considering the great moral crime that was slavery)

I am not saying the cotton plantations paid for it I am saying the English slave merchants paid for the revolution. I say it was definetly not worth it. I am against blacks in white countries.
Nazi. By what right do you have to say that America is a "white country" where others can't be allowed? If you're going by who was here first, then the natives were - and they aren't white, they're rather brownish.

But then, I don't really expect a rational argument from a racist such as yourself.
 
What means we would be with out the added benefits that diversity brings.
It's quite likely we'd still have migrants from Africa if we had never brought over slaves.

The problem with slavery, as it were, was that the people who were captured and brought over here were probably the least intelligent and least physically capable of the natives.
 
Do they have to actually immigrate to do this though? I don't think any of your points are very convincing.
I knew they weren't and that's fine. But they satisfy aneeshm's question anyway. He wanted benefits of "diversity" and I gave it to him. Sure, you can get all of those things from "nondiversity" but he wanted benefits of actually having "diversity" and those are just a few.

By the way, regarding the topic of the thread: Michael Medved makes slavery seem "not quite as bad":

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/..._inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery

"6 Inconvenient Truths About Slavery." What a nice title.
 
The problem with slavery, as it were, was that the people who were captured and brought over here were probably the least intelligent and least physically capable of the natives.

There we go. Its all falling into place now.

---
---

More OT.... Aside from this thread letting people expose their true colors, its pretty useless.
 
It's quite likely we'd still have migrants from Africa if we had never brought over slaves.

The problem with slavery, as it were, was that the people who were captured and brought over here were probably the least intelligent and least physically capable of the natives.

How so, I was under the assumption that the most strongest were captured/sold by Africans to the Europeans. Why would Whites want the weakest?
 
I am not saying the cotton plantations paid for it I am saying the English slave merchants paid for the revolution. I say it was definetly not worth it. I am against blacks in white countries.

That is one of the most blatant racist statements I have ever heard.
 
There we go. Its all falling into place now.
What is? Of my post, what was incorrect about it? We all know that there were Africans involved in the slave trade, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that the more enterprising ones were probably offering the slaves to Europeans rather than being slaves themselves. It's the same in any society anywhere.
 
One of America's greatest strengths is the people we allow in this nation. We can take the best and the brightest, the hardworking, the entrepreneurial, and those just wanting a new life no matter what skin color they are.
 
How so, I was under the assumption that the most strongest were captured/sold by Africans to the Europeans. Why would Whites want the weakest?
The weakest probably had a higher profit margin; easy to capture, you cram them in to your boat, sail off to the Americas, and then sell them to the highest bidder. How would anyone bidding on a slave even know how capable they were of performing their assigned tasks? Outside of just looking at them, they probably couldn't tell.
 
edit: oh yeah, if you're against blacks in white countries, then surely you are against whites in native american countries too? Or does it only go one way round?

That is a ridiculous argument.

I'm not saying any country should be of one race, but it is completely different when you conquer a country or when you live in the country.

THe US kicked the indian's asses and conquered the land, blacks are just living here.


(note: anything that may seem racist in above post really is not, I am just showing that was a pointless rebuttal to the other person thinking blacks should not be in white countries, which is ridiculous also :rolleyes: )
 
I am not saying the cotton plantations paid for it I am saying the English slave merchants paid for the revolution. I say it was definetly not worth it. I am against blacks in white countries.

I'm against swedes living in Sami countries :mischief:
 
It's quite likely we'd still have migrants from Africa if we had never brought over slaves.

The problem with slavery, as it were, was that the people who were captured and brought over here were probably the least intelligent and least physically capable of the natives.


Only the strongest could survive the passage.
 
The only real benefit that I could see was that it allowed for African culture and ideas to be added to our own. And it allowed for African peoples to later add to the diverse stock that are now Americans.

No economic benefit. Dependence on slavery and King Cotton pretty much screwed the South over - kill cotton and you kill the South. And these "backlashes" in the forms of race scholarships and welfare programs are detracting from more meaningful spending. Not to mention the colossal violation of human rights.
 
No economic benefit. Dependence on slavery and King Cotton pretty much screwed the South over - kill cotton and you kill the South.

And from a completely amoral perspective, sharecropping would probably have been a better economic arrangement for plantation owners than slavery.
 
And from a completely amoral perspective, sharecropping would probably have been a better economic arrangement for plantation owners than slavery.

still - the cotton/tobacco/whatever economy isn't completely rigid. All slavery allowed the South to do was to harvest a previously difficult crop to the point where it became the STAPLE crop. Now sharecropping is essentially the same as slavery. The owners often didn't pay their workers and expected the exact same sort of discipline and obedience that they expected under slavery. So that doesn't get rid of the feeling of unrest and anger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom