Watch the Documentary Somchai then post instead of coming from the other side to cause trouble.

Giggle wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 3:42 pm

BobHelm wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 12:11 pm

What is the source of your data.

https://www.federalobserver.com/2016/01 ... in-the-us/
(perhaps you remember Henry Gates)

Seems my estimate of 400,000 was a little high. The better number is 388,000. Indeed, "The United States were minor players in the slave trade.

Interesting Giggle, I guess the 1790 American census (a time that was not the pinnacle of American slavery) was some how incorrect then??? What was Lone Star saying about rewriting history???

I'll use small words for ya, Bob.

Fewer than four hundred thousand slaves were brought to the American colonies by (mostly) British slave ships. I don't dispute that by 1790 there were more. Slaves can reproduce. Did you know that, Bob? Many slaves were born in the British colonies and then in the United States of America, but fewer than 400,000 were brought to what is now the U.S. by mostly British slave ships. Many times more than that were sent to South America and colonies in the Caribbean where the Spanish British, Dutch and French slave plantations dwarfed any of those in the American colonies. Still confused?

No Giggle you have used a source who has used other researchers data which they readily acknowledge is inaccurate simply because it suits your predetermined views.
Nothing more, nothing less...

How many slaves were there in the South at the time of the Civil War, or did they just reproduce 10 fold from your statistic??? I am surprised that their masters got any work out of them at all...

Exact same article, exact same U.S. slavery expert, original online magazine. The facts don't change. Still 388,000. Yep. You're fighting a losing battle, Bob.

http://www.theroot.com/how-many-slaves- ... 1790873989

Giggle wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 3:42 pm

BobHelm wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 12:11 pm

What is the source of your data.

--Removed irrelevant prejudiced link--
(perhaps you remember Henry Gates)

Seems my estimate of 400,000 was a little high. The better number is 388,000. Indeed, "The United States were minor players in the slave trade."

The Confederate flag is not a racist symbol. It's just a piece of cloth.

As the confederate flag was the flag used to support a war to preserve slavery it is a racist symbol.

The number of slaves in the US in 1860 was just under 4,000,000 according to the US census, so is it your claim that the supposed 388,000 had been breeding like rabbits?
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860 ... bution.pdf

Giggles or Somchai whatever you like to be called these days the Thread was about the angry white Americans today 2017.
What part of that can't you understand?

& yet, by 1860 the number of slaves had

increased to the total population included 3,953,761 slaves, representing 12.6% of the total population

From fewer than 380,000??
That is some sort of increase given infant mortality rates even among the privileged well off & low expectation of life among farm slaves..

Your figures just don't add up no matter how many learned articles founded on data guesswork.
The data is there - in the census.
I wonder why learned arguments about how few slaves there were don't use it - Oh that is right, it doesn't agree with their view..

Giggle wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 11:38 am

At the peak of slavery in the South, just 6% of Southern whites owned slaves. If you include the North, it means just 1.4% of white Americans owned slaves at the HEIGHT of slavery. It's hardly worth mentioning.

1860 wasn't the pinnacle of slave ownership as the Northern States had given up on it... However even when they are included into the equation the answer is still 14% & not your claimed 1.4%..

Let's see. Who should I believe.

Tenured Harvard professor, PhD from Cambridge, preeminent scholar on slavery in the U.S. distinguished author, teacher, historian and literary critic, MacArthur fellow, and winner of the National Humanities Medal.

or

BobHelm, associate deputy moderator, Udon Map.

Ha, ha..
No, possibly the US Census system - but you won't because it does not agree with your view of the world...
But, as they say, that is up to you..

p.s. Maybe you can ask the Professor to explain the apparent discrepancy between the facts of a Government Census & his theories about the number of slaves imported into the USA.
I would be interested to read the reply...

Can any of you change this?

No....well don't worry about it.

Surprised nobody has mentioned Bristol....

^^There is no discrepancy. The fact that slaves reproduced very quickly is perfectly unremarkable. Importation of slaves was abolished in 1807; the population was self-sustaining.

Between 1600 & 1800 the world population increased from 580 Million to 890 million - an increase of 53% & you are trying to say that an increase from 380,000 to 3,950,000 (1,000 %) is natural??
I suggest that you find another Professor.. this one is lacking in basic common sense!!

Faraday wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 7:35 pm

Can any of you change this?

No....well don't worry about it.

Surprised nobody has mentioned Bristol....

You are absolutely correct Faraday.
However in the Trump era America this is all about rewriting history as you would like it to be rather than any semblance to the truth.
The facts, thankfully, are still out there but they are hard work to read & distorted by 'popularists' (of many different views) to make followers of their particular faith more reinforced in their views.
Georges' 1984 newspeak really is now on us...

& don't forget, Manchester, Liverpool or even Nottingham either..

Giggle wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 4:27 pm

Do you know the author, Henry Gates? He is the authority on American slavery. You will not find a better source than Gates. Poor deflection. Try harder.

No deflection attempted; I don't have a horse in this race. I know exactly who Dr. Gates is (and he lives about ½ mile from me in Cambridge, Massachusetts). He is, indeed, a respected scholar. And his opinion has great validity; although if he really does disagree with what the U.S. Census has reported, then some further analysis may be indicated.

In any case, I didn't mention Dr Gates; my comment was directed at the publication cited, the Federal Observer (and Jeff Bennett indirectly). Given that Dr. Gates' article is widely available from numerous respected sources, I thought it interesting that the Observer was the source cited. It's hardly known as a scholarly and objective publication.

BobHelm wrote: ↑

November 11, 2017, 7:49 pm

Between 1600 & 1800 the world population increased from 580 Million to 890 million - an increase of 53% & you are trying to say that an increase from 380,000 to 3,950,000 (1,000 %) is natural??

Slaves began arriving in the British colonies in the early 1600s. All the offspring they produced there are not included in importation figures. Do you see where your logic has fallen off the rails?

http://www.slaverysite.com/Body/facts%2 ... igures.htm

Pay close attention to the last chart.

I am sorry Giggle you are have to go & do this again for me..
So, what figure are you now saying of slaves were imported into the USA from when ??
I am merely taking YOUR figures & projecting them from the census reports?
Are you now saying one is wrong??
I am interested because the figures you have quoted just don't add up..
If you are now saying that some of your figures are wrong - then say which...
It is still 1000% increase in population - which is ridiculous!!
Please explain??

Oh f***k you really are not suggesting that slaves came in as Immigrants (as the White population increase is done) are you Giggles??

Ha, ha that is just so funny - I see where you got your ID from..

388,000 to 4,000,000. It's spelled out for you.

Fewer than half a million. Hardly worth mentioning.