*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, May 17th, 2013 9:06am PDT - promote requested by original submitter VoodooV.

*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Black-History-in-the-USA-Banned-Cartoon

Invocations (isdupe) cannot be called by Mordhaus because Mordhaus is not privileged - sorry.

Although I don't disagree that there is an edge of fear or paranoia in many Americans, this video hardly represents reality in my opinion. Slavery was not the cause of America's posterity and although fear was present I don't believe it was the primary motivation behind how the Native Americans and African Slaves were treated.

Unfortunately greed and racial ignorance would shoulder most of the blame for how colonists dealt with these groups.

It's also my opinion that fear is often used to veil things like greed and persecution in order to make them more acceptable to the general population.

I suppose if you specify "fear of losing their money/land/social norms/position of power" then yes, I suppose you can say that fear drove a lot of this. But fear of losing these things is more indicative of greed than it is fear of the groups in question.

I dont expect a slanted and simplified cartoon to capture the reality of history but this is pretty revisionist in the opposite direction from the text book history that American's are criticized for teaching ourselves.

damn, I thought I searched thoroughly.

I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. America is rich largely because of it's slavery past which was cotton, which was textiles. It's why we grew so quickly and put ourselves in a place to overtake everyone after World War 2 when we literally had half the worlds wealth. There's plenty of economic history of this that you can research if you care to try.

The fear thing is pretty unique in America but not unique when you compare it to say a authoritarian society. Americans are a terrified people and it's easy to use it. You can look back at the first Gulf War when people were buying guys and camo and readying themselves in case Saddam came to attack the US. Which is insanity. In the Iraq War we were more terrified of Iraq than Kuwait and it's citizens were, and they had been attacked by them and were their closest neighbor. You can also see the fear today about taking peoples guns away, if we don't have guns we're all doomed, the government is coming or al qaeda is coming and we're all gonna die. Most of the rest of the world looks at us and laughs when we react all scared to nothing.

This cartoon pisses me off for one reason. It reminds me about the South Park guys bitching and moaning about how it was put in after Matts interview, so it looked to idiots like they had made it. Apparently that was enough for them to bitch and moan about it, I lost a lot of respect for Matt and Trea because of that.

That's not what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote after in 1824 after his tour. The northern states (no slavery) were hives of industry and rich. The southern states (with slavery) were generally poorer.

He attributed the wealth of the northern states partly to their better shipping ports, and the frantic industry of the people there. In comparison the southerners had little taste for work, preferring to leave that to slaves.

The book is fairly long, but it's a good read.

Also, might I point out that the end of world war 2 was 82 years and several boom and bust cycles after the end of slavery in the U.S. and that you could make a fairly compelling argument that post war prosperity came from elsewhere.

Well he's wrong then. The south was also exploited by the north, just like we today exploit places that are poor. We get rich off of poor places just like the North getting rich on the South and it's slavery. France is rich mostly because it exploited Haiti, and left it in shambles, till we came along and destroyed it even more. Chomsky has reported a lot on this, I suggest you read him since he's an honest intellectual who has his sources all correct.

It's just a fact that the US made a ton of it's wealth from slavery, doesn't matter what booms or busts happened. Make any argument you want, but the US became wealthy by first conquering land and killing all in their path in a designed genocide. Then taking Africans and bringing them here to work the land they stole as beasts of burden. You can also make a compelling argument that the Nazis were under a threat from terrorists, doesn't make it ok that they attacked Poland.

Also I wouldn't cite some French Faggot, you'll just lose.

The farmer who held slaves needed to feed them the whole year round, but only needed workers for a short period, and possibly would have been better off hiring low paid seasonal workers (Hmm... now where would farmers right near Mexico find low paid seasonal workers???).

The expansion from east to west was, as you say, key to U.S. wealth, but only the poor south had slaves, so how do you figure that they helped? In fact right in the middle of the slavery period, right when you would expect maximum effect, de Tocqueville compared two like for like states and found that the no slavery state was richer and more industrious. Why do you suppose this was?

If you have a specific reference to Chomsky rebutting de Tocqueville, please let me know which one and I'll check it out. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he's usually interesting along the way.

OH I have to look for a specific reference of Chomsky refuting your specific French Faggot. Great more homework for me. OH Wait! I don't care what you think. Go on believing that Slaves didn't make us rich, that's fine with me, ya Racist!

I mean it's not a complicated formula. Slaves pick cotton, cotton makes textiles, textiles made by cheaper slave labor than in Egypt is more profitable. If you don't understand how raw materials can be taken out from under someone leaving them still poor and the people exploiting those materials fantastically rich than I don't know what to tell you. Maybe read the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Technically, this is a dupe posting. However the better embed and discussion is here.

Wow.....you win for most ignorant and bigoted comment on the website in a very longtime.

Good Job.

Always hated this film, never appreciated the animated segment-film was edited by retarded monkeys-only film worth a fuck from Moore was his first-His Oscar for this film was as much a travesty as Hallie Berry's for "Monster's Ball"-The first Best Actress to a Black woman since Hattie McDaniel's win for her role as a maid in "Gone With The Wind", in 1939.

Halle fucked on the floor by a white man, Hattie fucked washing the floor for a white man.

Hollywoods' a private party and the Oscars awarded on politics over film-making merit, worthy of the smelter.

Moore's films suck as much as his politics, and the barge should stop eating butterfat

Got anything to actually..... contribute? or you just going to rant incoherently again and ad hom in a non-sequitor fashion?

I'm not arguing that Slavery wasn't a key factor in the growth of the US economy up to a point. It was a major component of our history and evolution even outside of economic terms.

However since we were not one of the wealthiest countries in the world once slavery ended or anytime soon there after, I don't know that you can attribute the success after WW2 to slavery directly. Our having so much of the worlds wealth after WW2 had as much to do with how much everyone else LOST as it did with how much we HAD (and how much we made off of their loss because we were not slowed economically by war).

Sure you can say we weren't poised to take advantage of a post-WW2 world without slavery but the same can be said about many things including: Territory purchases, agricultural and technological advancements, organized banking, FDIC insured banking, a centralized monetary system, removal of the gold standard, social and political shifts in the world...you get the idea.

In fact some could make the argument that indentured servitude could be given a lot of credit for our early growth as well, which had nothing to do with African Slavery. And also provides evidence that even in the absence of full fledged slavery, the early colonials would have found a way to exploit cheap labor to accomplish their goals and they would not need a native or african population to do so.