Why do Lib Whites deny the Benefits of Slavery?

[Jack]

So all we get is a book recommendation instead of debate or a rebuttal?

[Libhater]

So all we get is a book recommendation instead of debate or a rebuttal?

I can't do the debating for you jack. You'll have to bring something (anything) worthy of debate to the table if you feel that slavery wasn't in many ways favorable to the formerly uneducated oppressed blacks as they were back in their native Africa.

[Maryjane]

Again, would you kindly point out a few of these "elite liberal whites"??

I hope you're not holding your breath, Z?

[lsbskins1]

I can't do the debating for you jack. You'll have to bring something (anything) worthy of debate to the table if you feel that slavery wasn't in many ways favorable to the formerly uneducated oppressed blacks as they were back in their native Africa.

And here we have it. A variation on the "white man's burden" argument. We were not exploiting the slaves, we were introducing advancements into their world. Funny, isn't it, how we couldn't manage to "give" them all these wonderful things without putting them in chains.

And the point of the cited work is not to say that slavery was "good", it was to say that slavery was not inefficient. And, reader reviews aside, it seems they didn't really do a large amount of research. Seems most of their conclusions were based on examining the books of, well...one single plantation. So much for that stunning attack on the misconceptions of an institution. Does the fact that McGeorge McBush graduated from Yale DISPROVE for you, the notion that Ivy League schools pump out an effete, elitist bunch of liberal pinheads hell bent on destroying America?

[Jack]

I can't do the debating for you jack. You'll have to bring something (anything) worthy of debate to the table if you feel that slavery wasn't in many ways favorable to the formerly uneducated oppressed blacks as they were back in their native Africa.

Not asking you to. I'm questioning the validity of the claims made in the OP. Claims made, by the way, another person to whom you failed to provide appropriate attribution. I don't see your own comments anywhere in the OP, just the words of someone who isn't here to defend their own words. Then you presented a book recommendation, again with no debate point being presented, just an ad for a book I haven't read, as if I can debate a book review.

So, regarding the OP, are these conclusions supported by any sort of evidence or are they merely speculations based on nothing more than a flawed interpretation of history and a lack of social consciousness?

I don't buy your premises so can't agree with your conclusions.

[pbxilixdq]

This is the original post that Libhater has copy pasted:

Why do whites and the U.S. deny the profound benefits of slavery in the U.S. on the entire world? - Yahoo! Answers

Lib can't offer any sources because the original poster doesn't have any either. What's even more funny is that Libhater gets his facts from yahoo answers.

[Thanatos]

This is the original post that Libhater has copy pasted:

Why do whites and the U.S. deny the profound benefits of slavery in the U.S. on the entire world? - Yahoo! Answers

Lib can't offer any sources because the original poster doesn't have any either. What's even more funny is that Libhater gets his facts from yahoo answers.

A search using text from his argument shows that the same block of text also appears on websites about lavender bath salts and front porch design as, well, weird racist spam.

big link made smaller

It would be funny if Libhater, the Yahoo troll and the lavender bath salt spammer are all the same guy. I'd say that would be hilarious.

[Chris the Chees]

I'll leave you with just one of the many 5 star reviews of the book 'Time on The Cross' ..The Economics of American Slavery by Fogel and Engerman so as to give you a basic idea as to how and why black slaves earned more money for their labour than did the free laborers, etc. I have not yet read this book,

That much is obvious, because Bob Fogel, contrary to claims to the contrary is not, like you, an apologist for slavery; quite the reverse. The point of Time on the Cross is that, contrary to some earlier work which argued that slavery declined because it ceased being profitable, Fogel argued that it was profitable and the Civil War was necessary to see its end. The contravercy in the book emerged because Fogel claimed that, because slavers wanted to protect their investment, they weren't as harsh on slaves as is popularly suggested by historians. This claim by Fogel and Engerman has been roundly, and convinsingly, disputed by other historians. Indeed Fogel admitted as much in later editions.

http://digitalhistory.concordia.ca/c...onthecross.pdf

[Libhater]

Not asking you to. I'm questioning the validity of the claims made in the OP. Claims made, by the way, another person to whom you failed to provide appropriate attribution. I don't see your own comments anywhere in the OP, just the words of someone who isn't here to defend their own words. Then you presented a book recommendation, again with no debate point being presented, just an ad for a book I haven't read, as if I can debate a book review.

So, regarding the OP, are these conclusions supported by any sort of evidence or are they merely speculations based on nothing more than a flawed interpretation of history and a lack of social consciousness?

The evidence that blacks weren't treated as harshly as liberal elites would have you believe is to be found in the Plantation Book logs sought out by the two authors. I can no more produce those logs than I can produce proof that I saw God this morning; for we all know you wouldn't believe me if I did say that God was sitting next to me while I typed out this response.

Btw, those liberal elites are any of the media run libs who inundate our airwaves like those already mentioned...i.e. Oprah, Spielberg, fathead Michael Moore, entire black congressional congress, al sharpton, jessie (keep hope alive) jackson etc., and in affect, any liberal at all.

One of the reasons I posted this about slavery in America was to compare slavery of yesteryear with the slavery by lib elites today of our minorities...especially the blacks. Back in the 17th and 18th century slaves had family networks where they were fed well, worked hard, able to marry and reproduce and were given adequate and free housing. Today the welfare class of slaves produced by liberal welfare programs shows a similar pattern in that we the tax payers (slavemasters of today) ensure that they are fed well, able to marry and reproduce, and are given more than adequate housing in which to stagnate. The difference with today's slaves is that they're not forced to work hard for their keep, and thus, they have no sense of responsibility and no sense of self worth by being a slave ward of the state. Granted, both the slave of yesteryear and today's slave recieved cradle to grave bennies, but the difference being that the 17th and 18th century slave felt good about themselves and their families, whereas, the welfare slave of today procreates to garner more monies from the govt slave master leaving them with little or no self worth or with little or no chance to break the shackles that the liberal elitists so tightly placed around their necks.

[Chris the Chees]

I can no more produce those logs than I can produce proof that I saw God this morning; for we all know you wouldn't believe me if I did say that God was sitting next to me while I typed out this response.

As a historian myself, I can assure you that you can produce historical evidence. It can be found in archives and libraries.

[Libhater]

As a historian myself, I can assure you that you can produce historical evidence. It can be found in archives and libraries.

Would the same apply to my morning meeting with God?

[pbxilixdq]

A search using text from his argument shows that the same block of text also appears on websites about lavender bath salts and front porch design as, well, weird racist spam.

big link made smaller

It would be funny if Libhater, the Yahoo troll and the lavender bath salt spammer are all the same guy. I'd say that would be hilarious.

Lavender is from yahoo answers. It even says "Source: Yahoo! Answers - Home"

And because it's just a repost it still fails to offer any sources. And you're stilling ultimately getting your facts from yahoo answers. haha