Roots on History

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm still laughing at how you think you debunked this last one

"hypothetic - if water wasn't wet...."

Brain - water is always wet - I debunked your hypothetical.

bwaahahaha

http://i18.***BLOCKED***/albums/b133/BrAinPaiNt/Aliens.jpg

 

[BigStar]

sometimes history needs revised. the McCarthy era witchhunt is one such example. classified documents proved Mcarthy right - and he was not part of the witch hunt singling out non-governmental workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

The whole era was about maintaining and expanding capitalism while suppressing internal and external "threats" to that economic system as the national-global standard. That's it; aka MIC.

 

[yimyammer]

It was quite a bit different. No whites, other than arguably the last Master Murray had any redeeming features. There was no nice white overseer like the one in the original.

As it now considered a work of fiction, they went out and did far more than before, so Chicken George was in the Union Army, when he wasn't in the first, they showed the Fort Pillow massacre where the Confederates killed the black prisoners, Kunta's whipping was was worse, the rape scenes worse etc.

The original is quite tame next to the darker remake.

and i think this makes it more realistic, no movie could possibly convey how dark those times were so the more graphic the better imo

I have been reading some articles that discuss each episode and compare it to the original as well as how historically accurate it was. While they are taking liberties with Kuntas character, they are merely placing him in circumstances that did actually occur (ex: slaves fighting for the British). This seems reasonable to me since its a drama attempting to portray the events during that period of history.

Here's the article that is a discussion with a historian of that period: We Watched "Roots" With a "Roots" Expert There's an article for each episode.

 

[BigStar]

The point about the Romans and others was just an example of other countries/empires that used slavery. They was much harsher and it lasted much longer than slavery in this country. The point being is that slavery in the USA was horrible, but it was even close to slavery during other times in history. Even today in Africa, slavery is still going strong. Wherevis the outrage?

The outrage is surely felt in the countries/nations where slavery is practiced...?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A lot of this is true, but slavery was more than a by product. The majority Northern politicians did not have the intention of freeing slaves, but if it was a by product only, why pass the 13th amendment? Why not just stick with the emancipation proclamation that freed slaves in the South? Why not allow Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware to keep their slaves as a reward for not seceding? Money played a role, and if you want to come to the conclusion that the North's motives were purely about money, that's fine. I'd disagree based off the abolitionist movement in the North growing more and more as time went on, but that opinion isn't far from the truth. Where I think you are off base is the lack of importance you are putting on the South's desire to preserve slavery. Had they realized as you said that there was a way to free slaves and also increase profits, sure they may have, but I don't think many historians believe that the South thought that was possible, so their secession was in large part due to preserving slavery. Not to mention the 100 years of Jim Crow laws that followed really point out that the racial superiority that white Southerners felt was a large part of the war, and not just a by product.

In fact it was but, it was not possible because the North had no intention of allowing it. The North controlled all shipping and that was a problem for the South. The Tariffs and Taxes I mentioned earlier were a key component in this whole thing. The South really didn't need the North to be lucrative. They could have sold all they grew to Europe for more money. The problem was that the North controlled shipping and had the Army and the Navy to insure that any and all major ports remained in control of the North. They were basically squeezing the South economically.

The Racial component of this is a separate discussion IMO. I don't question that it was real but I don't believe that it was the driving force of the Start of the Civil War. I'm not saying that there were not those who didn't believe that Slavery was wrong. There were those on both sides but they weren't the majority of those who were in power at the time.

The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War. It was in the Norths interests to pass it. Lets imagine that the Civil War ends, what is to stop Plantation Owners from rebuilding their business model? Remember that Europe was still very, very interested in cultivating this relationship with the South. Money would have been available, through foreign investors to rebuild but, if you end the practice of Slavery, and this is purely economic and not addressing the question of moral correctness, the smart thing to do is make it illegal all together. This basically solidifies the Industrial Interests of the North. Look at what occurs in the South after the War. The North definitely took full advantage of this. Besides, the North still needed the South to come back into the Union. While the North could control the economics involved, the actual transportation lines and the Manufacturing of the raw materials, they could not actually produce the Raw Materials. They still needed the South to do this. They also needed to manage Western Expansion and they simply did not have the resources to be able to do this, should territories decide that they wanted to continue with Slavery. You had to pass this in order to insure that it never comes back around. No way you govern the South if you have the Law of the Land state that only the North be allowed to have Slaves. That just invites further complications. The 13th was really the only way to insure control. Besides, legally, the Emancipation Proclamation was really nothing more then an Executive Order. Strictly speaking, it's not Law as it was not passed by Vote of Congress.

The better question might be, if abolition of Slavery was such a popular opinion of the time, why wouldn't you pass it before the Civil War ever started?

 

[jnday]

The outrage is surely felt in the countries/nations where slavery is practiced...?

Like most of Africa's problems, it seems to go unnoticed.

 

[BigStar]

Like most of Africa's problems, it seems to go unnoticed.

Follow the $...outside countries of different continents have A LOT to do w/Africa's problems in certain countries. Why would the media enhance that element of the story? We are the #1 arms manufacturer in the world... The world knows the culprits, and we benefit from the conflicts, etc. We were discussing US slavery, but if you want to discuss historical slavery or other slavery issues around the world, that's cool too. South Africa outlawed apartheid only two decades ago so EU fingerprints are still fresh, etc.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

In fact it was but, it was not possible because the North had no intention of allowing it. The North controlled all shipping and that was a problem for the South. The Tariffs and Taxes I mentioned earlier were a key component in this whole thing. The South really didn't need the North to be lucrative. They could have sold all they grew to Europe for more money. The problem was that the North controlled shipping and had the Army and the Navy to insure that any and all major ports remained in control of the North. They were basically squeezing the South economically.

The Racial component of this is a separate discussion IMO. I don't question that it was real but I don't believe that it was the driving force of the Start of the Civil War. I'm not saying that there were not those who didn't believe that Slavery was wrong. There were those on both sides but they weren't the majority of those who were in power at the time.

Not denying it was possible, just denying that the leaders of the confederacy had the foresight to realize they could make more money without free/forced labor. As far as the North not allowing it, it would have been hard for them to stop them if slavery wasn't a prominent issue. But for anyone that thinks that slavery was not a prominent issue for southerners, ask your self if you think Lincoln or any President would have been able to rally the North, as well as slave states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri if the south abolished slavery, but would not budge on the tariffs? If that happened, I don't think the north wins the civil war, just due to additional states, soldiers as well as fatigue in the north after a few years of conflict over money.

13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War. It was in the Norths interests to pass it. Lets imagine that the Civil War ends, what is to stop Plantation Owners from rebuilding their business model? Remember that Europe was still very, very interested in cultivating this relationship with the South. Money would have been available, through foreign investors to rebuild but, if you end the practice of Slavery, and this is purely economic and not addressing the question of moral correctness, the smart thing to do is make it illegal all together. This basically solidifies the Industrial Interests of the North. Look at what occurs in the South after the War. The North definitely took full advantage of this. Besides, the North still needed the South to come back into the Union. While the North could control the economics involved, the actual transportation lines and the Manufacturing of the raw materials, they could not actually produce the Raw Materials. They still needed the South to do this. They also needed to manage Western Expansion and they simply did not have the resources to be able to do this, should territories decide that they wanted to continue with Slavery. You had to pass this in order to insure that it never comes back around. No way you govern the South if you have the Law of the Land state that only the North be allowed to have Slaves. That just invites further complications. The 13th was really the only way to insure control. Besides, legally, the Emancipation Proclamation was really nothing more then an Executive Order. Strictly speaking, it's not Law as it was not passed by Vote of Congress.

I agree, which is why I'm saying it was more than a by product. I agree that if the south gave in on the tariffs but did not give in on tariffs, the civil war would not have been imminent, however, I also believe that if the north gave in on tariffs, but not slavery, the south would have seceded. The two aren't mutually exclusive, however, it points to slavery being more than a by product.

Besides, legally, the Emancipation Proclamation was really nothing more then an Executive Order. Strictly speaking, it's not Law as it was not passed by Vote of Congress. The better question might be, if abolition of Slavery was such a popular opinion of the time, why wouldn't you pass it before the Civil War ever started?

They didn't have the 2/3rds needed for ratification and if it did, it would have lead to war, where Lincoln's actions and words indicated he did not want to go to war. He would only be pushed so far, but if they were just itching for conflict, then certainly he would have called for volunteers prior to Ft. Sumter and Union troops would have fired on southern soldiers first.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not denying it was possible, just denying that the leaders of the confederacy had the foresight to realize they could make more money without free/forced labor. As far as the North not allowing it, it would have been hard for them to stop them if slavery wasn't a prominent issue. But for anyone that thinks that slavery was not a prominent issue for southerners, ask your self if you think Lincoln or any President would have been able to rally the North, as well as slave states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri if the south abolished slavery, but would not budge on the tariffs? If that happened, I don't think the north wins the civil war, just due to additional states, soldiers as well as fatigue in the north after a few years of conflict over money.

I don't think that I'm suggesting that Slavery was not a prominent issue to the South. What I'm saying is that it was not the driving force that started the Civil War. If it had been, then the War would not have started when it did. Slavery was not outlawed at the start of the Civil War so it could not have been the driving force. The South could not abolish slavery. To do that, would mean the end of their own existences. They had to have it in order to survive. That's not a right or wrong comment, that's simply a statement of fact. I know that the South considered paying Slaves. How much traction it got, I have no idea. I also know that some owners actually did pay Slaves but again, how many or how wide spread that practice was, I have no idea.

I agree, which is why I'm saying it was more than a by product. I agree that if the south gave in on the tariffs but did not give in on tariffs, the civil war would not have been imminent, however, I also believe that if the north gave in on tariffs, but not slavery, the south would have seceded. The two aren't mutually exclusive, however, it points to slavery being more than a by product.

The goal for the North was to control the Farmlands of the South. There really is no question of that. They new that the South could make more money by selling to foreign markets and the North was seeing more and more people landing off the boats every day. This meant foreign expansion was not only a desire but an inevitable problem. They had to not only secure the South but capture and control the rights. What's more, this needed to happen before the Westward expansion because, as I said, the US simply did not have the military means to control the entire country. At best, they struggled to protect settlers. Never mind actually controlling the entire population. This had to be done before the West really started developing. Greed drove both sides in this. This is why I say it was not Slavery.

They didn't have the 2/3rds needed for ratification and if it did, it would have lead to war, where Lincoln's actions and words indicated he did not want to go to war. He would only be pushed so far, but if they were just itching for conflict, then certainly he would have called for volunteers prior to Ft. Sumter and Union troops would have fired on southern soldiers first.

Actually, I believe it required 3/5ths but that is not important. Lincoln did not want to go to War, that is true but Lincoln didn't drive the bus. I believe that Lincoln was neither pro or con on the issue of Slavery at this time. I think he realized that Civil War was the worst possible way to settle the issues. I think he understood that Slavery was not the reason for War. You must also understand that the North and the South had very different mindsets with regards to how they viewed themselves. The North saw themselves as a Union. The South identified with their home States. More of a collective. This is why they were such a mess politically, for the short time they actually had their own Government. The Military can not fire on their own people with very specific circumstances. It must be civil unrest to the degree that it threatens the security of the Nation and it must be in violation of the Law or, it must be a situation in which citizens are threatening Federal properties. In the 1860s, I am not even sure that either of those apply but lets say they did, neither would have been the case at the start of the Civil War. In order to order troops to fire on U.S. citizens, they would have first had to have been provocation and then, only the President can order it. I don't believe that Lincoln ever would have done that to further a Civil War.

Anyway, it's been a good discussion. The weekend is here and I am off to have a burger and a beer. Have a great weekend MWTP.

 

[jnday]

There is truth in the point that the North had no intentions of freeing the Slaves as the objective for the War. The North was already planning to build Rail Lines and Rail Heads to ship the raw materials from the South to the North. They also planned to raise tariffs and taxes, from approximately 18% to 40% on all imported goods. Because the South basically imported most of what they needed from Europe, while the North did not, this presented a real problem for the South. This would cripple many owners and allow for the North to simply use Rail Lines to just bring the raw materials needed to a ready made work force to the North. Because so many immigrants were arriving daily in the North, a dirt cheap work force was available to the North to process the raw materials into goods very cheaply. The next logical step would be to buy out the plantation owners for pennies on the Dollar. This would effectively bankrupt the South.

I don't believe that anybody would argue that Slavery was a good thing. Everybody knows it's wrong but the North was just as guilty of this as the South. The North did not free the slaves until after the War had started and even then, they didn't free the Slaves in the North. They only freed the Slaves in the South. The Slaves that they couldn't really grant freedom to in any case. They wanted to use this as a tool to further weaken the South by encouraging Slaves to run away. I don't view the War as a War over Slavery, per say. I see it as a power play by the North against the South for raw materials. If you study the history of immigrants to America, they were not much better then the life of a Slave. Conditions for them were horrible so the North, IMO, was not nearly as idealistic or noble as history sometimes depicts. It was about money and greed IMO. The South had no intentions of letting their work force go because it would mean losing their entire way of life. Was their way of life wrong? That is a different argument IMO but the reality is that the South, and really the North as well, was built on it. The difference was that the North developed much more quickly and had more people available to develop an industrial economy. The South had far fewer people and had little choice at the time. Again, not talking right or wrong here, just presenting the realities of the times.

If you think about it, it would have been much smarter and cheaper for the South to simply abolish Slavery and just pay it's work force to do a job. I mean, if you think about it, that's a good business practice right? You simply raise the price of your product and pass it on to the consumer. Who was the consumer? Overwhelminly, it was the North. The North had no intentions of paying more and, IMO, they saw an opportunity.

This is what really caused the Civil War. Slavery, IMO, is just a bye product of the actual cause but, it was a good bye product. Sometimes you get lucky.

Excellent post.

 

[jnday]

Not denying it was possible, just denying that the leaders of the confederacy had the foresight to realize they could make more money without free/forced labor. As far as the North not allowing it, it would have been hard for them to stop them if slavery wasn't a prominent issue. But for anyone that thinks that slavery was not a prominent issue for southerners, ask your self if you think Lincoln or any President would have been able to rally the North, as well as slave states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri if the south abolished slavery, but would not budge on the tariffs? If that happened, I don't think the north wins the civil war, just due to additional states, soldiers as well as fatigue in the north after a few years of conflict over money.



I agree, which is why I'm saying it was more than a by product. I agree that if the south gave in on the tariffs but did not give in on tariffs, the civil war would not have been imminent, however, I also believe that if the north gave in on tariffs, but not slavery, the south would have seceded. The two aren't mutually exclusive, however, it points to slavery being more than a by product.



They didn't have the 2/3rds needed for ratification and if it did, it would have lead to war, where Lincoln's actions and words indicated he did not want to go to war. He would only be pushed so far, but if they were just itching for conflict, then certainly he would have called for volunteers prior to Ft. Sumter and Union troops would have fired on southern soldiers first.

The South asked the Union troops to leave several times . When they wouldn't , they showed them that things had went too far.

 

[yimyammer]

Just wrapped up my binge watch and I found it entertaining and moving throughout. Sure I could nit pick some stuff but simply taking it all in for the sad piece of history it was, those nitpicks don't take anything away from the larger storyline and overall message.

of course, just IMHO

 

[Passepartout]

Really wished that the past of what happened in the days of "Roots" never happened. It is a sad and tragic part that happened in history. But it is about learning from the mistakes of that past. And trying to make sure it never, ever happens again.

 

[bodi]

one thing I learned was that the Cherokee indains had them some slaves

 

[Dallas_Cowboys50]

one thing I learned was that the Cherokee indains had them some slaves

nobody is blameless, even some former slaves turned around and became slave owners once free.......