My Account    
  Shopping Cart   ContactAbout
Home   Papers   History   T-Shirts   Concrete Calculator   Store
Slavery versus Starvation; If you don't have any food, you don't have any food.

Last Updated: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:21 AM
 If there was no Slavery...
Someone on the Left (possibly BLM/Antifa type) said, "Slavery is Genocide."
As a response, it was said that they thought it was just the opposite 300 years ago. Slavery saved many Africans from war, border war, civil war, drought, famine, disease, and starvation.

It was asked, "If there was no Slavery, where in Africa for the last 1,000 to 2,000 years could the slave and his family live (in Africa) such that there was no war, border war, civil, war, drought, famine, disease or starvation?" There was no real response, just name calling.
If you don't have any Food, you don't have any Food
And just in case it hasn't occurred to you, it's really hard to grow crops in a war zone and the Africans didn't have to be chained to be put on a slave ship as "the land" they lived in had no stable food supply or water. Hence, all the slave trader had to do was provide (a) fresh food, (b) water and (c) the hope of a better life than what they saw in Africa which was starvation, starvation, starvation.

Just showing them lots of food on the ship should be enough to convince them to leave Africa. I would not be surprised many Africans were looking to leave Africa just like you see today in Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela today.


Can anyone (including historians) say that not a single person from Africa, living thru decades of war, disease, drought, famine, and starvation didn't want to leave Africa in exchange for being a slave (or a lifetime of employment or indentured servant)?

Or can anyone say that not a single African didn't voluntarily offer themselves as a lifetime of service to their rescuer from starvation?

Why shouldn't Africans pay other Africans to get them to the West Coast of Africa to avoid war, disease, drought, famine and starvation? Isn't this what you see now in African and Latin American? Africants doing whatever they can to get leave Africa and goto Europe? Or Hispanics leaving South America and Central America to get to America?

1,600s != 2,000
Africans back then, hundreds of years ago, didn't have MRE's, running water, electricity, 911, cars, Deep Woods Off, refrigerators or freezers. It was really hard to preserve and store food back then for long periods of time. Back then, you lived from one crop harvest to the next crop harvest. This not to mention, they needed fresh water every day and didn't have a 24 case of bottled water like you see today at Wal-Mart.
Slave Ship is like a Rocket Ship, Not a Cruise Ship
And going to and from America to Africa was very costly and dangerous. The sailors and captain had to get paid, a lot, for the risks they took as many died at sea. Moreover, that ship was not built for free. Hence, the Africans leaving Africa had to pay some sort of compensation for passage. This, not to mention, African Slaves didn't create or fight for this new America country, the Declaration of Independence, or the US Constitution. Or for that matter, African Slaves didn't create or fund the plantations that were already operating when they arrived by ship or get the customers to buy the crops the plantation were producing. They also didn't create or build the existing towns and roads they used when they arrived in America.


created equal != currently equal
You could easily prove that in regards to African Slaves and the Declaration of Independence, the phrase created equal does not mean currently equal, and created equal does not necessarily mean everyone believes in equality.

Looking back, the Declaration of Independence was totally new at the time, the Constitutional War was fought not so long ago against the King, the British and against Tories on American soil. Hence, what did African Slaves believe in regards to types of government? Monarchies or Democracies? Could they be easily swayed or fooled by the King or other foreign monarchies to revert back as most countries back then were ruled by monarchies or kings?

So yes, African Slaves could easily swayed to be revert back to a monarchy. For example, African Slaves didn't not know English and had to be taught a new language.

African Slaves came from a land of savages and likewise the reason why they were always at war with each other (and even so Today) and hence starved themselves to death via their own savagery. What do you with a savage who always attack anyone around them? Well, an iron collar and chain is sometime necessary to teach savages to be civilized and that they, savages, will not starve to death if they work together to grow and harvest food.

[image of African Savage + collar/chain => civilized]

Lastly, African Slaves did not fight a war on the principles of Democracy, were not ruled by a far away king, didn't pay taxes to a far away king, were not literate and didn't understand many basic principles of a free trading economy and a long list of things of a civilized society.

In other words, created equal does not mean currently equal.

Addendum: There is a billboard that reads:
     "The ball should bounce the same for everyone. ...Equality"
Yet, does that also mean the "final score" should be the same at the end of the game?
If you repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth...
Historians of Slavery and Lynchings are referencing other references who in turn make references to other reference. Hence these Historians data is a bunch of references, not raw data.

Lynchings: There were supposedly thousands of lynchings, however, this contradicts that time when crime was so low, you didn't have to lock your doors. Additionally, before 1882, there were no records of lynching, but a Chicago newspaper attempted to do this and the Tuskeegee Institute began to tabulate lynchings. However, were their sources various views and articles of the same public lynching? Lynchings were many times a very public event and hence, there were many reporters and articles of the same lynching except from a different angle.
Again, this repeat reporting of the same lynching makes it look like a numerous different lynchings. This appears to be how the Today's Media operates it's news cycle. Same event, but the main stream media send all their reporters to the event and each report it with a different angle.

A reference of reference of a reference is not raw data, but a rumor
The Big Picture of things...
Next, in the Big Picture of things, why would American citizens, 300 years ago, allow Africans, who would not be slaves under their control to compete against them for food and water in an uncharted and dangerous new land? If Africans back then were constantly fighting against each other in Africa, why allow them freedom in America to create the same border and civil wars for food and land as they saw in Africa, and hence starvation?

Likewise, back then, 300 years ago, in an uncharted and unknown land, you had a far better chance to survive and not starve to death if you weren't literally at war with each other.

Hence, in times of great uncertainty and enemies, does not a country imposed Martial Law? Likewise, when America was NEWLY FORMED country, shouldn't there have been rules on who and how people could enter into a very small country with very few people and very few working resources?

With Indentured Servitude, where was the farmer going to get "labor" in the future once the indentured servent served out his/her contract as there were not many people in America at the time and the future for America, a totally new country, as well as the land itself, had a very uncertain future? Second, with Indentured Servitude, why allow the former servant to compete against you economically in an unknown land with very little people to replace the servant?

Accordingly, in an unknown land with a country not even existing, why invest all the time and effort into a worker only for that worker to quit and compete against you and especially when food sources and water are unpredictable and back then, you lived from harvest to harvest and limited food preservation knowledge. Hence, Slavery is the only wise option in an unknown land with no real laws and unproven future. In other words, Slavery is comparable to say, " military service and non-compete contracts" in difficult times and unknown lands.

a common sense look at history...  Slavery vs Starvation ....and the truth shall set you free  - FoundingFathers.ORG
Slavery vs Starvation - ...if you don't have any food, you don't have any food.
Quill Footer

Copyright © Founding Fathers