When faced with a nonsensical question, I find it usually hides some deeper emotional question that the person is not able to articulate. You can either mock them, or try to figure out what they are really asking. My guess is that in many cases it might be better expressed as 'why are you making me feel guilty about this?'. I would further guess that the true answer would be 'because I feel guilty about it', and there we run into the rub. Should any of us feel accountable for our ancestors? The speaker clearly does. I do not. As far as I am concerned history is fact. It is useful for informing of current state, and particularly on the truth of human nature, but it should not bind us. There is a distinction between 'should we know the past', and 'should we relate to the past'. I think that is what the question is aiming at.

Bet you feel like asking, "Do you know where you are?"

​​​@@agsystems8220whether I feel guilty or not, I want all of us who are still profiting from these systems that still exist to acknowledge it

Why are you bringing up this video in the comments section of this video? 😂

@@noisepuppet wow, fancy meeting you here! The internet sure seems like small place sometimes.

Going to use this... thank you!

I mean, white people also made other white people slaves or servants as "war trophies", particularly women

That argument is used by those trying to put the blame on black people for the slaves that were bought and brought to the new world. It makes them feel the buying of slaves was not so bad, only buying slaves that were sold by their own people, rather than capturing them themselves. And somehow they see that as making slave buying a not-as-bad thing. People concerned about slavery likely don't say that as much as people wanting to show it was not white people's doing. So basically a racist statement.

I think the point of this saying is to show that slavery is not unique to white people's.

@@Wunjo1776 I don’t think anyone has ever believed that slavery is unique to white people. The transatlantic slave trade is spoken about the most because it still affects people’s lives today. However, regardless, the “own people” part is the thing I’m disputing. They were different ethnic groups from warring nations enslaving each other - as happened for millennia elsewhere in the world. So why are they considered all one “people” but when Europeans commit atrocities to one another, no one ever says they’re the same “people”? Africa is bigger than Europe and yet it gets treated like one hive mind of people.

Taínos are not exclusive to PR. There are no true Taínos left in Puerto Rico except the LARPers from the UPR. If you want to find true blooded Taínos with an unbroken legacy then you need to look to San Salvador north of us, if I’m not mistaken.

There are people alive today with Taino ancestry, but the Taino were still effectively wiped out by Columbus. Their language, religion, culture, everything about their society is gone. I'm glad people are starting to reconnect with that part of their heritage, but this sentiment that the Taino are still around because some people have a small amount of Taino DNA feels very dismissive of the atrocities committed against them.

As an American I can say a normal amount of Irish history knowledge for us goes like "celts something something potatoes emigration something The Troubles"

"But I am 12.5% Irish myself, so I am an expert on Irish history!"

It's ridiculous to say the Irish were all enslaved under Cromwell. I mean, he killed 40% of our population, so that was 40% right there who couldn't be enslaved! Lol! As for Irish people owning slaves. Sure but so did freed black people!

@@Jack_Russell_Brown lol right

Idk I think Americans as a whole think slavery was bad. They kinda fought a war to get rid of it

if we learn nothing from history then we are doomed to make the same mistakes

​@@babaganoush6106 if we don't breathe then we are doomed to asphyxiate

@@greglocker2124 genius

@@babaganoush6106 Do you have a history of making stupid comments on KZfaq or other forms of social media? Learning about history has nothing to do with how people treat each other in today's world. That's just a cheap cop-out phrase people like to say when they know about a few historic events but don't understand the context under which those events occurred.

Awesome ma'am. I like this documentary. That's just it! This is part of LONDON history! Some can't handle truth.

I agree . This is one of the best explanations I have ever come across . I knew a lot of this before but but there was so much more I did not know

I had no idea white UK tax payers had to pay for ending colored slavery. But I'm not surprised, in the newly formed Romania the government payed churches to free gypsies from slavery. And we only ever did that after everybody else in Europe signed papers for abolishing it. Now the romanian principates were under Otomman and Russian occupation, themselves colonies under foreign rule so it's not clear where the majority of gypsies came from, probably middle east by how they look. Nobody seems to be doing much research on the topic. Hope we get a clearer picture someday. These things are not taught in school, we're all forced to take orthodox religion class, cuz communism bad we need god now. Even though most churches were built during communism because they were such a great tool for flushing out dissent and dragging them to hard labor camps.

@@HisameArtwork What escapes many people is the fact that the descendants of slaves in British colonies and in the UK who paid taxes helped fund the repayment of loans the British government took out to compensate the slaveowners, the people who enslaved their ancestors. The government only finished paying off the loans several years ago

I can’t say this any better ❤ So I’ll just agree! Thank you JD, you are a truly beautiful and wonderful person 😊

Your parents came to UK freely as British Commonwealth subjects and you are 100% British. Thank heavens the Caribbean is free and prosperous now, the pre Colombian indigenous were completely wiped out.

Some arguments for paying the slavers: -they are politicaly powerfull and they could couse troubles (example of what they could do: starting a civil war) -state should not invaluate your property, because it is now made illegal, (even in something as immoral as slavery); People who bought slaves in terms of law did not do something illegal, why should they be punished for doing something completely legal at that time. Stupit example of this principle: lets say the goverment tomorow bans owning gold/alcohol/cars/... (for this example lets assume owning ______ is immoral), if they do not compensate the owners, the goverment is efectivelly stealing from the people; And while yes having people as property is wrong, but something being wrong should not be basis for the state to "steal" property

Literally never taught about any of this in school - I find it crazy. Oh they were definitely happy to teach us about the barbaric practices of American slave owners, but very careful never to mention that we were involved at all. Funny that!

The second part of that isn't right: the British government paid slave owners off *in 1833*. To fund that payment, the government took out a *loan*, which the government finished paying off in 2015. The government was absolutely not still paying slave owners or their descendents or whatever in 2014, that wouldn't have been tolerated. Draper says this in the video at @19:07, but I can see how you might misinterpret that from the way she says it. Taking out very-long-term debts to pay for things is/was a relatively normal thing for governments to do. In 2006 the UK finally finished paying the US and Canada back, for emergency loans they took out to pay for World War II.

@@daag1851I see your point, however aren’t you also in a way “punishing” taxpayers if money that could be allocated into the school system or infrastructure (or anything that benefits the people) is instead going to people who have become insanely wealthy from slavery? The wealth garnered by the sales and or various plantations didn’t disappear. It’s almost as if they were being paid for the profit they could have made- not their actual losses. And I do not think that the immorality of it all should be overlooked. Though I understand your point was moreso about the law side of things I think it serves a greater discussion. This is not a case of people in poverty doing immoral things to get out of poverty (which is still bad), this is very rich people doing bad things to enrich themselves even more so. It is a great example of how the really rich and powerful will almost never have to deal with the consequences of their actions even in such a horrible case because they are DIRECTLY involved in lawmaking. Democracy in Capitalism doesn’t benefit the general public but those who have capital (aka power). I’m pretty sure if this was the case of outlawing “property” (hate this in the context of human life) of the working class there would have been no payments made.

@@Loveiskindloveiskind to your point: not all slave owners were ultra rich, some were small farmers with one slave to help with the farm (acording to Gilder Lehrman Institute: 1 in 2,5 slave owners (in USA) had between 1-9 slaves)

That's a nice story and it's accepted by some.

Except you get the people who are like this is what I'm saying it's fact you need to look up yourself cuz I'm too lazy to provide sources.

@@ScorpioTear - "Too lazy to provide sources" is too often a fallacy when the person asking for sources is practicing the Gish gallop, as Brandolini's law is a real thing.

​@@kellygreen-cw5hs you say as you use niche language completely alienating laymen to what you're talking about, on that note I'm too lazy to google these words while watching the video lol

@@julijepp - If you are “alienated” by things you are ignorant of, that very much sounds like a “you” problem, and not one for me to concern myself with. Frankly I would think you should be embarrassed to publicly admit you are defiantly intent to remain uneducated, but then you do you.

Honestly, she won me over with the wink 😉

I would love to have learned about this when I was young it is so important and would have changed my beliefs and behaviors I had as a young person

I've seen people go off about this in various places online, and experienceced it when chaperoning class trips in my native virginia. . It's like they want the romanticized version of the antebellum south without the residual l guilt, and they will go to great lengths to diminish or rationalize anything related to slavery.

Never stop talking about it, have someone reply with some snarky comeback in the reviews 😂

That must be annoying. Buy, let me ask you, do you mention who it was that sold those poor folk to the Americans? You know, other Africans? Slavery is a very ugly thing that has been with every culture and ethnicity, and to present it as an American thing isn't helpful.

Is it true prisoners from Paris were granted release if they agreed to marry a prostitute and move to Louisiana?

How did you come to be where you are today? Are you a native of the country you live in?

@@patrickpollard5926 🤣

Old history? Smh.. If you notice when it comes to certain things in history certain people want to just forget all about it.. But when it comes to other things like the history of America 🇺🇸 or Britain founding fathers and exc.. “Let’s never forget about that”!! 😃..The nerve of some people.. smdh

@@JCUTTJCUTT correct my brother!! They know what they do! They have tactics to GASLIGHT u, in ways that place shame on you for speaking the TRUTH! They are deceivers (DEVILS). It's their strongest tactic, to deceive u, in ALL WAYS (LITERALLY)!!!

Biblically speaking we brought slavery on ourselves due to sin it’s in the Bible

That was how slavery worked in the United States for the last 30 years of the institution.

"Nursery" sounds a bit sanitized ... "breeding machines" or "inhouse brothels for Black breeding" might be more apt ... glad you brought it up, though ... this accounts, in no small measure, for the heartbreaking prevalence of broken homes and paternal absenteeism and the "village ram-goat" mentality among Black men and Black adolescent males ...

@@Frommerman Yeah they called them "breeding farms"

No they didn't 😅

@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 yes they did

The question is why others have not already come to this conclusion when I figured it out like 40 years ago. Humans are barbaric to each other and always have been. We see it now in the pandemic. No one cares if they harm another innocent human, they just want their own pleasures and desires and human lives are just a price they're willing to pay to get their own "freedom", whatever that may mean to them.

It’s literally unfathomable. I can feel my mind actively rebel when I begin to try to contemplate the sheer scale and horror of our collective history because the suffering and injustice and cruelty of it all is quite literally inconcievable to someone who has lived as good and free a life as I have. It’s like trying to imagine the scale of the universe itself - we can technically measure it in numbers and statistics, but the true nature of it all escapes our understanding because the terrible magnitude of it all simply dwarfs our capacity for comprehension.

Now imagine that we are doing it all again to the animals. The suffering, the horror, the tragedy, exploitation - it is still there, at the nearest factory farm. How can we claim that we have learned from the past, while still doing it, but to a different group of beings.

Today, I wager, there's never more people being "trafficked": The new word for slavery. If we're willing to do it to our own... what chance do animals have? @@denislaminaccia1

The 'Fall of Constantinople' in 1453, then fortuitously saw the Byzantine Empire diminished and left the Papacy in top spot. The Fall of Constantinople was also tied to 'Dum Diversas', a Papal Bull which endorsed Portugal's initiating role in the West and Trans-Atlantic Slave Trades under Prince Henry the Navigator. Pope Martin V authorized a crusade against Africa in 1418 and this coupled with a later bull (1441) sanctioned the Portuguese trade in African slaves. Ten black African slaves were presented to Martin in 1441 by Prince Henry of Portugal. By 1444, a ‘cargo’ of 235 enslaved Africans had been brought to Lagos in Portugal. The Portuguese were using enslaved Africans on sugar plantations in Madeira, a Portuguese island off the west coast of Africa, by 1460. They built the first slave fort in 1481, on the coast of modern Ghana. This was Elmina Castle, the headquarters of the Portuguese slave traders. In the early 17th century, Portugal was a major trader in enslaved Africans. At this time, it held the asiento, or contract, to supply the Spanish colonies with slaves. This meant that as well as buying their own slaves, the Portuguese were buying slaves for Spanish owned plantations. This added to the overall number of slaves which Portuguese ships carried. Records show the total figure to be 4,650,000 enslaved Africans. On the 18th June 1452, Pope Nicholas V, issues the Papal Bull Dum Diversas, it authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This formally legitimized the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa, so serving as a major origin point of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. This Papal bull along with the doctrine of discovery and Berlin Scramble for Africa set off the basis of mass genocide, colonialism, destruction, theft of lands, apartheid, racism, segregated, racial inequality for tens of millions of people maybe more, with people still stigmatised, racially abused, police brutalised and mass incarcerated as a result. We also find the following: 1.) No direct admission of guilt, complicity, the foundational role played or the authorization given for the slave trade under the Roman Catholic Church - as given in various Papal Bulls. No condemnation of the blessings and approval for this until 2023, BUT NOT DIRECTLY FOR AFRICANS IN THE SLAVE TRADE! 2.) No papal accountability and reflection on the error of the Roman Catholic Church in assigning the Pope to have Papal Supremacy supposedly over the whole of Christendom - so as such that he was considered the supreme authority - as such to be unchallenged by such papal decrees. 3.) No wider acknowledgment of the wider damage, racial oppression, loss of identity and groups generated as religious lost identity cults like the Hebrew Israelites or the dehumanization and degradation caused and inflicted on the black race. 4.) No understanding of the mindset influenced and birthed for racists, especially those with power like Kings, who would in turn influence or perpetuate such attitudes and mindsets within the subjects of their kingdoms. In 1455, Pope Nicholas V gave Portugal the rights to continue the slave trade in West Africa, under the provision that they convert all people who are enslaved. The Portuguese soon expanded their trade along the whole west coast of Africa. Henry the Navigator held the monopoly on all expeditions to Africa granted by the crown until his death in 1460. The authority to write such a Papal Bull came out of the Papal claim and doctrine of 'Papal Supremacy', the Supreme Pontiff claim and a claim to 'Apostolic Succession', which we don't find Biblically, rather it is contrived by clever semantics, eisegesis and fallacious appeals in faulty hermeunetics. ...These false doctrines emanate from or are endorsed by The Catholic Church: * The Vicar of Christ...A God title affixed * The Primacy of Rome * Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition claims * Supreme Pontiff. Outside of that in further falsehood for me you then have: * The Immaculate Conception * Mary's Perpetual Virginity * Marian dogma - Two Papal Infallibility Statements * Marian Apparitions * Purgatory (Sale of indulgences led to the Reformation) * Eucharist Transubstantiaton * Infant Baptism * Priesthood Celibacy * Veneration of saints and sacred images. ADOLPH HITLER SAID: Hitler was also ready to discuss with the Bishop (Wilhelm Berning) his views on the Jewish question: "As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc. "The Nazi Persecution of the Churches" by J.S. Conway, Pgs. 25, 26 & 162. Bernhard Stempfle: Was a Catholic priest and journalist. He helped Adolf Hitler in the writing of Mein Kampf. He was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives. Stempfle entered the priesthood in 1904. He joined the Hieronymite order (the Poor Hermits of Saint Jerome) in Italy. Hitler himself stated, "I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party."“Hitler m’a dit”, (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939, pp.266, 267, 273 ss Walter Schellenberg, former chief of Nazi counter-espionage made this statement: "The S.S. organization had been constituted by Himmler according to the principles of the (Catholic) Jesuit Order. Their regulations and the Spiritual Exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly. Himmler's title as supreme chief of the S.S. was to be the equivalent of the Jesuits' 'General' and the whole structure was a close imitation of the Catholic Church's hierarchical order." Himmler used the Jesuits as the model for the SS, since he found they had the core elements of absolute obedience and the cult of the organisation. Höhne, Heinz (2001). The Order of the Death's Head (p135: The Story of Hitler's SS. Penguin Books. Also, Lapomarda, Vincent (1989). The Jesuits and the Third Reich, pgs 10-11. Franz von Papen, another powerful Nazi, who was instrumental in setting up the concordat between Germany and the Vatican had this to say: "The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy." If you are not aware of what a concordat is, a concordat is an agreement between the Vatican and a government. As far as the Vatican is concerned, that government that signed the concordat has now become a part of the government of God, and the Vatican fully intends to stabilize that government, give it divine protection, and give it international protection. Seven German researchers from the University of Munster announced that they had studied documents from the Vatican archives that were recently made available concerning the activities of Pope Pius XII’s during World War II. The research revealed that the pope knew from his own sources about the Nazi death camps and Hitler’s attempts to exterminate the Jews but the pope chose not to reveal this to his contacts with the U.S. government. Pope Pius decided that the reports were inaccurate after an aid convinced him that the main sources, Jews and Ukrainian, could not be trusted because they lied and exaggerated. 1 Corinthians ch 5 v 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with IDOLATERS; (FLEE CATHOLIC VENERATION OF SAINTS, STATUES AND MARY IT IS IDOLATRY). for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an IDOLATERS, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. FLEE CATHOLIC VENERATION OF SAINTS, STATUES AND MARY IT IS IDOLATRY. Titus 3:10 “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;” FLEE FALSE CATHOLICISM DOCTRINE AND HERESY, SUCH AS MARY WAS A PERPETUAL VIRGIN, PURGATORY, PENANCE CAN ATONE. FLEE CATHOLICISM FLEE CATHOLICISM, READ THE FIVE SOLAE, FIND A GOOD CHURCH, READ YOUR BIBLE, REPENT AND PREACH THE GOSPEL.

(FYI, as a neurospicy person, the repetitive music did grate after some time)

Balanced? We have must have two very different definitions for the word “balanced”. She intentionally used an ad hominem argument to discourage raising questions about how the Irish were treated. While the definitions of indentured and słavery have two very different meanings, in real world practice indentured were also very often treated as słaves. Asking questions about this shouldn’t be discouraged and nor should questions about anyone’s history. She also gave credit to Haiti for ending słavery first. Which while not directly stated was certainly implied. The issue is, there is a difference between fighting for your own freedom and freeing others. Also, Haiti never actually ended słavery, they actually just renamed it to restavek (where people are førced to work without pay and are also abus3d; meaning beat3n and rap3d). Another point she raised was that England paid słavers but she didn’t actually explain why? They paid them to free the slaves, the idea was that way they could avoid a civil war in order to free them. These are just a few things I remember from the video that were clearly biased and not balanced. Now if you enjoyed the vïdeo, that’s fine but I wouldn’t call it balanced or objective.

@@GhostSal If you can not understand the difference between being indentured for 4-7 years vs generations of slaves were children were sold and women raped for more slaves.... it is on you.

@@snoopstheboss994 I get your misconception, you’re talking about how they were defined but that wasn’t how they were actually treated. The argument is it was índentured servitude and that’s not the same. However, that’s not what it actually was in real world practice. The Irish were beat3n, had their lands taken, many were førced into service, førced to wørk, forced from their homełand, Irísh wømen rap3d, their chíldren at times actually were sołd and the majoríty were kílled (or had their contracts extended till they dīed). That is in fact słavery, even if they called it something else. Here are a couple qoutes with references: “In theory, the person is only selling his or her labor. In practice, however, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of the servant was harsh and often brutal. In fact, the Virginia Colony prescribed “bodily punishment for not heeding the commands of the master.” (Ballagh, 45) Half the servants died in the first two years. As a result of this type of treatment, runaways were frequent. The courts realized this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers. (A.E. Smith 264-270).” - Deanna Barker, Frontier Resources That’s half in just two years, while other sources claim it was half in total or less around 1/3. Yet, other sources say it was 60% that díed (or were kílled) in total (not just in two years). “Only about 40 percent of índentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts. Female servants were often the subject of harassmeñt from their masters. A woman who became pregnant while a servant often had years tacked on to the end of her service time.” - UShistory(dot)org 5b. Indentured Servants By “harassmènt” they mean rap3d.

I had the exact same response to this video. Am so impressed with this presentation

Same! And that lovely English accent had me smashing the subscribe button 😂

It's so sad she hasn't uploaded long form videos in over half a year. I love all these videos and will definitely run out soon :( Hopefully the explosion she's seen due to the shorts, lead to her making a few longer videos again

It's my first long video too!

Exactly. That's my exact experience with this channel

The English word slave comes from Old French sclave, from the Medieval Latin sclavus, from the Byzantine Greek, which, in turn, comes from the ethnonym Slav, because in some early Medieval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved. Slavic states were the Kievan Rus', the Second Bulgarian Empire, the Kingdom of Poland, Duchy of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Croatia, Banate of Bosnia and the Grand Principality of Serbia. Islamic Slave Trade (African Zanj slaves) 9xx - now Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: 1501-1866

The idea of a "concession" comes to mind. This was a recent practice, too.

@@makesnosense6304 I don't see the reason for your post except to deflect from the subject of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

@@Ottovontubes Then you don't understand that slavery is more than just Trans-Atlantic slave trade and I just wanted to point that out. That doesn't mean I take away from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. I have at no point said anything that pretends that didn't happen.

@@makesnosense6304 ... or you are purposely avoiding talking about a specific aspect of slavery for some reason by bringing in tangential and irrelevant points. Deflecting is not the same as pretending it didn't happen. What was the purpose of comparing the Islamic Slave Trade and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade if not to deflect? How is it relevant to either her video or my response?

Plus the Gullah Geechee people are still alive and well!

Me too! It's kinda become a hobby for me to find good sources. Expensive degrees often get attached to some ignorant people. I believe this to be an absolute gem of a channel!!

Keep going! ❤ Having been down that path and later returned to college(post GED/ remedial courses), I can say there are merits to the college experience as well, but it is by no means necessary to develop intellectually. What your intellect develops into depends on how well you maintain your intellectual virtues and critical thinking skills. Bon voyage! Have fun!🎉

Teachers are Saints!

@@spiritbond8 Sadly, there isn't one here.

I can empathise with you. My country had legally sanctioned Segregation called Apartheid in my language. It didn't end until 1990! I have heard people say we behaved like a country under seige from EVERYONE!

“Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.” ---Karl Marx

@@akken2112 As an "antekommunis" (against Communism) ever since I was very young. An uncle of mine who I loved as a boetie went to war against the Communists to defend my country and also our neighbour in the Namibië and he was killed in another forgotten African war. Ja, I KNOW there is much politics and I am NOT an Apartheid apologist please! It just becomes more personal on that level. I do not even know why you quote this because Marx's prediktion obviously did not come to fruition.

@@danielmalcolmclohesy7604 Let's be perfectly clear and honest. The/You Boers did not invade Angola, attack Mozambique (and probably murdered Samora Machel), murder Chris Hani, Steve Biko and countless others to defend "against Communism". The/You Boers committed countless acts of violence to sustain and maintain white supremacy, period.

@@danielmalcolmclohesy7604 ​ I reject Marxism while also appreciating that it was an earnest attempt at humanity’s betterment. I like the philosopher, Karl Popper’s take on Marxism and would point anyone interested in the subject towards his book ‘The Open Society And It’s Enemies’. A person who I do not particularly admire, Winston Churchill, said (rather brilliantly) of democracy: “Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.” This could also perhaps sum-up the way I feel about life in a capitalist nation like Australia (where I live). My society being considerably better and fairer to it’s citizens than, say, North Korea should not be cause for complacency in our efforts towards bettering the respective good-qualities and fairness of this nation. We should never get proud and conservative about things. We should always be looking to help those around us and we should always be bettering ourselves (and our societies).

True indeed. Very respectful.

No, it’s just pure spin, but okay, buckwheat.

It wasn't nuanced, it was heavily biased and manipulative. In reality, all empires enslaved and everyone (including europeans) were enslaved. The *first* empire to *abolish* slavery is europeans, so europeans should be proud.

@@1Kapachow1 Ah yes, the one unified european empire. If you weren't gonna try to listen, why'd you even bother coming by?

@@someguy6651 It is besides the point that some countries in Europe were first but the rest followed. The truly amazing thing is that slavery IS STILL LEGAL in many countries worldwide - guess in which cultures/countries.

I also suggest Thomas Sowell. Because he also dispels many myths that are said very very often in American schools. And some people don't like him for that because I don't know. Maybe because of his economic views and how he disposed of many convenient myth

​@@VolkColopatrion Black people who are conservatives and agree with Sowell do exist but they are rare and most and scholars who study the social economics and history of the United States disagree with a lot of his points on it being a cultural issue. He puts forward a lot of "respectability politics" as if only black Americans could get their act together and work hard they would be in the same place due to the existence of American meritocracy. Asides from the meritocracy being a myth (only about 18% of people regardless of race actually moving up social classes in their lifetimes despite working their butts off). And asides the idea that lower class people aren't "working hard enough" when we all know the most grueling jobs are some of the least paid.... Being respectable and middle class didn't save Greenwood from being burnt down by white people. Then decades later after it was rebuilt and was wealthier and more prosperous than ever, that didn't save it from being bulldozed to build a highway. Being respectable or affluent didn't prevent Portland from forcefully buying homes from black people at far below market rate in the only affluent black neighborhood and bulldozing them for a hospital expansion that never happened. Or flooding the towns to make a brand new lake or reservoir for white residents. There are so many stories of this happening to hard working middle class families that it would take many pages to list them. The US government systematically has discriminated against black people at nearly every turn and profited off of it. Said profits or benefits mostly going towards upper and middle class white citizens. It may be that there is no explicitly racist law or rule on the books. But it is hard to deny something about the system sets it up so it just so happens to be black and brown people suffering for progress while white people disproportionately get all the aid. Just look at how the covid relief money went. The wealthy with their connections got the most, then white middle and lower class people, and minority owned business got far less than their share of the pie by percentage of need. But then people go and throw a hiss fit when someone suggests doing an aid program to even out the distribution because it explicitly mentions race so "racism".

@@LC-sc3enI wish that I had the energy and capacity to take these wonderful resources - (ie: this video, but also the comment section), find the sources via contacting commenters, etc, and compile just the knowledge we collectively hold in this community. I find that the most difficult thing isn’t the actual part of presenting knowledge to someone who has any chance of listening (some people never will, it’s too emotional for them and they feel shame); the hardest part is compiling and sourcing the information in understandable and digestible ways without straying too far from our primary sources and the words of our scholars and educators. Sometimes the information we need when we’re dumbfounded at the replies or stammering to help them see is in so many places and so common, but inaccessible. I think about that quite a lot. Anyway, this is a very roundabout way of saying thank you for your analysis and comments, they’re indispensably valuable and one of the good jumping off points for me when it comes to understanding the opposing perspective so that I may break down its logical fallacies and point out the core basis of its beliefs in plain sight. Thanks!

@@VolkColopatrion Thomas Sowell isn't even a historian. He's an economist, a shill and a mouthpiece for every trending piece of right wing bigotry.

This was propaganda, not history. The sources are a crime against learning. I hope few see this today, it is deeply evil propaganda.

Any clown that uses "enslaved persons" rather than the usual "slaves" can never be trusted.

@@tomthx5804 What! You’re making a bold statement about someone (me) you don’t even know. Buzz off, buster!

@@VolkColopatrion Thanks for the link. Will check it out. My issue w/ “Tom” is to say a person with a different experience “can not be trusted.” Ad hominem assertions are out of bounds! Sorry.

@@EMB238 where did he say that? What is the context

@@VolkColopatrion please see in my “replies.”

@@Mewmew-lv5iv Well obviously the skin colour hadn't changed. It was ethnic and class discrimination they faced. The title refers to how the Irish stopped themselves from being seen as something other than regular white Americans.

​@@Mewmew-lv5iv Maybe "civilised" would be a better word, but "white" is a closer fit to the modern day terms I guess. Not that white means civilised but in how relations between people are.

it was a lot longer than one generation, they were "indentured servants" or prisoners brought over from the early days and were discriminated against until the end of the 19th century with some discrimination going until the mid 20th century (and was at its highest between the potato famine and the civil war). It sort of still goes on today with terms like "mick" "paddy wagon" and the way we are portrayed as drunk potato eaters around St Patricks day (imagine calling chinese people "wangs" a police van was called a "N word Van" or people celebrated black history month with fried chicken and grape soda).

I think this is a valid point. 'white' and 'black' are constructs, is the point you are making, I believe. If you go to the continent of Africa, people are not going to see themselves as 'black'. In fact, many people are described as 'blue' or 'red' or whatever. In America, people from some countries were not considered 'white', such as Italians. The formation of blackness and whiteness is complex and fascinating, if one has the luxury of being able to step back far enough to examine it clearly. It is not something just defined by skin color.

@@Mewmew-lv5iv it's in the same vain that the irish where called dirty and the n word due to living amongst black people

this comment deserves more likes

I’m asking this question of a lot of Caribbean‘s in the comment section. I want to know if y’all call yourselves African-Americans in the Caribbean because I’ve never heard any Caribbean person using that term for themselves unless they were living in the continental United States of America in a Black American community.

@@rashidbelike9430 While I'm not from the Caribbean, both my mom and my grandmother on my father's side of the family are. With that in mind, the answer is no. African-American is a term that is only used by those in the US. Black people from the Caribbean and even from other parts of the Americas don't really use that term.

There still is a lot of indigeneity in the Caribbean (Specifically the Greater Antilles) it is just that the Spanish lied on census records saying that people who were mixed with indigenous were either more Spanish then indigenous and therefore 'hispanicized'. As well as deliberately lying and calling indigenous people African. They talk a lot about this in the book Havana and The Atlantic by Alejandro Fuentes.

They haven't disappeared. They're still here. The Taino.

Caribs.

Of the four big islands (The Greater Antilles), Jamaica has the least trace of native blood left. In Cuba, DR, and especially Porto Rico, the native blood still runs strong. I am From Jamaica, and I always wish I could identify at least one native person on the island.

@@UnderTheSameSun693 I immediately thought of Dominica.

I’m a second-generation American of virtually all Irish ancestry. I usually say the British essentially practiced on us before they spread out to colonize and abuse the rest of the world. Maybe not a lot of Irish slavery, but lots of nasty exploitation, brutalization, and murder.

As a tour guide, she is clearly VERY good at here job! 🤩

I wish there were awards for KZfaq videos, like there are for TV shows and films, because she deserves one.

@@miguelthealpaca8971 I believe you can nominate her and her videos for some award on KZfaq, or just keep subscribing and tell everyone you know to subscribe to her channel so she'll earn that golden KZfaq plaque.

That's sad man. I guess people always want to feel "innocent", even though they aren't even getting blamed for the shit that happened to begin with.

I think, at least for many Americans descended from slaves, there is a need to not quite blame, but hold responsible those who have continued racist intentions system meant to continue slavery (such as private prisons) or institutional methods of oppression (denial of loans, educational opportunities & home ownership) that continue to thrive today. I had an uncle who used to complain that slavery is over, black people should just get over it. But how can you get over something that isn’t really over? And, our history books are incredibly biased. Bringing it up, talking about what the slave trade was, it’s current effects, is the only reason people have any unbiased knowledge of the Atlantic slave trade. The average person doesn’t seek out primary sources like journals, census data or wills. They know what they learn in school, and, imo more importantly, they learn through black peoples sharing their knowledge & personal experiences. It may be through politics or activism, through academic or popular writing, and it may be through the arts. Music, sculpture, paintings. I’m interested in the era. I’m a historian. I still don’t think I have 1/25 the knowledge about it that I should. If you look black & come from the states, there’s a biased assumption that as a historian you’re going to study slavery. Study whatever you’re Interested in. It’s ridiculous (& racist) for anyone to push you towards a field because of the color of your skin. But racial bias is so insidious that people don’t even realize how racist the assumption is or that they wouldn’t ask the same of a white American historian. I am a white American historian & no one has ever asked me why I don’t specialize in the Atlantic slave trade. Nor have they questioned my degrees in medieval Europen history or Viking burial practices. If you are only asking something because of melanin level, you need to reflect on that. If I were in your position, I’d point that out every time it comes up.

Well I don’t know who invented I know the Romans had slaves that they made into slaves or brought slaves, but I know they was the worst.

Same in America apprentice we called in sharecropping in America. Irish slaves was apprentice and was allowed to be brought and live free Blacks was not. Daniel Boone brought his wife Rebecca and she was free.

As a fellow historian you should and hopefully is able to differentiate slavery on the Middle East and Africa as result of power dynamics of conflict and ethnicity and the transatlantic slavery that was about exploiting slave labor to profit from it and in the end being the main engine of the Primitive Accumulation of Capital that has direct results on today's geopolitics.

Oh, "as a black woman", are you at all interested in hearing about black African slave traders every five minutes, while every other nation's involvement with slavery goes virtually unheard of?

@@spenser9908 Having fun engaging in deflection under every comment?

@@sjappiyah4071 Why can't I get a straight answer out of anyone? You don't seem to know what deflection is. I'm helping you understand why people tend to ask these questions by showing you their point of view.

@@spenser9908 Because you’re not asking a straight question and you know it, it’s a loaded question being used for deflection. And yes I am using deflection correctly, this video is discussing the triangle slave trade , and it’s ramifications. You under every comment bringing up slavery that occurred in Africa is not contributing to the conversation, as again the video and it’s discussion is focusing on the triangle trade. By repeatedly bringing this point up your aim is to distract from the current subject at hand…

@@sjappiyah4071 Yes it's a loaded question, that's entirely the point. And you know the answer, which proves your hypocrisy, which is therefore why you refuse to answer it. Talk about bad faith. You're not remotely interested in understanding why these people are asking her these questions, clearly. You just want to call them racist whenever they do. You're part of the problem.

I agree. People say “ don’t talk about religion politics or money”, but only by being critical of the status quo AND discussing your criticisms with others can people learn to be better humans and move our society forward.

Yeah that said there's myths on every side. Sometimes we don't even intend them but sometimes lies get propagated so often that they become the truth. Thomas Sowell also addresses some of these. I think you would prefer a lot by reading his books if only to possibly see the inaccuracies within them or maybe learn some more

@@VolkColopatrion 'I think you would prefer a lot' What does that mean? Also, Thomas Sowell? Really? Who next? Clarence Thomas? 'There are myths on every side', perhaps, but that does not imply equivalency, and it doesn't mean that all views on any matter carry equal weight. All opinions are not equal. You would, I presume, not go to your butcher to have your brain examined when it hurts. Learn to write and phrase more carefully: there are not always good people on both sides, and there are not always good arguments on both sides. Certainly not when it comes to topics like this.

Why do you assume I have an ulterior motive? And ofcourse different myths are less or more wrong. It seems like you're projecting things onto me And what does Clarence Thomas have anything to do with this conversation? Near as I can tell he wasn't a historian. I'm not sure if he ever opined on the history of slavery or if his opinion should matter because he's not a historian

@@mcfahk Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with this at all. He's a judge not a historian and I'm not sure he's ever opined and even if he did I don't think it would be worth much. But here you are saying that I'm here with the ulterior motive?

I think a lot of us who were given whitewashed or incomplete history lessons as children have "aha" moments later in life. Things we low-key knew but had never thought deeply about suddenly make awful sense. History helps us see the world more as it is, warts and all.

The Hatians have spend 200 years paying off the French for their enslavement.

Forget education! *_wHY diD fRAnCE aBoLiSH sLaVeRY_* like ……..

@@TiffyVella1 Meh

Do you state that 1/3 of slave owners in New Orleans were black? Or does that fact escape you on your 'tours'?!

The truth? I admire looking for the truth, my concern is is that what this was? Who was first to abolish słavery? While słavery existed across the globe and goes back thousands of years, that didn’t mean every single place had słavery. So to give Haiti credit as abolishíng słavery first seems incredibly disingenuøus. Yes Britain also wasn’t first but the British did actively and literally fight much of the world to stop słavery. Whereas, Haiti was a successful revolt, which wasn’t unheard of historically speaking and very different than the people that were holding the słaves deciding it’s wrong and needs to end. You can’t compare the two, that is people fighting to free themselves with people fighting to free others. References correct? You shouldn’t need a reference for every point, it really should be common sense. What was paying słave owners all about? Paying słave owners wasn’t about paying people for having słaves, it was to pay them to free those very same people and to avoid a civíl war. If the US did that they could have avoided their civíl war. Now reparatïons is a separate discussíon and deserves a much longer post. Were the Irish słaves? I’m not going to play the semantícs game, the answer is yes (but not always, so also really it’s yes and no). What do I mean? Not all were, many were índentured servànts that agreed to it. However, many were forced into it and no they weren’t always treated better. Their chíldren were sold, they were beat3n, their wømen rap3d and many were kílled. Just look up the potato famine for one, this wasn’t an act of nature but an act of genocíde. The other thing is it wasn’t uncommon to be førced into servïce for lífe, this was done as a łegal puníshment or through clauses in the contract. So wømen would be førced to get pregnànt over and over till they owed more years than they had left to líve. Another thing to keep a servànt for life was to resell the contract without their cønsent and without deducting years already served. The Irish sufferèd at the hands of the English for centuries longer than the Atlantic słave trade existed (and again they weren’t always treated better). This isn’t a racíst talking point, this is the actual history and ad hominem attacks don’t change that. Índentured servantš always were treated better and agreed right? Already answered, the answer is no, but let’s look into this a little more. the first Afrícans sold in Afríca and brought to North Ameríca were treated as índentured servantš. This actually didn’t change till the 1700s, when the first laws for słavery were written and many of these first laws actually didn’t focus on skín color but focused on religion. One example of this is the following law passed in 1705, here is an exert: “All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves..” - Virginia General Assembly. People tend to bring up John Casor or John Punch, yes while both were held for life, they weren’t the norm and were exceptions to the rule at the time. Also look up their stories, you might be surprised by who sued in court to own another man for līfe, the other case was one of punishment for running away. Wealth and “good faith”. So yes people of the time got rich off of słavery but only Eurøpe is rich today. Except that’s not from słavery, that’s because of the Índustríal Revolutïon and the labour movement. Before the 1900s most everyone was living in extreme poverty. It’s not like the rich shared their wealth with everyone else, that’s the difference between Afríca and Eurøpe today. Afríca never had an Industríal Revolutíon or a labour movement. I’m wrong, right? Ok, let’s see if the wealth from the trillions in gold recently discovered in Uganda enrichs everyone there or just the few at the top. Yes, I also encourage others to research this some more, i’d recommend starting with Thomas Sowell.

still is normal to this day in some parts of the world, always has been, heres looking at you prophet muhammed....

​@deadprivacy Or you know. The South. Had to get your jab at Muslims though, I get it.

@@grimnir2922 its only muslims who follow a prophet who literally laid down rules for trading and keeping slaves. where its prevalent in the world today? are islamic states. there isnt any other culture where they have the practice codified and deified?

@@grimnir2922 Does slavery not cause any feelings of righteous indignation for you? Or are you arguing that the Middle East doesn't have slavery anymore? And the South?! What?!

@@haristheconqueror I think their comment is meant to be a condemnation of the commenter's motivation being islamophobia, rather than genuine concern about modern forms of slavery.

In Brazil there were recent cases of work analogous to slavery. This year.

As a descendant of African slaves (not saying I speak for all of them), I agree that we must speak out & learn about all spaces as it all was a tragedy. It horrifies me that anyone was enslaved, especially in such a barbaric way as African chattel slavery

I would like to learn much more about the history of the Irish in general for sure. But like all history it needs to be as objective as possible. Nearly all mentions of Irish history I hear in the US (other than what little we learned in school) are usually meant as a means to downplay or outright ignore the history of African slavery in the Americas and their descendants. In other words they have a political/ideaological agenda not an interest in teaching or learning history.

Both communities benefit from increased literacy on the topic- explaining the impact and significance to Irish people and their descendants with more sincerity, while also revealing the truth of comparison with African chattel slavery. Wider literacy on the subject takes it out of the hands of white supremacists to teach, removing their ability to use the story as misinformation to further their sociopolitical agenda.

I’m Irish too and I agree it should be discussed more & understood better. However, it deserves its own conversation, started in good faith rather than whataboutery, and Black people deserve for the conversation about their peoples’ history not to be derailed by it.

​@@tumadre50 idk, when you start asking questions of those that mention Irish slavery aren't trying to downplay or ignore the history of african slavery here in america, they say that they bring it up because the majority of black/african Americans act as though they are the only race that was enslaved.(again that's their words not mine) which if you talk with or watch black/african Americans videos you can see that they do in fact act as though they are the only race that's been enslaved. I thinks it's unfair to make statements like you did without asking why they are saying that. Also, I fully believe that every creator, person, and commentators have agendas, and it's foolish to think not one person doesn't have one.

And there are tales about the Irish on plantations sharing life with black slaves as though on the same level when the Irish had their step dancing (although there is little evidence beyond the 1820s in Ireland) and the Africans had rhythm and so emerged flatfooting/clogging/jazz dance and so tap dance! Maybe, but very little evidence of step dance in Ireland before c1820s (from my master's degree at Limerick University). Researchers (from Boston University) into wooden-soled, percussive clog dance (definitely a tap dance precursor) in 19thC US theatres found an apparent mix of English, Irish and French performers. The meld of sources for tap seems much more diverse and interesting. But the unproven slave origins story still persists, as in at least one TV documentary and some dance history writings.

The Irish were frequently indentured servants in North America, some may have also been slaves too. White slavery is not unheard of, even today and no, they aren’t all Irish either.

@@brigidspencer5123 yes, but there is a recent conspiracy going round that they weren't indentured servants, that thousands of them were enslaved, & it's all been covered up some how.

Well I finished my Leaving in '86 and one of the stories my class did in Irish involved an Irish man as part of Cromwell's deportation to Jamaica (the all male class was very interested in the idea of there being a hundred women but two hundred men being deported). Our teacher at the time also talked about their been sent as Irish slaves in Jamaica, no distinction was made on indentured servants. This is all well pre the '93 book mentioned in the above video. While I've certainly seen more "Irish were slaves too" memes on the Internet, the Internet barely existed when I was in school. Also our (you and me) nationalist "propaganda/information/ what do you want to call it" at the time and since was more concerned with what was happening in the North now and in the whole country in the past, what happened once Irish left the country just wasn't talked about so much. Ps still up thumbed your comment.

Most indentured servants from the beginning in America were English anyway,apparently over 60% of immigrants to America from England got there that way.I did see a programme from Jamaica showing a group of white people there who had originally been sent as white slaves from villages in England,that was interesting.

1:18 - Nail, Head, etc: there's a reason you, and nobody gets taught the details of the history. Because it's incredibly hard to come away with the details and justifications given *even at the time* in hand with an impression that things were anything other than completely mean-spirited for the sake of profit and on the whole very little has changed. Separate-but-related-topic: Don't look into the particulars of Britain's occupation of India unless you want to spend an afternoon drinking.

@bananabobo789 You are so correct in what you say. Even right now there us still slavery going on. To be forced into a minimum wage job, with or without zero hours, and with the precariousness of no written contract is pretty much slavery.

Which is extremely bizarre considering the relationship the continental Irish had with African Americans both during the abolitionist movement (statues of Douglass) and the CRM.

Isn't slavery still happening all over Africa?

@@EvanEvans9 It happens all over Europe as well.

@@EvanEvans9 Middle East and Europe as well !!

@@kudjoeadkins-battle2502 Not legally!?!

​@MennilTossFlykunewhy do people go there just to ask that question... So dense

@MennilTossFlykune whataboutism is a fallacy, not asking a real question that is objective and unloaded with bias.

@MennilTossFlykunewould you ask about french medieval farms at an exhibit for medieval english farms?

​@MennilTossFlykuneYes, as much as anyone is trying to make us believe that only Europeans had slaves.

@@murk4552 If you have Mediterranean roots, and some white lady is trying to get you to buy into her personal guilt trip and ignoring your own peoples history with the slave trade out of arab and african countries... you are going to have some pretty pointed questions. Especially if you are aware of the war on slavery that the british were the first to initiate

Nobody in the US gets taught this in schools, either. I only learned more in college. And that’s only because I took what was called then minority studies classes.

@@COM70 The difficult is that it does matter now. Aboriginal peoples of Australia are still suffering from the fallout of those extermination efforts. How much responsibility we should take for that, and how much we should do to rectify it is a debate that is going on today and has real world consequences for real people. It very much does 'matter now'.

I studied history in a state school in the 90s. We learnt about the triangular trade. We studied sources from abolitionists describing the horrible conditions on the ships. I do remember also being told that we were the first to abolish the trade and that it was never truly legal in the UK; it was contrasted with the US. I don’t think it was a-level so must have been lower down the school.

Did you learn about the Anglo-Boer War too? Curious?

@@izannemarais156 I learned about that in school back in the mid eighties.

Too bad you have to tolerate people's ignorance, but I commend you for trying.

Exactly. I learned to stop answering them if they ask certain questions in a certain way. They don’t want answers. They want a justification.

Jefferson Montoya what part of africa did you come from?

As an Irish American, I sometimes heard the “what about the Irish?” Argument (usually not even by Irish defended people) and it reeked of racism, love that this video gave me the words to address that nonsensical comparison. Yup, it was a white nationalist paper from the 90’s not even that long ago. manipulative classism

@@chrisfs150 my ancestors are mostly from Senegal. Thanks for askin!

Maybe some people are mitigating it but many others are simply saying, hang on, why in just going about my life have I heard a hundred stories about enslaved African Americans but almost none about those sent to Arabia in equally huge numbers (but over a longer time period). And why is the British Navy's role in eliminating slavery not widely known? And many of these questions will have arisen alongside the BLM marches where a non balanced view of Britain's role in the slave trade was put forward. So while some actual racist people may be trying to mitigate, many not racist people are just seeking a more balanced telling of history. And of course more white people in Britain are going to ask those questions than black people, and be sensitive when black people are present, because white people's recent ancestors weren't subject to the colonial racism that Britain was part of, so they can have more detachment about it. They might be much less detached when speaking about their recent ancestors who died in world war 1 in terrible conditions, or further back, their ancestors who toiled in awful conditions in the workhouses of the industrial revolution.

@@formulaic78 Anyone who responds to conversations about the history of slavery in the US with anything along the lines of, "Oh yeah, well what about ancient Egypt" or "African enslavers" or "present day slavery" automatically sounds an awful lot like they're trying to mitigate and assuage America's historical role in it.

@@formulaic78Have you considered you hear more about your country’s participation because of ethnocentrism? I am American and most of my historical education is America-based. Sure, I got to take classes about other cultures and countries but only after doing so well in America-centric classes that I was allowed to. People learn their country’s history first, it’s the most practical method of teaching history, especially in nationalistic countries. If you choose not to expand your education beyond it, that’s a personal choice. People in day to day life talk about their country more often than others because that’s what is most relevant to them. Whataboutism doesn’t bring awareness, it only serves to cover up awareness. If you’re tired of being boxed in to your country’s history, broaden your community.

Was it though, was it “excellent”? I admire looking for the truth, my concern is is that what this was? If it is then my comments sharing my knowledge of the history will be welcome. Who was first to abolish słavery? While słavery existed across the globe and goes back thousands of years, that didn’t mean every single place had słavery. So to give Haiti credit as abolishíng słavery first seems incredibly disingenuøus. Yes Britain also wasn’t first but the British did actively and literally fight much of the world to stop słavery. Whereas, Haiti was a successful revolt, which wasn’t unheard of historically speaking and very different than the people that were holding the słaves deciding it’s wrong and needs to end. You can’t compare the two, that is people fighting to free themselves with people fighting to free others. References correct? You shouldn’t need a reference for every point, it really should be common sense. What was paying słave owners all about? Paying słave owners wasn’t about paying people for having słaves, it was to pay them to free those very same people and to avoid a civíl war. If the US did that they could have avoided their civíl war. Now reparatïons is a separate discussíon and deserves a much longer post. Were the Irish słaves? I’m not going to play the semantícs game, the answer is yes (but not always, so also really it’s yes and no). What do I mean? Not all were, many were índentured servànts that agreed to it. However, many were forced into it and no they weren’t always treated better. Their chíldren were sold, they were beat3n, their wømen rap3d and many were kílled. Just look up the potato famine for one, this wasn’t an act of nature but an act of genocíde. The other thing is it wasn’t uncommon to be førced into servïce for lífe, this was done as a łegal puníshment or through clauses in the contract. So wømen would be førced to get pregnànt over and over till they owed more years than they had left to líve. Another thing to keep a servànt for life was to resell the contract without their cønsent and without deducting years already served. The Irish sufferèd at the hands of the English for centuries longer than the Atlantic słave trade existed (and again they weren’t always treated better). This isn’t a racíst talking point, this is the actual history and ad hominem attacks don’t change that. Índentured servantš always were treated better and agreed to it right? Already answered, the answer is no, but let’s look into this a little more. the first Afrícans sold in Afríca and brought to North Ameríca were treated as índentured servantš. This actually didn’t change till the 1700s, when the first laws for słavery were written and many of these first laws actually didn’t focus on skín color but focused on religion. One example of this is the following law passed in 1705, here is an exert: “All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves..” - Virginia General Assembly. People tend to bring up John Casor or John Punch, yes while both were held for life, they weren’t the norm and were exceptions to the rule at the time. Also look up their stories, you might be surprised by who sued in court to own another man for līfe, the other case was one of punishment for running away. Wealth and “good faith”. So yes people of the time got rich off of słavery but only Eurøpe is rich today. Except that’s not from słavery, that’s because of the Índustríal Revolutïon and the labour movement. Before the 1900s most everyone was living in extreme poverty. It’s not like the rich shared their wealth with everyone else, that’s the difference between Afríca and Eurøpe today. Afríca never had an Industríal Revolutíon or a labour movement. I’m wrong, right? Ok, let’s see if the wealth from the trillions in gold recently discovered in Uganda enrichs everyone there or just the few at the top. Yes, I also encourage others to research this some more, i’d recommend starting with Thomas Sowell.

Also, at times US and their history with slavery overshadows others so it's good to separate them as their own. Only because the because the subject is so huge that if one would try to include everything, something would need cutting and generally it would mean everything but US and their history.

Being able to find things like that out today is a wonderful thing. I am glad that you get to have some sort of connection to the heritage and history that was stolen.

​@@GuineapigsreadingbooksZulus are a Bantu people. Bantus committed one of the largest genocide on the continent. You didn't know that, because you clearly don't read enough books.

@@blacktigerpaw1 fair enough. I don’t know much about African history, or which tribes have which history. I still think that knowing where you come from has value, even if part of learning your history means learning the sins of your ancestors.

Koitsenka - that is really cool! To be able now to recreate some of the missing genetic background for your whole family! And finding new family. Do you think you might ever travel to Africa to try to meet some of these relatives?

@@mesabaker9625 Yes, she should go there and meet the Xhosa, who hate her people's guts, and the Khoi-san, the people her ancestors nearly eliminated.

I admire looking for the truth, my concern is is that what this was? If it is then my comments sharing knowledge of the history will be welcome. Who was first to abolish słavery? While słavery existed across the globe and goes back thousands of years, that didn’t mean every single place had słavery. So to give Haiti credit as abolishíng słavery first seems incredibly disingenuøus. Yes Britain also wasn’t first but the British did actively and literally fight much of the world to stop słavery. Whereas, Haiti was a successful revolt, which wasn’t unheard of historically speaking and very different than the people that were holding the słaves deciding it’s wrong and needs to end. You can’t compare the two, that is people fighting to free themselves with people fighting to free others. References correct? You shouldn’t need a reference for every point, it really should be common sense. What was paying słave owners all about? Paying słave owners wasn’t about paying people for having słaves, it was to pay them to free those very same people and to avoid a civíl war. If the US did that they could have avoided their civíl war. Now reparatïons is a separate discussíon and deserves a much longer post. Were the Irish słaves? I’m not going to play the semantícs game, the answer is yes (but not always, so also really it’s yes and no). What do I mean? Not all were, many were índentured servànts that agreed to it. However, many were forced into it and no they weren’t always treated better. Their chíldren were sold, they were beat3n, their wømen rap3d and many were kílled. Just look up the potato famine for one, this wasn’t an act of nature but an act of genocíde. The other thing is it wasn’t uncommon to be førced into servïce for líte, this was done as a łegal puníshment or through clauses in the contract. So wømen would be førced to get pregnànt over and over till they owed more years than they had left to líve. Another thing to keep a servànt for life was to resell the contract without their cønsent and without deducting years already served. The Irish sufferèd at the hands of the English for centuries longer than the Atlantic słave trade existed (and again they weren’t always treated better). This isn’t a racíst talking point, this is the actual history and ad hominem attacks don’t change that. Índentured servantš always were treated better and agreed right? Already answered, the answer is no, but let’s look into this a little more. the first Afrícans sold in Afríca and brought to North Ameríca were treated as índentured servantš. This actually didn’t change till the 1700s, when the first laws for słavery were written and many of these first laws actually didn’t focus on skín color but focused on religion. One example of this is the following law passed in 1705, here is an exert: “All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves..” - Virginia General Assembly. People tend to bring up John Casor or John Punch, yes while both were held for life, they weren’t the norm and were exceptions to the rule at the time. Also look up their stories, you might be surprised by who sued in court to own another man for līfe, the other case was one of punishment for running away. Wealth and “good faith”. So yes people of the time got rich off of słavery but only Eurøpe is rich today. Except that’s not from słavery, that’s because of the Índustríal Revolutïon and the labour movement. Before the 1900s most everyone was living in extreme poverty. It’s not like the rich shared their wealth with everyone else, that’s the difference between Afríca and Eurøpe today. Afríca never had an Industríal Revolutíon or a labour movement. I’m wrong, right? Ok, let’s see if the wealth from the trillions in gold recently discovered in Uganda enrichs everyone there or just the few at the top. Yes, I also encourage others to research this some more, i’d recommend starting with Thomas Sowell.

​@@GhostSalI'm surprised your comment hasn't been deleted.

@@yupper4030 Why? I didn’t say anything offensíve or to be rude. I just disagreed on some points and wanted to share what I know.

@@GhostSal because people don't want the truth

​@@yupper4030or because he's putting it on every comment looking for bate and no one is falling for it... Everyone understands he is just trolling....Whelp.

Thank you for this comment. The good faith point is a sound point for me when I try and change the way my father argues with people not aligning with his ‘side’ of history. I tend to forgive him because he’s in his late 70s and I learn to listen and understand where the true source of a belief no matter how misguided is still helpful when voiced. I believe we are all looking for the truth. Some people have suppressed truth through their lives and sign up for the comfortable belief. I understand this, some minds may never change. Knowing how to speak and teach respectfully is what I have taken in buckets from J. Draper’s videos. Truly inspiring and I want to go to London again. Missing home lots. Sorry to get meta but I like when comments listen to the content of the video and add something news. Thank you for reaching inside of a part of me I never really knew was there….well until I started thinking and typing it out. Peace and love

A lot of mistakes were made though.

Hello! I'm French, so I'm well-placed to say that we definitely talked at length about this stuff in school. However, I'm also well placed to see why not everyone would be willing to listen to those lessons. Beyond just students being inattentive I mean. First, we don't have a huge black population, which means we don't feel as concerned. And the black people we have, aren't the descendants of slaves, but of immigration most of the time. Very different. So we aren't exposed to this history. Secondly, we have a bit of chauvinism going on, so some people don't want to hear about the negative impacts of colonisation, and the faults of our country. Thirdly, we have some people who either racist or anti-immigration, so they don't have as much empathy for the black slaves of old. I hope I've been useful :-)

@@Azerty72200 , and France continues to suck the resources out of its former African colonies, to help sustain itself at the harm of the very people it formerly colonized. The evil continues.🤷🏽‍♂️

French, Dutch and Portuguese are all European 🙄 you mean it’s encouraging that an English is talking about their country’s complicity.

Many blacks in France are from the former French colonies like Martinique and Guadeloupe and Sengal. The French were the third largest slave traders in the world behind the Brits and Portuguese. You imported so many slaves to Haiti you lost the country. And don’t get me started about Louisiana.

@@DWilliam1 what are you rambling about. Who said anything about what you’re saying. Comprehension is key.

People go to Monticello and get mad that they talk about slaves its so disrespectful

Your premises childish. The notion that one cannot voluntarily go to a source of information with the purpose of questioning the relevance or thoroughness of that information implies a passivity of willful ignorance that one should not want to champion. The motor for these questions ought to be obvious: there is a strong and growing sense that the topic is being narrowly presented for the deliberate purpose of creating an ethical emphasis not commensurate with it's historical prevalence.

@@EF-fc4du Perfectly stated, I was put off by the ad hominem attack against anyone that raises concerns about how the Irísh were treated. It’s ok to have differences of opinion but it’s not ok to call people “racîst” and “whíte supremacíst” for asking the question. Also, not everything she stated was completely accurate, so it also came off as a bit pretentious.

That's because they aren't asking "why are they being told about history", they are asking "why is history used on them the way it is", even though they can't find the words to ask that question.

What they are really saying is "we don't want to deal with sad part of history" sorry but we have to look at the downside of history Black, Arab, Or European. It is human history.