7
104

[–] Lumidaub 7 points 104 points (+111|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Same reason that nobody talks about all the Romani and Sinti that were killed in the Holocaust. Their numbers are comparatively small so they don't get the same attention.

0
56

[–] wuzizname 0 points 56 points (+56|-0) ago 

Polish. There were as many non-Jewish Poles killed in the holocaust as there were jews, estimated 6 million Poles were gased, marched to death, or killed in labour camps.

Hitler hated Poles as much as jews it seemed:

"kill without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need".

"All Poles will disappear from the world. It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles."

0
35

[–] martymcdohl 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago  (edited ago)

which is how Hitler almost destroyed Christmas when he marched his army on the North Pole. Luckily, with a little help from his friends, Santa saved the day.

I'm a terrible person

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] NotWithEllensDick 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Seeing that 20 million Russians were killed as well, what point are you making?

0
2

[–] dancemonkey 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ah but Poles are "white" so we Slavic untermenschen must check our occupied privilege.

1
34

[–] hypercat 1 points 34 points (+35|-1) ago 

Don't forget the gays.

0
40

[–] nonethewiser 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

He just mentioned the Romani.

\s

[–] [deleted] 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Fernando_x 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And Jehovah's Witnesses, if remember right.

0
8

[–] WiseThat 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Their numbers are comparatively small

We've established that white (and indigenous) slavery and indentured servitude was anything but small, and in fact made up a large percentage of the slaves. There's a reason traditionally Irish names like Tyrone are viewed as "black" names, it's because the Irish have been the slave race for a very long time, and the naming conventions stuck when Africans were imported.

Why do we not talk about it? Because it's easier for the more hated white ethnicities (e.g. Polish, Irish) to blend in, and hide their ethnic makeup... not so simple with a different skin colour.

This means that by the mid 1900s the Irish were better blended in and the history was more or less forgotten, and while there was still rascism, it wasn't being passed on to younger generations because it wasn't in the news. The black people, however, caused a renewed focus on the history of their slavery during the civil rights movement, brining that to the forefront of the country's mind and keeping it there even today.

0
2

[–] yeahrich 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The total number of slaves that went to English America was comparatively small to the total number of slaves sent to the America's, yet somehow I feel like that gets hardly any attention?

The numbers I've seen in 10 minutes of google search show, 450-600K african slaves out of 10M total going to what is now U.S. and 30K out of 300K total Irish slaves going to what is now U.S. I think that's a significant number to where it should have been more discussed.

3
97

[–] Le_Squish 3 points 97 points (+100|-3) ago 

Basically a long time ago, someone figured out that if you convinced poor white people that they were less oppressed that poor black people you could prevent the formation of a powerful and vocal working class. My great grandmother always told me that the only people rich white folks hated more than colored folks were poor white folks. This coming from a black woman that lived though Jim Crows and Segregation.

0
30

[–] Calvin 0 points 30 points (+30|-0) ago 

This is the correct answer. As a labor force a poor white wage slave in the south was cheaper than a live in slave. With the added bonus of racism you essentially have free prison guards to keep your slaves in line.

6
25

[–] Le_Squish 6 points 25 points (+31|-6) ago 

Same thing still continues. Millions of white people being paid slave wages and kept content because they don't realize they are part of the underclass of this nation. Fighting against living wage, national healthcare and robust welfare because they don't understand they are part of the group that needs these things.

2
-1

[–] pussywhippedcream 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

This is the correct answer. Go back to Reddit.

0
8

[–] revdrmlk 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Racial segregation as a way of life did not come about as a natural result of hatred between the races immediately after the Civil War. There were no laws segregating the races then. And as the noted historian, C. Vann Woodward, in his book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, clearly points out, the segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land. You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.

Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. (Listen to him) That is what was known as the Populist Movement. (Speak, sir) The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses (Yes, sir) and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses (Yeah) into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.

To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society. (Right) I want you to follow me through here because this is very important to see the roots of racism and the denial of the right to vote. Through their control of mass media, they revised the doctrine of white supremacy. They saturated the thinking of the poor white masses with it, (Yes) thus clouding their minds to the real issue involved in the Populist Movement. They then directed the placement on the books of the South of laws that made it a crime for Negroes and whites to come together as equals at any level. (Yes, sir) And that did it. That crippled and eventually destroyed the Populist Movement of the nineteenth century.

If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. (Yes, sir) He gave him Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, (Yes, sir) he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. (Right sir) And he ate Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. (Yes, sir) And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, (Speak) their last outpost of psychological oblivion. (Yes, sir)

Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike (Uh huh) resulted in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they segregated southern mores from the rich whites; (Yes, sir) they segregated southern churches from Christianity (Yes, sir); they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; (Yes, sir) and they segregated the Negro from everything. (Yes, sir) That’s what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great society: a society of justice where none would pray upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the dignity and worth of human personality. (Yes, sir)

-Dr. MLK, Address at the Conclusion of the Selma to Montgomery March

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_address_at_the_conclusion_of_selma_march/

0
4

[–] Bioreactor 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Damn, that's deep

0
1

[–] makaw 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They say a lot of people were less willing to fight for slaver than the idea that there was someone lower than you. No matter how poor, ugly, degenerate, and despised you were: at least you were NOT black.

12
40

[–] JManSenior918 12 points 40 points (+52|-12) ago 

Because installing anger in a population against a group of people is a really effective way to unify them. The more homogenous the group that you're standing against is, the less likely someone from outside that group will be to sympathize with them, and therefore you can better accomplish your goal.

In this case, it's convenient for many Americans to be able to point the finger at a specific group of people as "the cause of the civil war" without regard to the fact that it wasn't the cause of the war at all. Lincoln himself said that preserving the Union was of greater importance than ending slavery.

4
60

[–] jstressman 4 points 60 points (+64|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Ah, but that darn pesky historical reality...

What This Cruel War Was Over -- The meaning of the Confederate flag is best discerned in the words of those who bore it.

That article gives a list of quotations from the leaders of the Civil War, in their own words, as to what the war was about.

This is of course further supported by the letters of secession of these states, many flat out stating that slavery was clearly a primary factor, if not the primary factor, along with overtly stated white supremacy, etc.

Like this, from South Carolina's casus belli, the state that was the first to secede, and where the Civil War started with the Confederates firing upon Fort Sumter.

...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Or how about Mississippi?

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

Or Louisiana?

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an­nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

And so on and so on....

But perhaps it is summed up most concisely in the infamous Cornerstone Speech;

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

Yep... nothing about slavery... where would we ever get such an idea contrary to the "fact that it wasn't the cause of the war at all"?

1
21

[–] johnandrewsmith101 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

It is pretty strange that immediately after a president with abolitionist sentiment was elected, a bunch of slaveholding states decided to rebel. It's almost like every issue at the time was tied up in the question of slavery.

0
5

[–] pm_me_firearms 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

They seceded because of slavery. They went to war because Lincoln wouldn't give up the union.

Two different events having two different causes. Who would have guessed?

0
5

[–] bayesianqueer 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Nothing to see here.... Move along.... /s

0
3

[–] creflo 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Lincoln stated that if he could've stopped secession without ending slavery, it would've been his preference. He also stated that, since the freed negro was unwelcome in the North, the only option was expatriation. Since they were unwelcome in every other civilized nation as well, Liberia was the only option. His words.

There were Confederate States which did not hold slaves. There were Union states which were allowed to keep theirs.

8
8

[–] Didymus 8 points 8 points (+16|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Lee fought for the south because South CarolinaVirginia seceded, not because he was pro-slavery. There are multiple sources citing Grant as saying if the war was to abolish slavery he would have fought for the South (although the sources' sources are dubious.) The point remains that the conflict was much more nuanced than "They took our daggum slaves away!"

0
2

[–] Vhaine 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Lee was from Virginia and one of the single most well respected military men ever to wear a uniform.

1
-1

[–] 4jellybaby 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You know that a source isn't valid if the source's source is dubious, right?

0
0

[–] oowensby 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I believe that Lincoln's statements about retaining slavery in a reconciled union were a bit of political theater. The Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform co-opted from the Free Soil Party the Republicans succeeded. "Free soil, free labor, free men" was the Republican slogan before the Civil War.

[–] [deleted] 7 points 24 points (+31|-7) ago 

[Deleted]

1
8

[–] wouldntsavezion 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I swear I kek'd out loud.

1
24

[–] jchhiminey 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

What was the percentage?

1
10

[–] Fireman 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Anyone got a link?

0
4

[–] jchhiminey 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Rink me?

0
4

[–] varialus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

0
1

[–] Fireman 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Interesting paper. Thanks!

1
2

[–] 4jellybaby 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Large!!!!!

6
1

[–] Renoco [S] 6 points 1 points (+7|-6) ago 

0
13

[–] thijser 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

But at the time the Irish weren't considered "white", nore where any of the mediteranian people. Races are suprisinly strongly determined by culture.

2
5

[–] McDoku 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Global research is a bad rink

1
3

[–] bingbong 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

If you can't tell us the percentage or provide proof, how can you state "A large percentage of slaves in America weren't black, but white." in your question?

2
11

[–] Fox_Tango 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago 

Because my ginger people are still oppressed to this day!

0
11

[–] Sosacms 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Did the negro steal their souls to fuel their blues machines? Simply diabolical...

0
3

[–] TH0UGHTP0LICE 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

steal their souls to fuel their blues machines?

This....makes a lot of sense actually

0
4

[–] SybilVimes 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Ginger solidarity! One day we will rise up and crush the Brunette Opression!

0
2

[–] PoopToaster 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

To be fair, the average black man has at least 1 more soul than a ginger.

0
2

[–] ilovepussy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

As well you should be, you soul stealing, fanta pube, mate thieving, sun avoiding, evil brindy freckle fart!

4
9

[–] johnandrewsmith101 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago 

Because you are wrong, in every way, shape, and form. If most slaves were white, then nothing in the civil war makes sense. Take the emancipation proclamation. It says,

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

There is no mention of race or color in it. But every opponent of it talked about race. From the editor of the Republican Watchman,

"In the name of freedom of Negroes, [the proclamation] imperils the liberty of white men; to test a utopian theory of equality of races which Nature, History and Experience alike condemn as monstrous, it overturns the Constitution and Civil Laws and sets up Military Usurpation in their Stead."

Or from Copperhead Democrat David Allen,

"I have told you that this war is carried on for the Negro. There is the proclamation of the President of the United States. Now fellow Democrats I ask you if you are going to be forced into a war against your Brithren of the Southern States for the Negro. I answer No!"

Why are they talking about black people when they should be talking about slaves? Because that's who the slaves were. If the slaves were white, then they would have mentioned white people. But they don't.

Now onto your insidious lies about slavery being in the North. As it turns out, you are partially right. The Dred Scott decision allowed slavery in all northern territories, and this infuriated the North. From the Albany Evening Journal:

"The three hundred and forty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-five Slaveholders in the Republic, accomplished day before yesterday a great success — as shallow men estimate success. They converted the Supreme Court of Law and Equity of the United States of America into a propagandist of human Slavery. Fatal day for a judiciary made reputable throughout the world, and reliable to all in this nation, by the learning and the virtues of Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, Marshall and Story! The conspiracy is nearly completed. The Legislation of the Republic is in the hands of this handful of Slaveholders. The United States Senate assures it to them. The Executive power of the Government is theirs. Buchanan took the oath of fealty to them on the steps of the Capitol last Wednesday. The body which gives the supreme law of the land, has just acceded to their demands, and dared to declare that under the charter of the Nation, men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be — that the Ordinance of 1787 was void — that human Slavery is not a local thing, but pursues its victims to free soil, clings to them wherever they go, and returns with them — that the American Congress has no power to prevent the enslavement of men in the National Territories — that the inhabitants themselves of the Territories have no power to exclude human bondage from their midst — and that men of color can not be suitors for justice in the Courts of the United States!"

Jefferson Davis' reaction to the decision lines up with the narrative. He thought that the decision was simply, "whether Cuffee should be kept in his normal condition or not."

Your facts are blatantly ignored because they are not facts. Black people were the slaves of the south. You can feel free to look up all this, a lot of the source documentation is readily available.

0
4

[–] varialus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Here's an article that agrees with your counter claim and contains a bunch of sources. The Myth of “Irish Slaves” in the Colonies: confusion // conflation // co-option

3
-1

[–] catapult 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

OP didn't say most, he said large percent.

0
8

[–] Cid 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

As far as I know there were white indentured servants but not actual slaves. Sure they were treated the same for a little white at first (the blacks had it much better than they soon will even though they were slaves), but the racism thing took hold and black slaves weren't even considered human anymore and shit got REAL bad. White indentured servants didn't go through this. America went so hardcore with it's racism that there's still signs of it today because it's not fully gone over 150 years later. They might have been comparable at one point in the beginning, but don't pretend whites had it anywhere near as bad once the racism thing took off.

0
1

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There was racism against many white immigrant groups, including Scandinavians, and Irish. (in addition to the Chinese).

Even after the practices that are now called "indentured servitude" were made illegal in some places in the late 1600's, many of these practices persisted long into the early 1900's. Some abusers simply took advantage of operating in remote frontier regions, and the lax law enforcement. Some abusers had to resort to bribery, or outright political manipulation to continue a favorable legal environment through which they exploited their labor.

My white-slave ancestors did not have to endure generations of lynchings and cross burning, after they obtained their freedom. But they did participate in the early, pioneering days of the labor movement in the USA. They recalled our exploited ancestors, and worked (and fought, and bled) for rights - ending child labor, working for the 10-hour workday (and later, the 8-hour workday), weekends, and other rights which most of us take for granted today.

load more comments ▼ (48 remaining)