So...America freed black people, right?

Hey,

I'm wondering, if U.S. hated black people, then why free them? I mean, after black people became free, why didn't the government ship them back to Africa?

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

I`m not really up on American history, but IIRC that`s how Liberia was formed.

I remember reading something about the American Colonization Society (i think that`s right) - being heavily supported by slave owners. They ssupported the Liberia deal to get free slaves out of American society, or some such thing.



[edit on 13-2-2008 by vox2442]

[edit on 13-2-2008 by vox2442]

Really? Hmm I don't think I knew that.

There's a country Liberia? I just looked up on wiki and the flag definitely looks almost same as U.S. one.

I guess they tried to send all black people to Liberia, then? But failed to do so? Therefore, some wanted to stay, some were shipped, would that be right?

Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by TheoOne
Really? Hmm I don't think I knew that.

There's a country Liberia? I just looked up on wiki and the flag definitely looks almost same as U.S. one.

I guess they tried to send all black people to Liberia, then? But failed to do so? Therefore, some wanted to stay, some were shipped, would that be right?

Thanks for your reply.

Good Grief! You would be well served to study both your History, as well as , your geography.....I won't bother trying to educate you!

reply to post by TheoOne


The "US" is a pretty big state and to say that the whole country hates a group of people based on their skin color is blatantly wrong.

The slave trade ended about 100 years prior to slavery being abolished in the US. The British Empire abolished slavery as they seemed to think they were 'too gentlemanly' to hold people in bondage (which was only repeated in other countries after Africans were freed, but that's another story).

There were some charity groups organized to send African slaves back to Africa. The problem with that is as follows:

By the time this plan had been enacted, most African slaves had been living in the Americas for such a long time they forgot their native homeland's language, culture, and location.

Sending all the slaves back to Africa would have been a terrible idea and very expensive.

Not many African slaves were sent back to Africa. I don't have the number, but a small percentage. Not many wanted to leave their new home in the Americas.

The Atlantic passage happened to be a death sentence for most as well...

reply to post by TheoOne


It`s been quite a few years since I`ve really read up on Liberia, but from what I remember, certain groups of freed slaves were given the option. The ACS paid their way.

Oddly, when they got to Liberia, more often than not they identified themselves as American, and became kind of an upper class caste. Culturally, they were quite different from the locals - and many were in fact from different parts of the continent. They identified themselves (many still do, apparently) as American-Liberians.

It`s a strange story, worth reading up on. Odd bit of history.

reply to post by TheoOne


They were never actually "freed." Black men and women continued to be exploited and used well into the 20th century. "Slavery" just turned into "sharecropping" in the south, and in the north, highly racist attitudes led to the black migrants being turned into debt slaves (much as the Irish, Italians, and east europeans were). Quite simply, free / nearly free labor by people that the majority of society regarded as invisible was too valuable. Especially if the other option is a hugely expensive plan to get rid of all that free labor, at no benefit to the investors.

Also, Biggie,

The slave trade was still going right up to the end of the civil war. The trick was, slave trade from Africa was illegal - Slave trade from Latin America and the Caribbean, however...

You are correct. I should have said the Atlantic Slave trade was abolished.

Slaves were allowed to be sold and traded as long as they originated in the Americas.

reply to post by realmatrix


Are you trying to insult me for no reason? Because I do know mostly of the geography as I'm a fan of it, same with general history, as I'm in process of learning it. Why the hell do you think I made a thread about it?

OMFG SORRY I DIDNT GET INVOLVED TOO MUCH IN BLACK HISTORY, THERE ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? IF YOU WONT BOTHER TRYING TO EDUCATE ME, THEN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE THEN. SORRY I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF MEMORIZING EVERY DAMN COUNTRIES ON EARTH OMG.

Anyway, thank you biggie smalls, that's the one of a post I didn't expect to see. I understand much more now. I've never been to Liberia, though.

Would also a melting pot apply to this? Because since now there's kind of like a cultural division between blacks and whites, so I'm not too sure if you could use a melting pot solution to this issue.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 15-2-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply topost by TheoOne


Your questions are fine. If people don't have the patience to offer help then that is their issue to conquer.

Read up on apartheid. This will shed light on the ideology of slavery in later years. Continue to learn my friend, that is what we are all here for. The more you know, the more your awareness of your infinite universe grows.

AAC

reply to post by TheoOne


There's a big problem with the "melting pot" idea - the people who thought that concept up didn't actually want a melting pot. They wanted a bucket of bleach. The idea was that everyone who got added to the melting pot would abandon their own culture, traditions, faiths, languages, and all that, and "assimilate" to a white anglophone Christian way of life, while hte original white anglophonic christians would be totally unimpacted by their presence.

In other words, the traditional "melting pot" is an idiotic presumption.

America is better represented as a patchwork quilt, or perhaps a tossed salad.

Do you think that if europeans, having had with no ownership of slaves, after settling in North America, would America be a one-race nation today and how would it be like? Including not letting anybody that's outside of one race to immigrate or settle in here?

Interesting if you think about it. Makes you think.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

Originally posted by TheoOne
reply to post by realmatrix

 

Are you trying to insult me for no reason? Because I do know mostly of the geography as I'm a fan of it, same with general history, as I'm in process of learning it. Why the hell do you think I made a thread about it?

OMFG SORRY I DIDNT GET INVOLVED TOO MUCH IN BLACK HISTORY, THERE ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? IF YOU WONT BOTHER TRYING TO EDUCATE ME, THEN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE THEN. SORRY I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF MEMORIZING EVERY DAMN COUNTRIES ON EARTH OMG.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

Sorry TheoOne, didn't mean to sound so terse, what I should have said is that if you are truly interested in learning about this subject....Google: Marcus Garvey and Liberia.

Start Here: www.marcusgarvey.com...

Hope this helps

[edit on 12-2-2008 by realmatrix]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox They were never actually "freed." Black men and women continued to be exploited and used well into the 20th century. "Slavery" just turned into "sharecropping" in the south, and in the north, highly racist attitudes led to the black migrants being turned into debt slaves (much as the Irish, Italians, and east europeans were).

However, I don't think you'll find many blacks that equate the two...and rightfully so. Being a debt slave is one thing, but it isn't the same as being chattel...you can't be beaten, sold, nor have your family snatched away never to be seen again. You may be indentured...but you're not property.

Also...notice that when Lincoln freed the slaves, he only freed the ones in the South...over which he had no authority.

reply to post by TheoOne


Well, such a society would have grown rather slowly compared to the actual events, since they would have to rely on their own labor, wages, and such.

Such slow growth would have given the Native American nations time to recover from the initial rush of disease, secure their own nations, and quite possibly push the Europeans back into the Atlantic after one bad deal too many.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Oh yes, black people were safe from being beaten, having tseir family snatched to never be seen again, threatened.... Oh, and you would NEVER be incarcerated on false charges and then "rented" around the county as prisoner labor. Why, the life of a black man after 1865 was surely gumdrops and daffodils!

...Yeah yeah, I know, I'm being maybe TOO smartassed there, but, really. The same problems existed, only there was actually LESS security. At least a slave could be reasonable sure (though not totally) that his owner wasn't going to waste money by killing him at random... getting killed at random turned out to be a pretty big problem for free blacks after the civil war.

reply to post by realmatrix


All right, if you're not being sarcastic, then apology understood. Don't get me wrong, I don't like stupid people either (I do believe in education, duh) but it's just I was looking for the answer after my question.

If America existed with one race, I think there would be much less crime and everything would probably be perfect. I don't know.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
At least a slave could be reasonable sure (though not totally) that his owner wasn't going to waste money by killing him at random... getting killed at random turned out to be a pretty big problem for free blacks after the civil war.

There's a difference between dying free and dying a slave. I'm not saying it was peaches and cream...but there's a decided difference. Ask any of your black pals, and I'm betting they'll agree. Incidently I am something of an historian, so I'm not talking mere conjecture here.

I forgot to mention, I also came across this -

www.der.org...

Probably would be something to watch and to get the point.

On other hands, thanks for the replies and helping me to understand this history I've questioned about.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by TheoOne]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


It's an incremental difference. Kind of like "Would you rather be shot, or be shot while wearing dirty underwear?" - Obviously you'd rather die with clean briefs, but either way, you're getting shot.