Basically lmao

"Why are you so focused on American slavery?" Maybe because we live in America?

@@hmnhntr she would have been the reverse Harriet Tubman....it would be the above ground prison train.

@@hmnhntr and because people fought to bring it back less than 70 years ago

Your honor did you account for the 364 days of the yeary client did rob a bank.

could not have equated it better if i tried

I feel this

Too accurate. "Slavery in the US wasn't bad because slavery existed before then" please be fr-

No, it's not the same, because people in America use this as a basis quite commonly to be racist against white people. As in "white people do all the slavery. So there's something genetically wrong with all of them therefore I can be prejudiced against random white people I know too." And yet the random white people they know in their own lives DID NOT PRACTICE SLAVERY. So no, your analogy is bad, because the parent in your analogy actually did abuse someone. Whereas the random white people Americans use this on didn't personally do anything wrong at all, they were just born with not much melanin. It's more like "I confronted my NON-abusive parents, because they physically resemble some other parents that were abusive" ... then why did you confront them?

Kinda said how accurate this is…

It was just industrialized.

I have seen people be surpriced. So good on you for being educated.

"In fact even in the bible, god himself says... uh... wait, let's not dwell on that."

this. We don't need slavery to be invented by europeans for it to be bad that the europeans industrialized an already horrible practice

It's easier for her to argue against a made-up position than to argue against the truth.

Seems to be genetical too... their descendants cannot stop losing to this day.

I see people flying those flags almost every day here in the south too 😭

@@sarahcivilization9905 Same here, living in the south is hell

​@@otakuinred"bUt iT rePreSents soUtheRn priDe" like no, it's literally a battle flag

@@TwofacedPlace of the side that lost to

Because she is funded by those

Also didn't mention how yea black countries still have slavery, how many of those black countries are fighting against white rule rn? I remember reading about a politician named Adolf Hitler, not the one you all know about. He's a black man mid 40s who right now is trying to fight to get more majority rule in his nation instead of the white minority rule of it. Yes this sounds like a joke cause of the name, but he does exist.

Because labour is exchange not slavery.

@@electricangel4488 only by name. You know what happened to a lot of slaves after the abolishment if slavery right? Rigut back to being slaves, but this time they get "paid" because they are working off debt its soo much better!!! companies are doing this same thing. It slavery without being called slavery

@@cryochick9044 thats leaving history which is already complicated and is going into marxian psudo science. No working off depth isnt slavery. Thou the historic example you aim for in the usa are exploitation. Small comfort to the victems. Depth means you owe someone something. If you ascribe value only to labour as the marxians do. Then the labour in this case is invest into the worker to get them more skilled. Thus thr worker owes his investor labour or money in return. Much in the same way a company will not give you dept when you join. You owe others thst have given you value and its your responiblity to repay them. Every privilidge has a duty or should have it. We can discuss the details of workersright wages hourse and freedom. Non of that will grant the premis thst the worker is a slave.

Its amazing the blight the conquistadors brought to this hemisphere

Yyyyyyyep!

So you're telling me the Mayans didn't cut people's chests open and then ate their 💕?

@@theflaggedyoutuberii4311 thats wednesday for me and im white

History is written by the victors.

Yes. A product of the culture of his time where governors where rather cruel people, as they lived in a position of privilidge and power over the commoner peasant. He would have been part of the top 10% of his era.

I hate when people try to use that excuse in general, but for Columbus in particular it doesn’t make sense. The dude died in jail because of how he treated the people he was governing. Clearly there were people who lived in the same period as he did who thought he was a tyrant. Do they know the history they’re supposed to be teaching?

@@andpeg i don't think that the phrase "they were a product of the culture of their time" is an excuse, but rather, an explanation to why people were like this

@@plague_doctor0237 It can be either. A surprising amount of people try to use it as an excuse- Columbus is a historical figure that a lot of Americans look up to, and they dont like having their bubbles burst. Italian Americans especially, afaik

@@plague_doctor0237 Considering the only time this kind of behavior is bashed on is when it includes White People, the double standard is there. And they use thr sins of the past to say that All White people born today are 100% responsable and guilty for the actions of someone hundreds of years ago did. YET when you point out the ateoceties of any minority ethnic group, the immediate excuse given is: "That is their culture. We are not here to talk about them." Even if it involves the same exact tyrannical and evil behaviors. So what? Only WHITE people are to be blamed for the sins of the past? Only White people are to be demonized? Every ethnic group has done terrible and evil things to every other ethnic group and their own. There isn't a single one that HASN'T practiced Slavory, Cannibalism, and Tyrannical governence over their weaker brethren. Everyone is guilty. Yet we strictly blame White people for the past. No one blames the African Kings and tribes that rangled up their fellow Africans to sell to other countries as slaves. No one wants to talk about the Native American tribes that practiced slavory onto weaker tribes and the English when they came over. No one wants to talk about what the Central and Southern America tribes slavory, cannibalism or sacrifices of anyone weaker than them. ALL of it nust gets hand waved off as "Their Culture" So why do we have to hate anyone with a Pale complexion of skin for these same heinous acts, yet they get to hold their heads high about it and clammor that they should be done all over again STRICTLY to White People? It makes no bloody sense, where is the damn line? Why is the double standard acceptable?

Wow, leftists are really disgusting, you all see black people as pawns with no free will. The worst thing is that you're not even aware of it. I wish you would feel some shame once in a while.

Because it sounds more credible when a black person defends slavery. They'll find a Ukrainian guy to explain how invading Ukraine was good and they'll find a jew (Benny) to defend holocaust

not all black people have to be on the left

​@@Cheeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetrue, but you can tell that they're using a black women to make their point more "valid". "A black person is telling you this so it's true since this is about them." That's the logic. It works on a lot of people since it makes the point seem more true and less biased even if it isn't.

@@bigdog3695 To be fair, I have seen anybody from black women to white men saying the exact same thing for many years now. I have also seen most people on the right not really focus on who is talking about a subject. What you are saying could be possible though. I also think that anybody should be able to speak on a subject regardless of characteristics and have their opinion weighed the same as everybody else.

Well you see, the effects of American slavery largely manifest in America's culture of white supremacy. This means that the history of American slavery comes up a lot in discussions of modern racism. This PragerU video is responding to those discussions more than it's responding to anything historical. Bringing up the fact that not all slavery was white dudes enslaving black dudes builds a narrative that slavery has nothing to do with race. And if you look at the history of mankind in general, this is kinda true; every racial group recognized in the modern world enslaved members of every other racial group they could reach at some point or another. PragerU wants you to take this quasi-factual framework and apply it to the specific case of American slavery, and come to the conclusion that systemic racism stemming from centuries of racist slavery is just a silly idea...even though that framework only holds -water- large pebbles if you focus on the vague idea of people owning other people, since the specific case of American slavery was _absolutely_ white dudes enslaving black dudes (and black ladies, and a few other POC when they could get their hands on them).

@@timothymclean i appreciate that you took the time to write all that but i didnt actually need a genuine explaination

Norse raiders who captured, enthralled, and sold Slavs back then did not even see themsleves nor Slavs as "white".

@@timothymclean "only holds -water- large pebbles" Thank you for this joke.

​@@knavishknightfun fact as a Ukrainian: right up until 2015 some Europeans were unironically arguing if we were white 💀

Conservatives are just like that lmao they contradict themselves all the damn time, it's absurd.

Wasn't even the first European to """find""" america

If you consider people like Leif Eriksson to be European

@@salmontickler I think so since the nords make up a pretty big part of the EU and what we now call the European continent, plus like half of our modern english words are nordic in origin, words like skull, skeleton, skin, skid, they really liked words beginning in sk.

@@aprilk141 interesting

Well they didn't say slavery was good.

Who is saying slavery is good? Tipical leftist saying lies and being pos.

​@@christophersnedekerthey sure do argue a lot that it wasn't bad

They’d all go quiet because that’s a stupid question that nobody’s asking.

Their argument is more in the line of: "peedough has benefits because it helps a child to mature." In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they said that next.

Considering how that is a regular defense used by the so-called victims of slavery in the US to justify their violence toward each other, I think you are not mocking who you intend to mock...

@@mylesleggette7520I have never heard that defense to justify modern violent crimes. Can you show me someone who said that?

@@joeydrew528 very common argument against the “fraction of population half of crimes” argument. They will say that black people have to commit those crimes because those around them were.

​@duck2434 If I understand the deeply ignorant point you're trying to make, one of the many parts you're leaving out is that people suffering poverty are forced into terrible conditions and thus more likely to commit criminalized acts out of desperation. As far as violent acts, extreme numbers of white households experience physical, verbal, and sexual abuse between family members but those often go unreported - the truth is it's simply a matter of which communities are more frequently policed, and which populations are more likely to receive legal punishment.

@@duck2434 Doing crime because you weren't taught any better isn't the same as doing crime for the thrill of it, or some other superficial reason. Of course they're both liable for their actions, but one party had much less resource and guidance on how to do the right things than the other.

To be fair, a lot of pop history takes the villainous character of the Persian Empire for granted, partly because our Greek sources didn't like the Persians* and mostly because it bolsters east-versus-west narratives that people find appealing for reasons they don't like to think about. *The only major polis that got along with Persia, Sparta, didn't leave many written sources.

@@timothymcleanand amusingly enough, the 300 movie made the Spartans the most iconic opponents of the Persians in pop culture

He also freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity. You'd think that PragerU, which believes that Israel can do no wrong, would appreciate that.

They didn't abolish slavery entirely, but they didn't have as much of it as other civilizations.

@@SeasideDetective2 He didn't just free them, he repatriated them.

Ok but uhh…I’m pretty sure there’s a difference between legalized slavery and illegally practiced slavery

@@mmrw most slavery practiced in the modern age, to include Africa and Asia, is illegal.

First it’s still slavery that isn’t being cracked down on Secondly the 13th amendment let’s prisoners be actual slaves legally

@@michaelwalker7400 that is pretty much their point tho... that slavery in the past was legal, but now is illegal, and since the Modern Age it was illegal in most of the world, thus, for very obvious reasons, modern slavery was illegal. You people like to make claims such as the Spanish conquistadores taking slaves and whatnot, but let me make a small reminder that according to the law at the time, any and all territories that were explored would be conquered, thus, they would pass to be part of the crown, which means they would not be colonies, they would literally be part of the nation, which means the same laws would apply to anyone who was part of said conquered territories... which aligns with what you said, slavery was illegal. So, again, that is exactly the point the other commenter made, there's a difference between legalized slavery and illegal slavery. One is accepted by a nation's government, the other is against the law. I think you dont need to be an engineer to figure this one out.

@@AlFredo-sx2yy Remember, the 13th amendment made slavery illegal *except* for those convicted of a crime. Make a law that targets an underprivileged group and, huh looks like we got a workforce again.

Candace Owens really trynna switch sides bro talm bout sum 👩🏿👩🏾👩🏽👩🏼👩🏻

@@leodunexxxl she's literally uncle rukcus

​@@HexaflexagonFanfr 💀

​@@HexaflexagonFan Ong 😭☠️

@@leodunexxxl NOT SWITCHING SIDES, ONLY SWITCHING ANGLES

Heard it goes by a different name today: Human trafficking. (Aww doesnt sound so bad, not to hurt peoples feelings/actually piss people off 🤗) Africa, especially Somalia has seen reported to have the highest modern day enslavement in the world. 😬

@@JMObyx but that’s not what Candace was talking about. She was talking about the first countries that abolished slavery. If she was talking about relativity she wouldn’t have been so vague when referring to the US abolition. She deliberately excluded the date and ranking of the US because it contradicts her narrative that white people are somehow how some kind of saviors rather than the oppressors who were upholding slavery, especially the slave owners in America. She’s just trying to downplay the cruelty of slavery.

@@fatcat5817 that is if your ignore the arabic world. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen...

@@Liminal_Dreamer She also fudged the date for France... they abolished slavery during the revolution, 1790-something. Only for Napoleon then to bring it back and trying also to reconquer Haiti with one of his family members leading the expedition that failed miserably... After that he was pissed off with the costly american colonial empire and sold Lousiana (which was supposed to grow the food for the slaves harvesting sugarcane on Haiti and which actually had already been sold to Spain forty years earlier in a secret treaty) to Jefferson. They needed to demand it back from freshly vanquishes spain to then switch ownership to the US of A... only a handful of Islands and Guyana remained french colonies, cutting down the costs to defend and maintain it drastically. Slavery then stayed legal until the next empire.

she’d probably go “but if it wasn’t for america, slavery wouldn’t end,” assuming she suddenly forgets about sharia law but something tells me she wouldn’t

Now look at the duration in which slavery was legal in the UK vs America.

Civil war wasn’t over slavery, though, it was over secession rights

​@@knotsoangelicwhile technically it was fought above preserving the union, think about why they seceded. Now, before you say it, I know about the states rights conflict, but what about bleeding Kansas? People were already being killed over slavery before the civil war started, so I'd say the civil war was mostly about slavery.

@@TwofacedPlace Mostly would be correct, however there were severe economic concerns that tended to dovetail with whether a state was slave or free. One of those was import tariffs. Despite the fact that the importation of slaves had been banned for years at the time of the civil war, the slave states with their weak manufacturing base had difficulty trading their agricultural goods due to the tariffs imparted by the industrialized free states. This made trade goods worth less and further weakened slave states economically. Trading to a pure domestic market was difficult due to the low domestic demand and the fact that free states would also engage in agriculture. When it came to ending slavery in the US, there was little actual argument about whether it needed to end or not. Most wanted to see an end. The problem came with how that end was to come about. Simply declare all slaves as free? This could be declared unconstitutional as a government seizure of property without warrant or just cause. Hilarious to our modern sensibilities, but at the time it was a real and valid concern. Then what to do with the sudden influx of now unemployed free people? Their former masters could exploit them, "Company Store" style, into slavery in all but name. The free states had that for years, where poor people were enslaved to work in factories, generations of them forced to work and die while building debt that the factory owner used to force work or imprisonment. Many, even in the free states, weren't sure slaves were any more mature and mentally competent than children. That these people needed someone to watch over them and keep them from mischief. Few who encountered people of color on the regular held such notions, but in the free states those encounters were rare. Should the government just buy and free all the slaves? Why should Pennsylvania pay for Virginia's sins? It was suggested that a date be set and anyone born afterwards would be free. While this meant an end to slavery, it was the sort of slow end that meant if slave states got a majority in congress that date could be forever pushed back. Another five years due to improper preparedness. Another ten due to the logistics. A common tactic in congress to this day. Finally, there was the admittance of states to the union. In regards to balance, there was an agreement to only admit a slave and free at once in order to keep one side from oppressing the other. And when a territory was being settled, abolitionists and slaveowners would send people in to attempt to settle and force the vote to one side or the other for their own particular causes. A slave state was a market for slaves coming out of Virginia. A free state was another voice towards forcing the will of the free states upon the slave states and enslaving the latter to the former on a national level. Imagine if we had a Republican government. House, Senate and President along with a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Would you feel your interests are being served in such a government? Would you feel ok with changes implemented to things such as election laws, government regulation and labor laws? And how would you feel if when you voiced your disagreement you were told it was just because you are evil and don't understand we need to do this for human rights? The Confederate States of America had as a part of their constitution the fact that the federal government could not abolish slavery. It also had that no slaves could be imported or exported. And did not ban the states from abolishing the practice of slavery on their own. It was an answer to the federal government attempting to enforce the will of some upon others. That doesn't make it right, but it is important that it is understood.

@@netmantis7387 @WhoWatchesThis (not sure if tagging works on youtube, but this reply is very important and the person i tagged needs to see it.)

Sadly, I doubt they had to force her from what I've seen of her elsewhere

@@hmnhntr yeah...she is the dave rubin of black folks

the moment prageru is presented by a minority you KNOW you're about to hear the most bigoted take on the minority in question you've ever heard

"See? Our black friend (that we paid a lot of money to hang out with us) agrees with us! That means we're totally not racist!"

its absolutely a choice

Yupp. all about the "natural order". KNOW YOUR PLACE. Which is ironical if you consider that Candace is above average pigmented AND of female persuasion, two factors which put her rather low in that assumed pecking order...

A few things are jumbled up there, but it does kind of resolve itself into might makes right.

These people aren't conservatives, they're american crazies

Well that doesnt seem to ecompass conservatisme as americans use it and the morality of might is right isnt a justification. But there is an appeal to what makes money will be justified is just human logic. The original video is seemingly trying to add context not justifie.

@@electricangel4488 I appreciate your attempt to try to see the best in others, but I think it might be misguided here

Well actually there was an empire of the Muslims. Islam started out as a nomadic empire similar to the Mongols however while they did assimilate to some extent their religion survived and influenced the regions they conquered. In some ways you can compare the Muslim conquest to those of Alexander who also conquered non-Greek regions and after his empire fractured it left behind states that were a blend of their old identity and the new Greek one. The notion of an Islamic state though never went away and has been claimed many times.

@@MrMarinus18 "Well actually there was an empire of the Muslims" Just type Rashidun Caliphate! Urgh...

​@@MrMarinus18This is the most blatant history rewriting bullshit I have ever seen, "thE mUslIms" isn't a single fucking monolith, this is like saying "thE chrIstIAns" to refer to the fucking crusade. I can say "white people are genociders" using this logic.

@@MrMarinus18 muslims are the people who believe in the islamic religion. Those you are talking about are the 4 rashidins which were after the prophet, and later on different kinds of empire came in but they were all arabs and muslims not only muslims.

the turks they are referring to are likely the early turks such as the Uyghur Khaganate who were of a Zoroastrian religion

Unfortunately Brasillians conservatives do that as well.

USA slavery was bad, but it was not good in other places either. It's not like slaves in all other places did had rights.

Conservatives are not making apologetic videos about how slavery wasn't that bad lmao. There is literally someone in this very comment section saying slavery in ancient Egypt was not that bad because slaves were treated well lmao.

@@BlackWolf207 No, conservatives don't make apologetic videos about how slavery wasn't that bad- they make them about how AMERICAN slavery wasn't that bad. I mean, what else should we take away from this PragerU video? "White people didn't invent slavery!" "Columbus actually helped Taino slaves!" "The word 'slave' comes from a word for a white ethnic group!" "Slavery's always existed!" "White people actually ended slavery!" "White people died in the Civil War to end slavery!" "Everyone's done horrible things throughout history!" "Africans weren't doing any better before they were colonized!" "Africans sold each other into slavery!" "White people didn't even catch slaves themselves!" "There's still slavery- it's in Africa, not America, and it affects even more people!" "Black victimhood is just pushed by greedy race hustlers!" Weirdly, they never say anything like "White people were involved in slavery," "The slavery that occurred in the Americas was bad," etc. that actually admits how bad American slavery was. Just stuff that draws attention away from it. It isn't outright denial, but it sure is something, isn't it? Don't you think some acknowledgements are due in 'A Short History of Slavery'?

@@BlackWolf207 I was gonna say "That doesn't really matter much considering that the KZfaq Comment Section is so damn big" but I *literally* saw the post you're talking about right under this comment so

WHAT. THE ORIGINAL VIDEO WAS 5 MINUTES LONG?? THESE PEOPLE AREN'T SERIOUS WTF 💀

Oh please do not be so generous, it is not a “misunderstanding.” It’s an extremely deliberate attempt to make the country look better, basically only occurring in the southern states for obvious reasons. It’s also not true that it’s an American thing-every country does this to some extent, and some do so to arguably a worse extent than the US in fact

do you live in florida?

The more ignorant are usually also the louder ones my pal, don't generalize

Tyrants profit off of misinformation, and a lot of people in the USA are wannabe tyrants who are one political movement away from becoming full blown fascists

The reason this is occurring now, along with Trump's presidency, hyperpolarization, election denial, right wing militias, the Great Replacement theory, QAnon, Christian Nationalism, the antivaxx movement, Covid conspiracy theories, cancel culture, chemtrails, and most other recent problems, is the huge historic change in our information ecosystem around 2005 due to social media. We have abandoned reliable sources of information for digital rumor mills. We allow secret algorithms owned by huge Silicon Valley monopolies to decide what appears on our screens, feeding us whatever we want to believe, turning us into extremists, in order to make more profits. This is not freedom of speech, it is behavior mod. It is literally impossible for an ordinary citizen to tell truth from lies.

But she couldn't even do that right. She said that the UK was the first country to abolish slavery, even though that is flat-out false.

@@jacoblinde7486if anything, it was 1 of the last to do such

@@jacoblinde7486 I'm still not sure who was first? The host of the video convincingly challenged his own first example (Japan), and then his second example (Haitians) he said was people who formed a country after revolting against slavery, but he didn't even actually ever CLAIM that they outlawed slavery afterward. ...DID they? Maybe they did, but he was extremely weirdly vague about it, and did a terrible job explaining it, if so. Your country being formed as a result of a slave revolt (which is all he mentioned) does not necessarily mean you then did or did not subsequently outlaw slavery.

You mean she bends the truth?

Does that count as lying by omission?

Just remember that when you are crafting your chants and educating people on your cause, white people were the ones who are responsible. It was white people who are unique in their commitment to slavery. Only white people can be racist, so calling someone a Bleach Demon is perfectly justified and definitely not racist. White people are the root cause of these problems, to the point that it may be genetic to them. And all white people are responsible, whether they were here at the time or not, because they all benefit from the legacy.

"What do you mean 'Egypt is in Africa?' Egyptians aren't black!"

To be fair, there was a lot of classism in Africa. However, the bottom rungs of society weren't treated bad. Slaves were actually respected and treated well in ancient Egypt unlike America. Hell, the slaves were among the only people in ancient egyptian society that were allowed to learn how to read and write. The Egyptians saw the ability to read and write as a gift from their gods and only royals and the slaves who constructed the stone that inscribed the history of Egypt were allowed to write. It's actually ridiculous how people try and say "oh but egyptians did slavery first" as a defense for american slavery, when Egyptian slavery and American slavery were night and day.

wait, so ya telling me we really *wuz* kangs??! welll sheeeeeit mayng, no wonder dem saw-coffin-cases was all blinged up n sheeeit. imagine dat tooty carmon poppin a cap 😂😂😂

Today, the only dynasty that ruled Egypt that would be considered Sub Saharan African was Kush (Kush is my favorite dynasty, they’re super underrated. ) So she’d still be wrong with her statement.

Not all African people are Egyptian.

I do love how they just dusted over one of the worst slave trades in the world by just going, "well some of them could use being slaves to progress socially" also the Islamic Saharan slave trade was probably not much better than the Atlantic slave trade

Yeah this skimming of ottoman slavery felt very haphazard. Honestly this entire video feels a uncomfortable in that the guy speaking against PragerU is ALSO comparing slavery. I dont think slavery should at all be compared because its never not going to be a horrible thing. Doesnt matter how many more rights you have as a slave, you are still a slave, you still belong to someone and arent treated like a human being. Slavery doesnt need to be heightened or lessened, it needs to be taught about in every aspect. Theres a reason why alot of americans genuinely think white people started slavery because that specific trade is ALL you are taught. Teach about the oldest forms of slavery, economically formed slavery, socially formed slavery, modern slavery, just all of it because its all horrible and it all needs to be used as a cruel example of what the world was like and still is like now. I didnt know about comfort women until I started digging into slavery as a topic, hell even teachings about the Holocaust and the concentration camps completely watered down the slavery that was held in those. If one of the most traumatizing, disgusting mass genocides has details like that being watered down, then I think we seriously need to rethink how we handle Slavery as a topic in schools.

@@chaoticcow4357 Well said

how exactly are you gonna enslave anyone without braking a multitude of laws tho

​​@@nodramalama9531that was what i was thinking about too like you're gonna have to beat the slave into submission take away there human right treat them like animals and quiet possible kidnap them. doesnt make much sense

@@Xx_SuperPenis_xX while i can't remember the names of those involved, or where it occurred (so, basically, my source is: trust me bro... i stretched my brain to try and remember but i just couldn't, sorry) there was a case in america, iirc in the mid to late 2010s, of a few men being enslaved in another's home and forced to do labor (possibly on home renovations?). while trying to google for that case, and failing to bring anything up, i did find the case of the Calimlim family, who owned a woman for 20 years in Wisconsin. there are absolutely more, but obviously if you try to google anything for it, most of what comes up is historical, unfortunately no matter your keywords. however, those people were punished for their crimes, so i'm not entirely sure what op is talking about, and i don't know how to read legalese for every single u.s. state to see if the fine print checks out.

@@xyzzyx4839 i guess i'll take your word for it crazier things have happened before to be honest

@@xyzzyx4839 even if like slavery is just "unconstitutional" i dont think any sane lawyer or judge would take an argument like "HEY NOW slavery has no penalty mannnn its just unconstitutional!!!" Seriously at least without any back lash i guess not to mention slavery is seen as a sinister and evil thing by most americans Its like the saul goodman meme "YOU KNOW WHAT JUDGE SHUT THE HELL UP SINCE YOU WEREN'T THERE OKAYYY!!!!"

There also is a lot of demonization of "illegal migrants" but the most common way they happen is by foreign workers coming in and companies trapping them in the US via all kinds of legal loopholes. This puts them in a position of extreme vulnerability which means they can be paid poverty wages. Most illegal migrants actually didn't enter as illegal migrants but they became illegal migrants because their work visa ran out. So ironically it was legal for them to enter but it's illegal for them to leave. It actually kind of is a dance that the political right does since they claim to hate illegal migrants but they don't actually want to stop it cause their corporate donors love them. After all if you can hire migrants who you can sent to prison on a whim you can avoid having to deal with unionized workers.

The trans Atlantic slave trade isn’t felt today, especially in the Americas.

yes, because there's absolutely no racism or people who still think slavery is just fine, absolutely none at all in america, definitely/s

@@chromaland5518 Yes, it is.

@@chromaland5518that’s just dishonest.

I too do hate rich people, a certain Austrian man also hated rich people

@@tktspeed1433 It's not about hating rich people. It's hating rich SCUMMY people. If I am thinking of the same Austrian man you are thinking of, then he and these "rich people" have the scumminess in common -- and by that, I mean a disregard for human life in all its forms

Where did you hear her defending it? 😂 Saying its happened everywhere since recorded history is simply a fact, taking it any deeper and twisting it sounds like a YOU problem.

@@AmberVivicideshe implies the USA was one of the first to abolish it, when it hasn’t even truly abolished it. There’s still the Slave Labour in prisons, wage slavery, child labour {technically not slavery, but still has those undertones} and so on.

Eh... What race modern people would identify Cleopatra as is uncertain and kinda pointless. Not because she was unrepresentative of the Egyptian people, but because it's missing the more important point that modern racial categories didn't exist in the first century BCE. Or for most of the common era, either.

Hmm, nope, that's not at all what's this is about. Egyptians are "white" because the ethnic differences of the modern world don't apply to ancient egypt, and calling people white or black using today's standard doesn't make much sense. However, the people who came into Egypt (usually as invaders), ranked from palest to darkest skin tones, were from North Africa, Levant and Nubia. The egyptian were mixed, but mostly pale skinned.

@@timothymclean ?? Modern categories might not have existed, but contemporary ones absolutely did, and the people of the time cared quite a bit about these distinctions, so they're important n understanding historical context.

I hate the whole "white and black" are the only race narrative. Egyptians, Hebrews and Palestine's are all of the same base group called Canaanites. They're closer to Middle Eastern/North Africans and are neither white nor black by current definitions of race (which is already super loose.). There were plenty of blacks in Egyptian history because Egypt actually had a lot of variation depending on which period you are looking at. It's like there are more races than white and black, but when the narrative is so insanely racist everything devolves into one side and another. Like politics or other binary ways of thinking. It's so incredibly unhelpful. And this gets even more ridiculous when people think race means anything. My race and all it's ills and triumphs aren't mine just because of the melanin level in my skin. I hold no commonality or comradery with someone due to something as innocuous as race. I'm not my parents or my gender or sex or sexuality. I'm me and so is everyone else.

Actually a majority of Egypt is neither black or white but Muslim

AFTER the book tells how Israel's offspring had been enslaved for 400 years ;) Or after Abram and Sarai owned "handmaidens" (wink wink nudge nudge)

@@Ugly_German_Truths Was that before or after God told them to go kill the men of another tribe and take the virgin women as theirs?

Imo, her delusional level of religious zealotry is the main reason she’s incapable of analyzing any subject logically. Nothing in the real world matters to her because to her all that is important is sin and the devil and all that bs religious extremist loons are worried about.

I'm sure that the US backed coups in places like the Congo didn't help either.

​@@InsufficientGravitasLibya as well. Im sure more african countries have been affected by the USA than have not been affected

@TobyTopF the african contributors also often acted out of self preservation as the european ships that came to acquire slaves to sell int he Americas would not leave empty. If nobody sold them slaves they would ransack the coastal areas under the protection of their guns and TAKE slaves. Many chose to instead make that a "other tribes" problem and waged war to have slaves to sell to them. It's dishonest to pretend they would have done that just as much if no europeans were there to buy them. (or to pretend the sellers could just demand any price they REALLY wanted... it's called a triangle trade for a reason... Africa provided the slaves, which were used in the americas to produce raw materials to be brought to Europe where they were turned into complete goods, with which then in Africa new slaves were bought... as one of the most important slave made goods was sugar from the sugar cane, producing rum out of it was an important part of the trade, thus buying slaves for "alcohol")

@@InsufficientGravitasAnd Liberia started off as a send-them-back-to-Africa nation, which caused a conflict between the new (mostly mixed) American ruling class and the native peoples of the region. They themselves, who were freed slaves, started slavery in the nation because they were indoctrinated with the information that they were better than the “uncivilized” Africans because they were assimilated into the European society or/and because they often times looked more white. There is still conflict between the minority class descended from the American colonists and the majority native people. And some people truly believe that we aren’t effected by slavery in the modern world.

this is what happens when you don't teach kids about history, or human nature

While I thought this too, especially with how inaccurate calling them Indians is, a lot of groups now identify with the term, and prefer it over Native American. Not all do, and Native American is a good way to refer to the whole of the groups, but for certain tribes using the term Indian is actually better.

I see... I've never heard of that before. Can you point me towards which tribes might have said this and where?@@epicmatiz3627

@@epicmatiz3627 Indeed, I have never liked the term "indian" for referring to them, but if a large number of them prefer that term it is not up to me to decide that they should find it racist. It's not my place.

“Indian” is a historic term while as “Native American” is a modern term. Some (especially historians,) use the term “Indian” for it’s historic value and documental usage.

@@chromaland5518 I can think of another six-letter word that was used, historically, that isn't used today. Care to guess which one?

It's more of a "my dear white American ancestors didn't invent slavery can we forgive them already 🥺" thing, which is still bullshit btw

original vid didn't say anything even remotely close to that

The internet is a wild place. I've truly seen it all

Candace. It was literally on the screen for a couple of minutes *sigh*

She's so full of Republican party propaganda that her eyes are brown.

​@@Ugly_German_Truthsno one gives a fuck

cand-no nonononoooooo

@@iitianwannabeSay it.

I'm stealing that description, thank you.

She and her Prager U overlords LOVE capitalism, which is in a lot of ways the continuation of misery under different conditions.

It isn't that it is bad, but that it is normalized to the point few see anything wrong with it. If you tell someone they shouldn't be working 40+ hours a week in a job they hate for a paycheck that doesn't pay their bills, and that they should remove themselves from such a system in an attempt to starve it out you will be met with incredulity. "How do you expect me to live?" is what you will be asked. Because working 40+ hours a week at a job you hate is normalized. Everyone does it, it is just how things are. When you want to judge people of the past who are a product of their time by the standards of today, just remember that you are an inhuman monster to someone a thousand years from now for what you have said and done. I have no idea currently what that may be that is so offensive, but odds are something we do now be it industrial agriculture, living in cities, driving personal vehicles or living within or outside of communal homes is horrifying to people of the future.

​@@netmantis7387I understand it being normalized but people in the modern era trying to downplay it and act like it's something we should just forget about are the main issue

@EpicMinecraftFail It isn't downplaying, but providing context. The hardest thing to do is to stand up against something everyone else doesn't see a problem with. Especially when there is no good solution for the most part. Personal internal combustion engines are bad. They pollute the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. If someone was protesting that we need to give up our cars, lawnmowers, weedwhackers and generators today for the sake of the environment that person would be laughed at for being an extremist. Everyone all over the world uses internal combustion engines daily. Farms run on them, Construction demands them, even the mining necessary for electrics cannot run without either engines or slavery. There is no clear way towards abolishment. Especially since you would have many families in debt paying for something the government confiscated. That is what Candice is trying to bring context to. The US wasn't a lone slave nation in the world. It was common at the time. Hell, Benin, the African nation mentioned for its lovely bronze plaques defined itself through brutal slavery and raiding neighbors for slaves until the English put a stop to it by force.

@@netmantis7387 No shit, everyone knows the US wasn't the only one doing it, that doesn't mean we should sweep it under the rug and act like what happened had no long lasting consequences, an engine is not comparable to the lives of others.

​@@soujemn5 Look at this absolute moron who somehow hasn't heard of segregation or Jim Crow laws.

⁠@@soujemn5”bad compared to what” lol. You could not sound less like a slavery apologist. Morality is subjective, so i would love to hear your argument against “slavery is bad.” American slavery wasn’t particularly bad, just that it was the worst form of slavery, chattel slavery combined with a obvious to identify feature which made it brutally effective to institutionalize. That’s all, nothing unique. point 3 someone else can put in the work, its gonna take a whole lot more to explain than point 2

​@@soujemn5Account description: "Pepe did 9/11" Aiight. None of this is correct or meaningful enough to merit a serious response. Have fun rotting in irrelevance.

@@soujemn5dude, are you trolling? That was the craziest 💩 I’ve ever read!

​@@soujemn5go cope idiot

The unstated part when a Conservative claims "facts don't care about your feelings" is (but they do care about mine).

There's a difference between fault/guilt and responsibility. If a small child has an infection that causes them to vomit, it probably isn't the parent's fault, but it's certainly their responsibility to care for the child and clean up the mess. We can be responsible for righting the continuing effects of slavery, without it having been our fault.

@@Ruthavecflute Some random joe can't change the slavery within the prison system. You can pin responsibility on whoever you like but they still won't do anything because they can't do anything.

@@RuthavecfluteBut that's flipped, it's our (grand)parents that 'threw up'.

@@mirrors8913 So... what about the government? I'm sure they have the power to, idk, dish out laws and stuff if they so please. There is a way, but if not enough of a ruckus happens, or if the right people are not appointed, then things will not be changed.

​@@cameronschyuder9034 It doesn't matter what laws you create if the attitudes & beliefs that cause the behaviors you're trying to legislate away don't change: Laws were created saying slavery is illegal & discrimination is illegal at the federal level, but at the local level, officials turn a blind eye because they and/or those who support them still feel they should be allowed to use people like they are slaves & be allowed to decide which citizens can or cannot be treated like citizens.

Another leftist who doesn't think black people are smart or brave enough to speak for themselves. So many of you do this, and you still think you're the good guys. You're racist, yet you claim you're superior.

slavery is human nature, it does not target a specific group of people

That is uhh. Unconstitutional Iirc even if you are imprisoned you still should be allowed and given the chance to vote.

@@cryochick9044 The constitution doesn't prohibit disenfranchisement of prisoners.

@@cryochick9044 It's not. It should be unconstitutional but it it isn't. That's not the only thing about prisoners though, they also can be used for forced labor. Prisoners in the US have the same status as slaves. Quite literally, when slavery was still around prisoners and slaves were essentially the same thing. While slavery has been abolished the rules around prisoners have not really been reformed.

That sounds like a horrible idea. Why on earth would you want people currently in prison to have the ability to vote? Obviously the swing issue for them would be getting out of prison as soon as possible, and that would be a disaster for any democratic process.

@@todo9633 They are still not enough of the population to do that for one. Another big reason is that this will punish politicians for locking people up rather than helping communities by losing votes. Finally it will mean locking people up can no longer be used as a means of voter suppression. I don't think prisoners would be a large enough group to outvote other people when it comes to reduced sentencing. But they likely would vote for those who promise to uplift impoverished areas and improve conditions in prisons. Finally there is a moral argument here in that taking away people's right to vote is against what America is supposed to be. Even the sinful deserve to have their voices heard.

Candice is Quisling reincarnated.

Yeah, like some of them literally did. The pharoahs surely lived like pharoahs.

ONE COUNTRY and apparently everyone lived like Pharoahs

@@skunknoodles6426 "country" you just outed yourself as american

also are we gonna ignore the fact that the richest man who ever lived was from africa?

@@AppleOfThineEye ????????????? how?!

yeah its good for historical accuracy and understanding. do you think there should be something more out of it?

It isn't an American thing, exactly. It was more a European thing that their colonies and former colonies kept doing.

Do you believe only Americans had slave farmers?

​@@EpicMinecraftFailwere the only ones with A SLAVE CLASS. For centuries

@@banjofangirl3458 yeah dividing weather or not you were a slave based on if you were black or not is messed up on a different level i agree, I just said that because my country still has legal slavery technically

Literal white supremacists and natsoc sentiments

And Texas

Oh gosh

fuck florida ive seen enough

I swear we’re boutta have a second civil war at this point…

ah shoot, hadn't heard about this, thanks

Woah, Django was a beast. Dont compare the two

​@@foam3132He's talking about Sam Jackson's character "Stephen," a black slave who was fanatically loyal to his white Master

Cyrus was history's first bro

Less rights than under taliban? Sure it was uncanny but heck, no way. Genocide? Which one? Of the armies who opposed them and had attacked their heartland first many times and razed cities? Mr questinable Alexander held the territories by carefully implementing measures that the inhabitants found ok; there were too many to be dealt with by force effectively. Dude you really need help right now

Next we will hear the tale of Diogenes great castle.

Then they are not sIavs. There is nothing "bad" about it you r4c-st big-t, sIavs are whitw and what is so horribIe abt that? Should she say "asian latino bIacks" instead? R-c-st

Dont ya know there are 3 groups. Blacks, yellows and normal. I have substituted the words because the real ones are somehow worse

You would be surprised and kind of disappointed. There are *so* many people online that refuse to believe that Slavery is anything but a uniquely American probem.

😂

damn. Source?

I don't particularly doubt that, considering how many people get trafficked every year (and how many cases possibly go unreported) but it'd be nice if you linked up some sources

More like a mouthpiece, her entire gimmick is "I'm black so you know conservatives aren't even slightly racist"

Till her little propaganda at the end, the video was just facts. point to me exactly where she was making "excuses", and for what

It's her twisted way of telling black people to "stop playing victim" even if they're descendants of literal slaves

The people who lived there are Africans, but they aren't black. That's what they mean

@@asdawasda I understand that, I'm just pointing out the irony of the statement

Also as someone who loves history, saying stuff without actually sources or proof, and CLEARLY, pulled out of her ass made me want to rip my hair out. Saying that you intend to tell the truth then give no creditable source, cherry pick said "thruth" is just disgusting. The video shouldn't even exist ngl

Bro I see it and I laugh. PagerU do realise that Africa is FAR bigger than America, right? Like more than 3 times bigger, which means American had more slaves per area. Doesnt absolve us Africans from Slavery (I would like to apologize on behalf of my ancestors), but the biggest problem that came out of it was racism. And we didnt create that

Yeah, Africa, shockingly is also a lot fucking bigger than the US, over 3 times