'The 1619 Project'

Quote: Wikipedia

The first Africans in Virginia were a group of 20 to 30 enslaved people originally from the Kingdom of Ndongo in modern Angola, who arrived in 1619 in the colony of Virginia. They had been part of a larger group heading to Mexico, and were taken after an attack on their Portuguese slave ship by English privateers. Their arrival is seen as a beginning of the history of slavery in Virginia and also as a starting point for African-American history, given that they were the first such group in mainland British America. The 400th anniversary of their arrival was marked by The 1619 Project of The New York Times, the Year of Return in Ghana, and other commemorations.

Oprah set to adapt 'The 1619 Project' examining the legacy of slavery with Lionsgate. Some people feel that the 1619 incident was a minor blip in history. Smithsonian Magazine calls it a misguided focus.

In November 1526 in present-day South Carolina, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, a wealthy Spanish slave trader, landed along the shores of the Pee Dee River. He established a nascent village, San Miguel de Gualdape. A month later, he was dead, and two months later, the African slaves he held captive revolted, effectively ending the settlement for the Spaniards. That was only a few years after Cortez conquered Mexico.

Surely that is a more rousing story to begin the history of African Americans in Northern America.

Does the United States need to shoulder all of the blame for slavery? As is pointed out repeatedly about 400,000 of the 4 million Africans abducted for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were brought to the future United States. Probably a lot more died in their first year on the Caribbean plantations.

Like much of history, trans Atlantic slave trade is a horror, but it should not be seen as a uniquely American horror.

Slavery in ancient times was most often a sort of pardon given to conquered enemies, instead of killing them. Perhaps for this reason it is hard to find slavery criticized or condemned at all until some sort of awakening occurred in the world. The abolition movement started in the late 1700s in the English colonies and I'm not sure if something similar started much earlier anywhere else.

Of course it is not wiped out world wide today. There is a report out there that you can buy a slave captured from desperate illegal immigrants trying to get to Europe from Africa, going price $200 in Libya it is said

Quote: Pacomartin

Quote: Wikipedia

The first Africans in Virginia were a group of 20 to 30 enslaved people originally from the Kingdom of Ndongo in modern Angola, who arrived in 1619 in the colony of Virginia. They had been part of a larger group heading to Mexico, and were taken after an attack on their Portuguese slave ship by English privateers. Their arrival is seen as a beginning of the history of slavery in Virginia and also as a starting point for African-American history, given that they were the first such group in mainland British America. The 400th anniversary of their arrival was marked by The 1619 Project of The New York Times, the Year of Return in Ghana, and other commemorations.

Oprah set to adapt 'The 1619 Project' examining the legacy of slavery with Lionsgate. Some people feel that the 1619 incident was a minor blip in history. Smithsonian Magazine calls it a misguided focus.

In November 1526 in present-day South Carolina, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, a wealthy Spanish slave trader, landed along the shores of the Pee Dee River. He established a nascent village, San Miguel de Gualdape. A month later, he was dead, and two months later, the African slaves he held captive revolted, effectively ending the settlement for the Spaniards. That was only a few years after Cortez conquered Mexico.

Surely that is a more rousing story to begin the history of African Americans in Northern America.

Quote: Pacomartin

Does the United States need to shoulder all of the blame for slavery? As is pointed out repeatedly about 400,000 of the 4 million Africans abducted for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were brought to the future United States. Probably a lot more died in their first year on the Caribbean plantations.

Like much of history, trans Atlantic slave trade is a horror, but it should not be seen as a uniquely American horror.

No. Slavery was around in all of history.

And, even specifically African slavery, America (or the colonies) were far from the only culprit. Slavery existed in Africa before outside influence.... Islam can be credited with the export of African slaves (along with many other types of slaves), not something many people like to point out, long before evil white people came along....

Most people in the slave trade were bought (From Africans who again started slavery in Africa), they were not raided and kidnapped....

The point is slavery existed in Africa long before outside influence. The export of Africans was not started by Americans or white people. And, most slaves from Africa were sold to America by Africans who owned them first.

None of this makes slavery right (shouldn't need to say this), but its important historical context for those trying to make America the slavery capitol of the world.....

Quote: Gandler

None of this makes slavery right (shouldn't need to say this), but its important historical context for those trying to make America the slavery capitol of the world.....

IMHO part of what makes American slavery history "different" was the personalization of it. In history, slavery was more often a whole group of people owned by another group. Even today this happens in Africa and other places. To picture it, thing Charleton Heston and the Jews in "The Ten Commandments." You can say the Pharoh is who owned the slaves, though there was no relationship about it.

In the USA, most slaveownes owned less than 10 slaves, even more less than 5, some just 1 or 2. In my title research I have seen slaves both freed and willed. When willed, it was always just less than 3-4 at most.

This would cause a weird relationship. The slaves personally knew their masters. In some cases they developed loyalty to them. Upon emancipation most took their master's last names. Yeah, that is why blacks in the USA to this day have last names that make no ethnic sense.

In the rest of the Americas, slaves were owned in large lots on huge plantations. While the USA had large plantations, this was still just half or so of the slave population.

Quote: AZDuffman

IMHO part of what makes American slavery history "different" was the personalization of it. In history, slavery was more often a whole group of people owned by another group. Even today this happens in Africa and other places. To picture it, thing Charleton Heston and the Jews in "The Ten Commandments." You can say the Pharoh is who owned the slaves, though there was no relationship about it.

In the USA, most slaveownes owned less than 10 slaves, even more less than 5, some just 1 or 2. In my title research I have seen slaves both freed and willed. When willed, it was always just less than 3-4 at most.

This would cause a weird relationship. The slaves personally knew their masters. In some cases they developed loyalty to them. Upon emancipation most took their master's last names. Yeah, that is why blacks in the USA to this day have last names that make no ethnic sense.

In the rest of the Americas, slaves were owned in large lots on huge plantations. While the USA had large plantations, this was still just half or so of the slave population.

That is possibly true. Its a complicated subject in some cases, I ak not sure about the ratio, still 100% wrong.

But, I am all for hard truths. I just feel people love to obsess over the negatives of America instead of the good (which are far more plentiful).