Why Whites Are Angry

Don't use Julius for your shitposts.

Its funny because whenever whites get pissed off they get their way, this just shows minorities are beneath them because they can never stop it.

articles like this really are just liberals talking to other liberals. maybe progressives talking to other progressives, but only one political ideology believes in shit like "power structures"

piss off white guys! why are the white guys suddenly so mad at us? oh right, they're the dominant group and they're going to fall!

Pic related is why I'm angry.

> people of a family line must pay for past sins
> people of a family line have a right to inherit what their past family made.
pick one faggot

Niggers don't have enough IQ points to conceptualize standards

>if someone kills someone we should throw their children in jail too

This is what nigs actually believe

When you faggots crawl out of your ghettos, I'll be more than happy to blow your inferior brains out, animal.

>implying white slave labor was at any time worse than or even close to the black slave trade at its peak
You dropped this.

I think they are on your side

i like living in a western country.

western = white dominated.

sure i want white domination. i can't lie.

>implying a nigger can even understand varying degrees of something

Oh God its Talcum X

What the fuck does that even mean?

What the fuck is the deal with all these Reddit tier threads today?

>What the fuck is the deal with all these Reddit tier threads today?
>tfw kek isn't on your side anymore

It means that you're a sub-human shitskin, with no credible opinions what so ever.

>>implying white slave labor was at any time worse than or even close to the black slave trade at its peak

But it was. Demonstrably. Both in terms of numbers and duration.

>proving my point

>Members of dominant groups simply believe they deserve to be the dominant force in their societies
Since we built them we do.
Niggers only did simple bullshit that gets done by machines now.
Asians built the railroads.
Whites went out and found resources and made them usable.
Whites did all of the heavy lifting.
We settled wilderness and created civilization where none existed.
You don't have any right to the hard work of our ancestors, which took real courage and ability.

>intellectualizing us is going to make us ease up

Hey, maybe listen to what the fuck we're saying and back the fuck off?

>why dont white people like higher crime and poverty?
make u think

I'll give OP this much - if a subgroup can take power and dominate the formerly dominant, then they will have deserved to win. That's just nature.

However, we don't have to buy into fairytale narratives about fairness designed to facilitate our decline.

That whole article reads like a how to guide for taking over white countries lmao

They aren't even hiding it anymore

>implying im a nigger

Then demonstrate. You haven't convinced me of anything yet.

>further proving my point

Black slaves lived better than free blacks in Africa. They have millions of descendants.

White slaves in Arabia and Africa were worked to death or killed. Barely any descendants.

I'm not here to teach you elementary history. Go read a book.

Fuck that article triggered me

Can you believe these people?

>no one has a good solution for the refugee crisis
>and it's quite a while before white voters in the us can simply be outvoted
>which means xenophobic politicians may continue to find fertile ground

They aren't even trying to hide their agenda anymore lads

>implying your bullshit conspiracy theory is "elementary history"

>avoiding the burden of proof this blatantly
Don't know how you could have made that any more obvious

The conclusion to the article

>the future shouldn't belong to the front national and its ilk
>it should belong to the people they're afraid of

Move over white boi

Text
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/slavery-in-the-united-states/

Video
youtube.com/watch?v=NwHEMdOhoIs

Some highlights:

- free farmer on a norther farm worked 3,130 hours per year, while the black slave worked 2,798 hours per year between 1850 and 1860.

- Black Americans are shorter than whites today, were taller during slavery period.

- In the 1870 census, 20.1% of blacks could read and write, compared to 80% of US whites. That same year Russia had a literacy rate of around 15%. Most African countries didn’t achieve a literacy rate of 20% until around 1950, and India had a literacy rate of 20% in 1950.

- in 2015, Trevon Logan did an experiment with his children, seeing how much cotton they could pick per day and compared that to the daily cotton production of slaves at the time. His results showed that his kids picked about 95% of what the slaves picked on average of the same age.

- one quantitative record of how often corporal punishment was used, and that is the records of Bennet H. Barrow. The record spans a 23 month period, and over this period he issues 160 whippings, and he had 129 slaves. This averages out to about 0.65 whippings per slave per year.

lol, tfw niggers are complaining about this when arabs literally cut off their dicks and shoved knives up their fannies.

wtf I hate doms now

Just shows how ignorant we are here in the US

I'm going to break down this text first.
>Today in the United States, height is mainly a function of genetics... until the 1900s, chronic hunger and lack of food was a factor in height, with wealthier populations being visibly taller than poorer ones... So we can see that, in adulthood, black slaves, despite being roughly the same height as whites today, were taller than most whites in the world, with the exceptions being English aristocrats and Swedes (incl. Swedes in Minnesota). How can this be, if slaves were viciously exploited?
First off, I recommend this article:
>scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/
It details the exact factors that cause human height differences and determined in a large-scale twin study that genetics is the most determinant factor of height, and environmental factors only have a small impact on how tall a person becomes. To make a claim that height can be drastically changed as a result of hunger or poverty is absurd, because it's been scientifically proven to be incorrect.

>Alienated Labor
This section makes no sourced claims other than referencing a comparison that was made between the pay slaves and railroad workers (who were also largely immigrants, disproving that white people still made more). None of the speculative areas of this section are sourced or proven.

>Literacy
African people had no real need for literacy, since it wasn't part of their culture. The literacy vs. poverty argument makes much more sense today because the whole world has developed more over time. However, few Africans needed literacy to function, and were able to live in a self-sustaining environment without the need to read or write, since their culture was mostly oral.
In addition, literacy rates were only 20%, even according to this article. To say that African slaves as a whole benefited from literacy, even using this data, is incorrect considering only a minority were literate.
>cont.

wew

>It details the exact factors that cause human height differences and determined in a large-scale twin study that genetics is the most determinant factor of height, and environmental factors only have a small impact on how tall a person becomes.

You're an idiot, and you don't understand heritability.

The observed variance in height between people in the United States today is largely due to genetics. That's what the twin studies show. That doesn't mean that height is always due to genetics. That means in the environment that the twin studies took place.

In the United States today, height variance is largely due to genes, in the past, nutrition played a larger role.

> no sourced claims
The source is right there

"Robert Evans Jr., in his paper entitled “The Economics of American Negro Slavery” calculated"

> African people had no real need for literacy
Because they were dirt poor living in mud huts. Yeah.

>Life Expectancy
This part checks out, but I fail to see how it advances your argument. If life expectancy is worse, that still implies a lower standard of living.

>Hours and Difficulty of Work
This part uses a study of children to somehow translate to a macrocosm of slavery in the United States. I'm not denying that these numbers are true, but it's easy to realize how inane this extrapolation is when you realize that this leaves out the actual numbers of the slaves who were of age and did a much greater quantity of work than children were made to do.

>Breaking up Families
This section makes no arguments.
cont.

>but it's easy to realize how inane this extrapolation is when you realize that this leaves out the actual numbers of the slaves who were of age and did a much greater quantity of work than children were made to do.

So, we acknowledge that black child slaves didn't work hard.

Black slaves did not work particularly hard and they worked fewer hours than free whites in the north.

Fuck off, my country which means my rules. I get to be the dominate one, not them. They don't like it? They can go back.

>In the United States today, height variance is largely due to genes, in the past, nutrition played a larger role.
>also you're an idiot
I had the actual scientific study to back my evidence up. If this is true, where's yours?
Also if you want to argue with me, name-calling accomplishes nothing.

>the source is right there
The source is for the graph. Not for any actual reasoning behind it. All of that is original. Or did you actually read the source you're referring to?

>dirt poor living in mud huts
Poverty doesn't really matter if there's no economy to begin with. There's nothing wrong with a self-sustaining culture if you can survive off of it reasonably, even if it counts as "poverty" by our civilized standards.

> This section makes no arguments.

It makes the argument that families were not broken up by slavery.

"By 2011 only 37% of blacks lived in two-parent households, while 75% of whites did."

In slavery times, black children lived with their two parents more often than they do today.

>why whites are angry
So... pic related?

Dumb burger nigger not knowing world history. Half of your nigger population in Africa got raped by sandniggers

>I had the actual scientific study to back my evidence up

No, you have none. You have zero studies on nutrition not having an impact on height in the 19th century. It of course did.

> The source is for the graph. Not for any actual reasoning behind it.

"black slaves got back 80-90% of what they produced on average." That is derived from the statistics in the graph.

> Poverty doesn't really matter if there's no economy to begin with
Yeah, it does. They were living in shit. They were not self sustaining, they were living in tribal warfare. Hence African slavery.

>People are wrong to want their own nation to not be destroyed and replaced by roaches

report it as illegal

>black child slaves didn't work hard, so black slaves didn't work hard
Yes, I acknowledge that this data is true. But extrapolation of data (making assumptions that aren't backed with statistics) is a logical fallacy. This data doesn't include any mention of the amount of work actual adult slaves were made to do. You can't base an argument off of this.

Just because these families were nuclear doesn't mean they were always the same. You're assuming that we're talking about the same two parents.

>you have zero studies on nutrition not having an impact on height in the 19th century
I have a source on how nutrition impacts height, which you of course read. You're the one saying it was different in the 19th century, so the burden of proof is on you.

>"black slaves got back 80-90% of what they produced on average." That is derived from the statistics in the graph.
How was that derived from the graph? I can't see where those numbers came from based on what the graph says.

>Yeah, it does. They were living in shit. They were not self sustaining, they were living in tribal warfare.
Tribal warfare existed. So did tribal allegiances. It's a completely different culture than what we've experienced. It was life for them. It worked. And they didn't have to suffer from the whip.

>they can go back
>implying they can

>> According to Petersen, that change in status comes from a sense of injustice. Members of dominant groups simply believe they deserve to be the dominant force in their societies, and resent those challenging their positions at the top of the pyramid.

This is the academic version of a teenage girl telling someone "you're just jealous!"

Inheriting a house is not the same as inheriting first degree murder

Any argument that "white men's opinion is invalid because their just reactionaries" can be immediately turned around to claim that minorities opinions can be discarded because their just selfishly interested in gaining more power.

How many equality-demanding liberals want to share the United States' wealth equally amongst the people of the world? They don't want "true equality", they want more for themselves. This is not a convincing argument for why them pushing for more power is somehow inherently moral and good (unless, of course, you're a Marxist).

they're

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat.

Murad's crew, made up of Dutchmen, Algerians and Ottoman Turks, launched their covert attack on the remote village on June 20, 1631. They captured 108 English settlers, who worked a pilchard industry in the village, and many local Irish people. The attack was focused on the area of the village known to this day as the Cove. The villagers were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baltimore#Attack

They want to talk about my privilege? I don't have any fucking privilege. The reason cops don't shoot me isn't because I'm white, they don't shoot me because I listen to everything they tell me to do.

No shit. Why would anyone who is sane willingly give up demographic and cultural power to others?

It would be like me being the CEO of a company and just deciding to go work in the mailroom for 5% of my old salary.

Is it wrong to not want to be a minority in a nation of people who hate your guts?

Come on people… don't apologize for not being crazy. Yes the west has always been a European thing…and it should remain so. Don't like it?… tough titty.

It comes with disgust, shitskins are nasty.

> But extrapolation of data (making assumptions that aren't backed with statistics) is a logical fallacy.

Your position that the adult slaves worked super hard has no evidence. This study on children is one piece of evidence. Only a single piece, in the entire body.

There is other evidence. The slaves worked fewer hours than free whites, and produced no greater output per hour.

The body of evidence overwhelmingly supports that adult slaves did not work particular hard.

> Just because these families were nuclear doesn't mean they were always the same. You're assuming that we're talking about the same two parents.

From the source "Only two percent of the category identified the fathers as a step, as opposed to a biological parent."

They were living with their biological parents.

> You're the one saying it was different in the 19th century, so the burden of proof is on you.

Study on changes in height in China.
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199608083350606

"sustained economic productivity has greatly increased the food supply, average household income and personal expenditure on food.1,2 With increasing urbanization, the average Chinese diet has become higher in fat and calories"

"Despite an overall improvement in child growth during the economic reforms in China, the improvement has not been equitable, as judged by increased differences in height between rural and urban children and increased disparities within rural areas."

So, in urbanization China, where diets became higher in calories and fat, height increased. Rural areas did not see a change in height.

This is nutrition effecting height.

People in South Korea are about 8 inches taller today than they were 20 years ago. That's nutrition, not a change in genes.

Although it was not a crime to kill any Irish, and soldiers were encouraged to do so, the slave trade proved too profitable to kill off the source of the product. Privateers and chartered shippers sent gangs out with quotas to fill, and in their zest as they scoured the countryside, they inadvertently kidnapped a number of English too. On March 25, 1659, a petition of 72 Englishmen was received in London, claiming they were illegally �now in slavery in the Barbados�' . The petition also claimed that "7,000-8,000 Scots taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester in 1651 were sold to the British plantations in the New World,� and that �200 Frenchmen had been kidnapped, concealed and sold in Barbados for 900 pounds of cotton each."

Subsequently some 52,000 Irish, mostly women and sturdy boys and girls, were sold to Barbados and Virginia alone. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell�s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters. As horrendous as these numbers sound, it only reflects a small part of the evil program

After reviewing the profitability of the slave trade, Charles II chartered the Company of Royal Adventurers in 1662, which later became the Royal African Company. The Royal Family, including Charles II, the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York, then contracted to supply at least 3000 slaves annually to their chartered company. They far exceeded their quotas.

There are records of Irish sold as slaves in 1664 to the French on St. Bartholomew, and English ships which made a stop in Ireland enroute to the Americas, typically had a cargo of Irish to sell on into the 18th century.
Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.

> People in South Korea are about 8 inches taller today than they were 20 years ago

I meant int the 1920's, not "20 years ago"

Although the Africans and Irish were housed together and were the property of the planter owners, the Africans received much better treatment, food and housing. In the British West Indies the planters routinely tortured white slaves for any infraction. Owners would hang Irish slaves by their hands and set their hands or feet afire as a means of punishment. To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)...." many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist. Irish prisoners were commonly sentenced to a term of service, so theoretically they would eventually be free. In practice, many of the slavers sold the Irish on the same terms as prisoners for servitude of 7 to 10 years.

>Members of dominant groups simply believe they deserve to be the dominant force

Could that be why they are the dominant group? HMMMMMMM

There was no racial consideration or discrimination, you were either a freeman or a slave, but there was aggressive religious discrimination, with the Pope considered by all English Protestants to be the enemy of God and civilization, and all Catholics heathens and hated. Irish Catholics were not considered to be Christians. On the other hand, the Irish were literate, usually more so than the plantation owners, and thus were used as house servants, account keepers, scribes and teachers. But any infraction was dealt with the same severity, whether African or Irish, field worker or domestic servant. Floggings were common, and if a planter beat an Irish slave to death, it was not a crime, only a financial loss, and a lesser loss than killing a more expensive African. Parliament passed the Act to Regulate Slaves on British Plantations in 1667, designating authorized punishments to include whippings and brandings for slave offenses against a Christian. Irish Catholics were not considered Christians, even if they were freemen.

>Corporal Punishment
>However, having read through his records, Barrow seems like a bit of a sadist who enjoyed what he did, and so in my opinion Barrow was not typical.
Again, this is an opinion, not a fact. It's even stated so. You can't use this to argue with.
>I am shocked at how difficult it is to find basic corporal punishment data during slavery. You may think something that is so often referenced in film and in essays and presentations on other topics, that the data on it would be easier to find.
It's not surprising that nobody wanted to conduct statistical models on slavery back in that day. It doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't there. But it was historical, not statistical. And the historical evidence is, as we all know, abundant.

>The Subjective Texture
>If you’ve gone to public schools, these statistics I post here may seem at odds with the “subjective texture of vicarious experience”—i.e. how you feelslavery was, based on the stories and narratives presented in public school...There is a great book called “They were White and they were Slaves” which is full of personal accounts of a very different world—in fact a world much more similar to today—regarding race and slavery. Here are some examples...
This section is completely based off of narrative. It's anecdotal evidence for one, and it's not based on direct historical fact for another. Just because there are stories of something being one way doesn't mean in reality it's not the other. I could write a story about how me and my ten-foot unicorn friend walked to school every day. Just because one person wrote it doesn't mean it's true.
Before you use this logic to dismantle my argument about historical evidence, there's a significant difference between one person or a few people writing something and a massive group of people writing multiple different accounts of something. When data is observed widely to be the same, that points to truth.

In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city. Cromwell reported: �I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.� A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell�s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing �free� population of the Americas!

But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell�s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others.
....
There were horrendous abuses by the slavers, both to Africans and Irish. The records show that the British ship Zong was delayed by storms, and as their food was running low, they decided to dump 132 slaves overboard to drownso the crew would have plenty to eat. If the slaves died due to �accident�, the loss was covered by insurance, but not if they starved to death. Another British ship, the Hercules averaged a 37% death rate on passages. The Atlas II landed with 65 of the 181 slaves found dead in their chains.

Well you've done it now!

You spoke out against moderate whiteness and now they're arming themselves and voting in trump

Who is this guy again, Shaun King?

>talcum x

>Again, this is an opinion, not a fact. It's even stated so. You can't use this to argue with.

I actually didn't use it as an argument. I simply posted the recorded figures. The actual recorded figures don't make it seem particularity harsh. They were probably greater than average, but even if you take those figures just at face value, still not particularly harsh.

> It's not surprising that nobody wanted to conduct statistical models on slavery back in that day

Lack of evidence is not an argument for whippings having taken place. The limited recorded evidence is that there were few whippings. Combined with the other recorded evidence on the slaves not working particularly hard, it fits together with the larger body of evidence on slavery.

> Just because one person wrote it doesn't mean it's true.
The book “They were White and they were Slaves” has many stories, not just one.

The body of evidence is clear. Your view of slavery is wrong.

Talcum X at it again

>There is other evidence.
Where is it? The burden of proof is on you.
>From the source "Only two percent of the category identified the fathers as a step, as opposed to a biological parent." They were living with their biological parents.
Fair enough. But that's just one proven point out of many.
>So, in urbanization China, where diets became higher in calories and fat, height increased. Rural areas did not see a change in height. This is nutrition effecting height.
Of course poverty has an effect on child growth. Stinted growth ruins their health if they grow up to be adults. But do you think slave owners were stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and starve slave children?

Lol

Was this before or after his explanation of black behavior as of recent?

>These words are so powerful. Bless.

yes, bless white people for creating their own societies and then just handing them over

Haha talcum X

>Where is it? The burden of proof is on you.

I don't have to provide it every single post...it's already been discussed.

"John F. Olsen in his analysis of southern cotton farms and northern farms, came to the conclusion that the average free farmer on a norther farm worked 3,130 hours per year, while the black slave worked 2,798 hours per year between 1850 and 1860."

> But do you think slave owners were stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot and starve slave children?
No? I don't? That's my point. They were well fed.

They were well fed, they were rarely whipped, and they didn't work particularly hard.

It's not wise to work your slave to death. It's preferable to keep your slave in good health. And that is what occurred.

>They were probably greater than average, but even if you take those figures just at face value, still not particularly harsh.
The actual figures don't seem harsh.
They were harsh enough for the actual author of the article to label the slave-owner a sadist.
But still not particularly harsh.
>The limited recorded evidence is that there were few whippings.
Literally the only evidence used in that section shows that there were actually a lot of whippings. The author of this article just assumes that this is an isolated case. But he doesn't try to back that statement up.
>The book “They were White and they were Slaves” has many stories, not just one.
You mean the book that 404s when you click the link?

>They were harsh enough for the actual author of the article to label the slave-owner a sadist.
>But still not particularly harsh.

He didn't conclude that he was a sadist based on the number of whippings (less than one a year), but by his writings, tone and language.

The point was that even a sadistic slave owner barely whipped his slaves.

"The record spans a 23 month period, and over this period he issues 160 whippings, and he had 129 slaves. This averages out to about 0.65 whippings per slave per year."

> the book that 404s when you click the link?
Here you go. You can buy it.
amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056

All writers on the 17th century American colonies are in
agreement that the treatment of white servants or white slaves in
English colonies was cruel to the extreme, worse than that of
black slaves; that inhuman treatment was the norm, that torture
(and branding FT, fugitive traitor, on the forehead) was the
punishment for attempted escape. Dunn stated: "Servants were
punished by whipping, strung up by the hands and matches lighted
between their fingers, beaten over the head until blood ran,"
--all this on the slightest provocation.(30) Ligon, an eyewitness
in Barbados from 1647-1650 said, "Truly, I have seen cruelty
there done to servants as I did not think one Christian could
have done to another."

The white slaves also were owned for short periods of time and not life so they were run into the ground so to speak and made to get your money worth from them. Higher death rate as well for example when forced to do ship work that was dangerous.

"Far-right" whites are pissed off about rampant degeneracy on all levels of society and that libtards are enabling it and causing the destruction of Western civilization from within. Of course American society (and many Europeans ones as well) are awash with double standards and fantasy narratives. It is beyond obvious blacks in America commit violent crime at a far higher rate than whites, but you would never know that if you unironically believed in mainstream media reporting. The same with racially motivated violent crime.

>I don't have to provide it every single post...it's already been discussed.
The way burden of proof works is that whenever you make a claim, you have to back it up. Otherwise I'm going to ignore it.

>"John F. Olsen in his analysis of southern cotton farms and northern farms, came to the conclusion that the average free farmer on a norther farm worked 3,130 hours per year, while the black slave worked 2,798 hours per year between 1850 and 1860."
Time is not an indicator of intensity. Work is. If I spent a large amount of time every year working at a desk job, and a migrant worker spent fewer hours in the fields, the migrant worker's still working much harder than me overall, because the demands of his job require more intensity. So hours mean nothing when discussing work.

>It's not wise to work your slave to death. It's preferable to keep your slave in good health. And that is what occurred.
What were the whippings for, then? It doesn't improve health, it just gets them to work harder. Quality of work doesn't always intersect with the beneficial health of slaves.

>he barely whipped his slaves
More than one out of every two slaves getting whipped every year is not what I would consider "barely whipping his slaves" by any stretch of the imagination.

>Here you go. You can buy it.
Michael A. Hoffman? I know him. He's a conspiracy theorist who unironically believes in a secret Jewish shadow government controlling the world and all its people. Not really what you would consider a neutral source.
>opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/liam-hogan/‘irish-slaves’-convenient-myth
Here's an article written by an Irish historian that contends Hoffman's depiction of slavery in Ireland.

Cromwells aim was extermination. There was oversupply. Their lives were literally cheap so it was better to dispose of them than keep them alive.

A shallow argument is made that they were 'indentured servants' and that only blacks were slaves. This is rubbish. A black that was baptized as a protestant was entitled to preferential treatment to Irish Roman Catholics who were not considered Christian. 25000- 35000 more of so were sent to other colonies after the 1798 rebellion, colonial penal convicts were in practice slaves.

Some exponents of 'slaves wuz only blacks' choose to ignore the fact that Irish was in fact commonly spoken in Barbados within living memory.

The enitre chapter was effectively written out of history.

Yet today Irish people do not seek reparations.

It is literally history. Move on.

> These words are so powerful. Bless.
Hehe, stop talking like a nigger to try and sound stupid OP. The rest of your post was enough.

> Time is not an indicator of intensity. Work is. If I spent a large amount of time every year working at a desk job, and a migrant worker spent fewer hours in the fields, the migrant worker's still working much harder than me overall, because the demands of his job require more intensity. So hours mean nothing when discussing work.

"an analyses by Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode showed that free cotton farms were just as efficient per hour as the touted “gang system”"

The northern farms were more productive than the south. The northern farmers worked more hours, and the farms produced more.

You have nothing to show that blacks worked particularly hard.

> More than one out of every two slaves getting whipped every year is not what I would consider "barely whipping his slaves" by any stretch of the imagination.

Obviously you're not too familiar with how whippings are generally portrayed in American slavery.

Any whippings at all are obviously too many for today's morality.

Less than a whipping a year is not particularly sinister regarding the history of slavery worldwide.

> Here's an article written by an Irish historian that contends Hoffman's depiction of slavery in Ireland.

Not really, he says that it was indebted servitude, and thus not as bad simply because of that. As pointed out, it can be worse, because they aren't a long term investment.

Michael A. Hoffman's book is basically just recounts of other's words. Historical anecdotes.

>>they can go back
>>implying they can

No white man racism here.

In 1688, the first woman killed in Cotton Mather’s witch trials in Massachusetts was an old Irish woman named Anne Glover, who had been captured and sold as a slave in 1650. She spoke no English. She could recite The Lord’s Prayer in Gaelic and Latin, but without English, Mather decided her Gaelic was discourse with the devil, and hung her.

They don't like our domination but they sure love spending our money on their dank and their fucking whores.

Fucking niggers.

>le trol mulatto man

sean king is a walking meme

>Brexit happened only because of muh racism
This meme needs to die.

I'm sorry but that is plain stupid. The actions of Elizabethan proestants in Ireland were well documented (by themselves) and Irish Roman Catholics. Its not like this is not part o demonstrable and documented history.In the 12 year period during and following the Confederation revolt, from 1641 to 1652, over 550,000 Irish were killed by the English and 300,000 were sold as slaves, as the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000.

Do you think the nearly 800000 difference just went on holiday in disneyworld?

BTW Many Scots prisoners of war were also sold into slavery. See below

Slaves or Indentured Servants

There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, and partly by labeling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the term of service. It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers.

However, from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice.

They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits.

the left does this whenever they have to explain why people are reacting negatively to their ideas. It's basically "They can't handle me because I'm too real, man"

Show me a single state with a majority black population and black government that works and I'll immediately cease all arguments in favor of restoring the old status quo

Barbados

>Show me a homogenous society that works

Why would you set yourself up like this?

The Barbary slave trade occurred during the 16th and 18th century, but slavery of whites had been occurring since the Moorish invasions in the 9th century.

Torture and death awaited them, usually. Allegedly, conversion to Islam would mean that they would be relieved of their status as slaves (allegedly). Of course, few would convert, and so absolute horror and torture awaited most.

Leftists often claim that torture and death isn't as bad as working on a farm and receiving a whipping once every couple of years in the USA, because you hypothetically could have avoided torture and death by converting to Islam if you were a slave in Africa or Arabia. Though, who even knows if the Christian slaves were aware of this rule? British Captain asserts that the Christian slaves were held in perpetual slavery.

> British captain witnessing the miseries of Christian slaves in Algiers, 1815 Original caption: “Captain Croker horror sricken at Algiers, on witnessing the Miseries of the Christian Slaves chaind & in Irons driven home after labour by Infidels with large Whips. “. Additonnal informations about the source: “The cruelties of the Algerine pirates, shewing the present dreadful state of the English slaves, and other Europeans, at Algiers and Tunis; with the horrid barbarities inflicted on christian mariners shipwrecked on the north western coast of africa and carried into perpetual slavery. authenticated by Mr. Jackson, of Morocco; Mr. MacGill, merchant and by Capt. Walter Croker, of His Majesty’s Sloop Wizard. Who in last July (1815) saw some of the frightful horrors of Algerine Slavery; to rouse general attention to which, this Economical Publication is issued. With an engraving. London: printed for W.Hone, 55 Fleet-Street. 1816”

>that change in status comes from a sense of injustice.

When your race has accomplished as much as whites have, being forced into equality with blacks does feel like an injustice.

>Barbados works

nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murder-rate

It has a murder rate of 17. Do you have any idea how large that is?

Australia has a murder rate of 1.3

Barbados is horrible, but it has a lot of money coming in from rich foreigners, as a result of tourism and due to the fact that it has been a tax haven.