Vegas » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑
The part that they weren't oppressed. Pretty much all of it. Let's take an extreme example for the sake of your argument. Let's say a slave was treated like royalty. They ate well. They drank good wine and got laid as much as they wanted. Their family was never separated. Moreover, they lived a long healthy life. Ok, great. One problem - they are still a slave. What does that mean? It means they are property, not humans. They can be killed or whipped for no reason at any time. Property is expendable. They don't have a right to pursue their own happiness. If they want to make money and own their own land or property, that is too bad. their lives have been coursed out already.
- Could they make money or own their own land in Africa? Remember who slaves are - men (and their families) who fought wars and lost. What would these "slaves" be doing in Africa if they didn't come to America?
- How long would these Slaves survived in Africa, after losing to a more powerful tribe?
- How would these exported Slaves been treated if they remained in Africa, considering they couldn't even defend themselves or their families from becoming enslaved.
- There's oppression - the type you were describing, and then there's oppression - the type which starves and brutalizes an individual and his family; that's African oppression.
Look, I agree that the 13 colonies would never have formed a Union without acceptance of slavery. The real question is was it reasonable for White Europeans to believe that Black Africans were simply incapable of living as free people? I think so. When you compare the ability of an African from 1775 to a European White of the same time frame, the difference in raw intelligence and capabilities were at least tens-of-thousands of years apart.