Having slaves was not racist.
Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:35pm

It was a matter a need for workers. There were none. So, the Arabs sold them the excess. The imports could just as easily been white. Of course heaven forbid the sweatshop mills up north be call slavery. They only employed little kids and woman at slave level pay.

  • however.
    • Having slaves was not racist. — PH🙄🙄EY , Fri Oct 20 5:35pm
      • “Slave level pay”Jeeves, Fri Oct 20 6:42pm
        What an interesting phrase. How much were slaves paid? If you were a woman working in a sweatshop, did the sweatshop owner own your child? Could he sell your child to another sweatshop owner? If you... more
        • I was creating a general comparison.PH👏🏾👍🏿EY, Sat Oct 21 10:37am
          But if you must be picky: Slave level pay = room, board, allowance, and medical care. Sweatshop morality: If one's child was ground up in the woolen dyeing process, tough luck. And starvation wages... more
          • From the general to the specificJeeves, Mon Oct 23 10:34am
            You have a choice: you can be a slave on a Mississippi cotton plantation or a worker in a New York factory. Of the two bad choices, which do you choose?
            • That's easy! Slave in the old South.PH👏🏾👏🏾EY, Mon Oct 23 3:33pm
              Better weather, and a health care plan exceeding that of the horses. Frankly, I cannot think of a deeper wider purgatory than to be stuck in NYC on a slave-wage in a cotton mill fire- trap. And da... more
      • They Just Happened to All Be BlackMerlin, Fri Oct 20 5:53pm
        and were deemed to be sub-human because they were black. But no, slavery in the South was not racist. Sweat shop mills exploited their workers, true, but not based on race.
        • Sub-human?PH🙄😳EY, Sat Oct 21 10:52am
          If these were sub human then why were they too in attendance in Sunday at the white churches, granted, segregated. I could do an entire litany of inclusion. Much of it in service but then again the... more
          • back then? It sure as hell sounds like it.
            • Yes. It was an economic system.PH👍🏿👍🏿EY, Mon Oct 23 3:41pm
              It's all relative. The large tracts of land could not be productive without low wage unskilled labor. It not like it was personal. Just like with any economic system, there was abuse by a few mean... more
            • I suspect he's saying?et, Mon Oct 23 2:06am
              That that government the Yanks fought for and to strengthen, didn't give much a doodly damn about them after they freed them?
              • Yep! But I left that out.PH👏🏾👏🏾EY, Mon Oct 23 3:45pm
                Don't want to overwhelm the New England Yankees with overload. Siagiah would have made for a real good hoop skirted Southetn belle, mistress of the big house and social queen of Baton Rouge.
    • Said thatPikes, Thu Oct 19 7:28pm
      about the huge pile of paperwork in my post about bureaucratic paperwork;article=686146;title=Civilized%20General%20Discussion over the kidney... more
      • Some yallet, Fri Oct 20 1:03pm
        ain't right.
        • In the head? (nm)PH👹👹EY, Fri Oct 20 2:22pm
          • Re: In the head? et, Fri Oct 20 4:39pm
            Head, big toe, hard to tell the difference all in the same place? Like infants in a crib chewing on their big toe, and cut a tooth but continue on anyway out of habit, pouting and raising cane over... more