>listens to Kendrick Lamar once
>>66058823
This is nothing compared to real slavery back in the days. These whiteys are just playing the guilt game, if they really want to feel what it is like, they can clean my toilet with their tongue.
>>66058823
Daily reminder: During the peak of slavery, only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves.
Bonus trivia: the first person to own a slave in the US was... you guessed it... a nigger.
>>66059241
OP here, I know Slavery is alive and well especially in Africa and part of the Middle-East and I like that you brought up that the first slave owner is a Black however don't you agree that it is ridiculous that these cucks and sjws go all the way and pretend like they're oppressed and shit?
I wonder what motivates a person to do this
>>66059319
>don't you agree
... yeah, obviously lol
Although they're not exactly pretending to be oppressed, they're pretending to be sensitive, noble human beings, as they attempt to show everyone how righteous they are.
>>66059241
yeah, because salves where found in plantations, which were owned by extremely rich people. And that 1.6% owned many slaves to work their entire plantations.
>>66059369
low T
putting even fucking kids to their agenda is disgusting! fuck those stupid niggers who can't forgive and think white people nowdays still must feel guilt
haha also look at the wallpainting
WE
>>66059550
stop cursing so much you child
>>66059550
you write like a teenager
>>66059241
Not true. About 1/3 of the south's white families owned slaves at the peak.
The south had way more slaves than citizens for a while.
>>66059241
>this can't be true
>look it up
>... holy shit, it's fuckin true
This is one of those rare posts that make me question everything I thought I knew.
And it comes soon after I was hit with an image-macro about Black crime stats -- any more of this shit, and I'm going full /pol/tard.
>>66059550
you sound so immature , god
>>66059705
Are you fuckin retarded?
>>66059722
Its not actually true. You are looking up circlejerks.
Hell if you actually look it up its a bunch of people debunking this.
>>66059319
Actual OP here, fuck off /pol/fag, this thread wasn't made for nig bashing or whatever. I rather wanted to discuss how TPAB got ridiculosuly praised by white guilt faggots like Fantano for its incredibly hamfisted message.
>>66059760
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
Look at actual statistics.
the lowest I've seen is 25%
>>66059722
Imagine letting 4chan dictate your political beliefs
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
>>66059772
>not actually true
According to Google, it's pretty fuckin true, m8
>>66059795
facts are facts no matter where you learn them from
>>66059832
According to statistics its not actually true.
Have you ever looked at a census from the 1800s? The only places who say this number are blogs
>>66059784
WUZ
>>66058823
The parents of those kids should lose custody
>>66059881
yep, like denying the holocaust and blaming the jews on your life issues
>>66060047
Do you seriously think this, if so, why
>>66059794
>.org
>credible source
>>66060212
You can literally look this up.
The reason the number of southern owners were so low is because only the head of house claimed ownership.
if you've studied the civil war in college this gets discussed a lot
>>66059794
If you include the North, around 1.4% of people owned slaves in the US. Fact.
>>66059795
>beliefs
>>66059884
You're full of shit
If one divides the number of slaveowners by the total free population of the United States, the figure is actually closer to 1.4%
Stay dumb, faggots
>>66060115
>strawman
>>66060276
>only the head of house claimed ownership
Yeah... because he was the fuckin owner. I suppose you want to count the wives and children as well, huh?
Goalposts: stop moving them.
>>66059550
fucking idiot
>>66060353
Then I assume that you are willing to take all women and children out of the statistics?
About 50 percent of the south was less than 20. About half of the south was women.
So, by this there is 24 percent ownership.
>>66059241
and a large percentage fought to keep slavery even though they didn't own them, is that really much better?
>>66060124
Yes. Do you know anything about the blacks that host these types of things? Those kids probably had to deal with a bunch of harrasement and racial slurs thrown at them. Look up Gazi Kodzo on YouTube for reference. Why would they take their kids there anyway? The thought of parents taking their young innocent kids to a walk of shame like that is sickening. Would you take your kids to one of those things?
>>66060511
According to a census of the Confederate army 37% owned slaves.
>inb4 civil war wasn't about slavery
>>66060498
You keep saying "the South, the South"... you do realize that theres a North, right?
>>66060511
>is that really much better
The Atlantic Slave Trade was one of the biggest mistakes in US history -- on this, I'm sure we both agree (although probably for different reasons).
>>66058823
White kids parents making their kids do shit they don't understand.
>>66060719
yeah, the north was largely against slavery by the time these numbers are talking about. There also is an entire continent of white people who were against slavery by this time in Europe.
The argument that anybody cares about is the confederacy/south.
>>66059902
KINGZ
>>66060875
>The argument that anybody cares about is the confederacy/south.
I realize it's not convenient for the point you're trying to prove, but I would include the North if we're talking about the current state of white liberal guilt.
>>66060773
It's because the only thing they're concerned about is appearing morally-superior -- not blacks, not their kids, just themselves.
>>66060694
Source please.
37% of the officers maybe but I don't see how over a third of the rank and file could afford or even have a use for a slave.
>>66059241
why would they ever implement the 3/5thd compromise then? It got them no political power then.
Being a slave wasn't bad by today's standards. Excellent job security, almost impossible to lose your job. Always have shelter, food. No existential doubt. Even if you were unlucky and had an asshole owner, as long as you did what you were fine. If you were lucky and had a cool owner you could get lots of benefits. You don't have to hunt for the job, it found you actually. The work was inherently satisfying and provided good exercise, unlike modern jobs which usually just make you want to kill yourself. Living conditions were shit but not much worse than the average working class American, and comparable to tribal living.
>>66060353
You are an idiot if you didn't understand the point of the post this one is a reply to. That means the entire family owned slaves because the head of the house lives with them.
>>66058823
liberal KEK here, proud SJW, ruiner of /mu/; this picture is the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen. They're obviously doing it for a "holier than thou", selfish purpose and have a cursory understanding of the subject.
>>66060582
gazi kodzo.... this guy is mentally fucked. If he's being serious it's so sad to see someone fucked up like that. I was going to say he's a waste of youtube server space, but maybe in a hundred years he will serve as a mark that people like that existed in our time.
>>66059665
>>66059701
>>66059744
Samefaggin
