Trump against legal immigration

[Slumba]

It is humorous to watch you try to pretend you don't have a strong dislike for different races, after you have already outed yourself numerous times!   Although it isn't hard to do, I'm not interested in providing you any stats.  It is very clear that much work was accomplished by slaves, the chinese, and the millions of illegals in the workforce today....it is worth another chuckle watching you deny them that, based on your strong dislike..and ultimately an extreme fear.


Fathertime!

Blacks were *never* more than 17% of the total population during the period of slavery.

Since 90% of Whites at that time were involved in agriculture and other labor, very similar to what Blacks were doing ... it is a numerical impossibility for slaves to have done "much" of the labor - even assuming that slave labor worked as hard or as productively as free men (in general they did not).

To post actual stats would require an adult's ability to take responsibility.  FOR YOUR LIES.

Only toddlers use words the way you do...

[fathertime]

Blacks were *never* more than 17% of the total population during the period of slavery.

Since 90% of Whites at that time were involved in agriculture and other labor, very similar to what Blacks were doing ... it is a numerical impossibility for slaves to have done "much" of the labor - even assuming that slave labor worked as hard or as productively as free men (in general they did not).

To post actual stats would require an adult's ability to take responsibility.  FOR YOUR LIES.

Only toddlers use words the way you do...

Gee, i'm really regaled by your 'stats'!    It is interesting that you have become so defensive when it is suggested that Slaves did much of the labor, as did chinese, and now the illegals!  Based on all you have already said, it is very obvious that your bigotry permeates all of your thoughts...nothing more!   Keep going though, soon you will try to have everyone believe that rainbows are made of candy corn.  No. Minority groups including illegals have done a tremendous amount of work on this country, whether you want to admit it or not!


Fathertime!   

[alex330]

On the H1B Visas. We sponsored a brilliant big data guy from Brazil. We could have probably found an American to do the same job but for triple the price. And not as young or hungry.


We also hired an Indian. He  just plain sucked. Not the brightest in any way.


I did a short stint as a tech recruiter. Hated it, but learned that most of the H1B Visas are being gamed by Indian recruiting or app development firms. They have their foot in the door and meet the quota before anyone else as they have the system down. We are no longer getting the best, the system is being outfoxed by recruiters to make that placement or hourly commission.

[Anotherkiwi]

Blacks were *never* more than 17% of the total population during the period of slavery.

Since 90% of Whites at that time were involved in agriculture and other labor, very similar to what Blacks were doing ... it is a numerical impossibility for slaves to have done "much" of the labor - even assuming that slave labor worked as hard or as productively as free men (in general they did not).

While I agree with your overall premise, how hard or productively would any of those white folks have worked if they were in shackles for the best part of 24 hours a day, out in the hot sun in plantation fields with no shelter or water, regularly beaten by overseers for no reason at all, and (if female) repeatedly raped just for fun, no matter how old they were?  I'm sure that there were some good and kind slave owners and overseers, but the other kind would have outnumbered them at least a thousand to one.

[Anotherkiwi]

I abhor slavery and agree it was terrible.  But it did not build this nation, nor did the Chinese laborers.  The people that exploited the poor labor were the force behind building the nation.

My understanding was that Chinese labourers built many (most?) of the railroads in the United States and Canada.  In that sense I would consider that they did an awful lot to physically "build" and link the parts of each nation, even if the idea came from someone else.

[jone]

Coolies contributed to the Transcontinental Railroad.  But their participation was limited in the United States, almost, to this singular event.  It is why they are remembered in the US.  But Coolie participation (which was corporate indentured servitude) was prohibited in California as early as 1867, two years prior to the finish of the railroad.  Coolies were used, much more, in South American and Caribbean nations.

[Slumba]

While I agree with your overall premise, how hard or productively would any of those white folks have worked if they were in shackles for the best part of 24 hours a day, out in the hot sun in plantation fields with no shelter or water, regularly beaten by overseers for no reason at all, and (if female) repeatedly raped just for fun, no matter how old they were?  I'm sure that there were some good and kind slave owners and overseers, but the other kind would have outnumbered them at least a thousand to one.

I was taking issue with the lie that FT told.

For all the reasons you state, and maybe more,  my point that black contributions to the USA are minimal during the years of slavery, is accurate.

A more sarcastic take is "the US is made out of cotton and melanin ".

Thomas Sowell wrote "The Economics and Politics of Race", which covers some of this topic.

[fathertime]

I was taking issue with the lie that FT told.

For all the reasons you state, and maybe more,  my point that black contributions to the USA are minimal during the years of slavery, is accurate.

A more sarcastic take is "the US is made out of cotton and melanin ".

Thomas Sowell wrote "The Economics and Politics of Race", which covers some of this topic.

Conservative sources are going to produce conservative analysis, which is fine, but certainly not at all binding... minimizing their contributions then, and now minimizing the efforts of the current group of illegals is rooted in entitlement and bigotry.   


 if the slaves contributed so little why were they so important to have at the time?  Even when involved in food production, and housekeeping, that enabled other white folk the free time to do other things...so I'd say that also contributed to the construction of the nation.   




Slaves repairing a road.
From A Journey in the Seaboard Slave
States by Frederick Law Olmsted.






Fathertime! 

[BillyB]

Blacks were *never* more than 17% of the total population during the period of slavery.

US Census doesn't agree with you. Only towards the years right before the Civil war did blacks fall below 17% of the population and that probably had to do with the Northern States abolishing slavery first and stopped buying them so importing them decreased. Before the US Census, it was predicted blacks accounted for 20% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

it is a numerical impossibility for slaves to have done "much" of the labor - even assuming that slave labor worked as hard or as productively as free men (in general they did not).

I think a man who had to work as if his life and his family's lives depended on it works harder than a man who doesn't face the same consequence. Also being a slave, one may have to work more hours. Sun up to sun down 7 days a week. Some slave owners were kind to their workers. Other owners tortured them.

if the slaves contributed so little why were they so important to have at the time?  Even when involved in food production, and housekeeping, that enabled other white folk the free time to do other things...so I'd say that also contributed to the construction of the nation.   

Slaves picked a lot of cotton and tobacco. Cotton alone accounted for 60% of America's exports and America produced 75% of the world's cotton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton

Slaves accounted for a big enough percentage of the population that can't be ignored. Their contributions to building this country shouldn't be ignored. I think Trump, after getting educated on the facts, will see the value in Hispanic contributions and immigration. He seems smart enough not to make radical decisions without a play to replace. Although he will repeal Obamacare, he will put his plan in place to make sure people won't be without medical insurance. If he wants to make changes in immigration, he needs to make sure the farmers of America have enough workers to work the farm. In the end, he will see the Hispanics are the best workers and the most willing to do the job.

[Slumba]

US Census doesn't agree with you. Only towards the years right before the Civil war did blacks fall below 17% of the population and that probably had to do with the Northern States abolishing slavery first and stopped buying them so importing them decreased. Before the US Census, it was predicted blacks accounted for 20% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans

The actual census data does not show any time when Blacks were 20% of the population between 1790 and 1870 (first census after the Civil War).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

Is my math off?  For which census year?

(I always try hard to find the actual, original data and not someone's interpretation of it.)

[BillyB]

The actual census data does not show any time when Blacks were 20% of the population between 1790 and 1870 (first census after the Civil War).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

According to your link and without having to pull out a calculator, I can see blacks averaged around 20% of the population between 1750-1790. The Northern states abolished slavery first and of course, many blacks were not living in the best of conditions to get romantic to have offspring or for the survival of their offspring so they accounted for less of the population as years went by.

Links below show most blacks and slaves lived down South around the farmlands. South Carolina's population was 57% black at the start of the Civil War.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

http://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_slave_distribution.pdf

[tfcrew]

Those who want to discredit the United States and to deny our role as history’s most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity invariably focus on America’s bloody past as a slave-holding nation. Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimes—and an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” According to America-bashers at home and abroad, open-minded students of our history ought to feel more guilt than pride, and strive for “reparations” or other restitution to overcome the nation’s uniquely cruel, racist and rapacious legacy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery

[Gator]

The Northern states abolished slavery first....

Not exactly true.  Georgia was the only colony of the 13 original colonies to ban slavery.  This occurred from 1735-1750.  The prosperity of South Carolina plantations convinced Georgia to allow slavery. 

...and of course, many blacks were not living in the best of conditions to get romantic to have offspring or for the survival of their offspring so they accounted for less of the population as years went by.

Billy, breeding certainly was  encouraged because offspring were valuable.   

The US outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, so the 300+% growth in black population from 1810 to 1860 was due to births exceeding deaths.  In contrast, much of the white population growth resulted from immigration.  In the middle  of the 19th C, half of the population of Ireland immigrated to the US, plus an equal number of Germans.

Links below show most blacks and slaves lived down South around the farmlands. South Carolina's population was 57% black at the start of the Civil War.

Of course.  The North was industrialized.  The South's economy was based around growing commodity crops, mainly cotton for export after the invention of the cotton gin, but other crops too such as  rice and tobacco.   Plantation owners were very wealthy from growing and exporting these crops.     

[jone]

Not exactly true.  Georgia was the only colony of the 13 original colonies to ban slavery.  This occurred from 1735-1750.  The prosperity of South Carolina plantations convinced Georgia to allow slavery. 


Billy, breeding certainly was  encouraged because offspring were valuable.   



Of course.  The North was industrialized.  The South's economy was based around agriculture, mainly cotton for export after the invention of the cotton gin, but other commodity crops too such as  rice and tobacco.   Plantation owners were very wealthy from growing and selling these crops.   

Gator,  I hear that your wifey still practices slavery. 

[Gator]

Gator,  I hear that your wifey still practices slavery.

Ha ha.  For a slave I am fed well. 

[Slumba]

According to your link and without having to pull out a calculator, I can see blacks averaged around 20% of the population between 1750-1790. The Northern states abolished slavery first and of course, many blacks were not living in the best of conditions to get romantic to have offspring or for the survival of their offspring so they accounted for less of the population as years went by.

So in other words, my math is not off, and my statements were accurate.

[BillyB]

Not exactly true.  Georgia was the only colony of the 13 original colonies to ban slavery.  This occurred from 1735-1750.  The prosperity of South Carolina plantations convinced Georgia to allow slavery. 

You're not wrong but I'm not wrong either. What I said was true that the Northern States were the first to ban slavery before the Civil war. 1860 US census below show no slaves or slave owners lived in the Northern States which made the ban before any State in the South did. In the years 1735-1750 that you mention, Georgia wasn't even a State and USA didn't exist. A man from England made decisions for the colony of Georgia back then.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Blacks were *never* more than 17% of the total population during the period of slavery.

So in other words, my math is not off, and my statements were accurate.

Your link shows Blacks regularly accounted for more than 17% of the total population during the period of slavery.

[Gator]

In the years 1735-1750 that you mention, Georgia wasn't even a State and USA didn't exist.

That is why I referred to it as a "colony." 


This RWD discussion about slavery started when it was correctly explained that whites built America.  At the time of the Civil War, the North was industrialized, and this industrial base was the core of America's strength for another 100 years. 

The industrial base was built by whites because as you noted the North had no slaves.   To be specific, the vast majority before 1830 had English roots.  A large influx of Irish and Germans played a significant role in the period 1830-1880.  After 1880, steamships greatly reduced the cost of crossing the Atlantic and ushered in waves of immigrants from  Europe (Italians, Polish, Greeks, Swedes, Russians, etc.), again essentially all white. 

This changed starting in the early 1900s.  Blacks had migrated from the South to the North  and found jobs in the industrial base.  Hispanic immigration accelerated significantly, as Mexicans immigrated to the Western US to fill need for labor and Caribbeans immigrated to Eastern US.    The US restricted immigration after WW I, and legal immigration slowed.     

     

[Miquel Westano]

While I agree with your overall premise, how hard or productively would any of those white folks have worked if they were in shackles for the best part of 24 hours a day, out in the hot sun in plantation fields with no shelter or water, regularly beaten by overseers for no reason at all, and (if female) repeatedly raped just for fun, no matter how old they were?  I'm sure that there were some good and kind slave owners and overseers, but the other kind would have outnumbered them at least a thousand to one.

The beatings and rapes were mostly figments of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novelette, Uncle Tom's Cabin.  If any logical person were to think about it, beating slaves would not make economic sense.  Slaves were expensive and needed to be in top condition for hard all day work.  A modern farmer would not go out and destroy a tractor he just mortgaged the farm to buy, and slave owners tried to keep the slaves healthy and happy (relative to slavery) so they could count on them for maximum production.

What modern liberals forget is that slave owners were driven by money, not the desire to own humans.  Slavery, while terrible and despicable, was common throughout the world.  The white folks of America didn't invent it, or even perfect it.  But the white folks of America were responsible for eliminating it here in America.  And, they spilled a lot of their own blood to do it.

The ownership of slaves was a product of the need to produce and the lack of automation.  It was accepted enough the African tribal chiefs captured the neighboring villagers and sold them to the slave traders.  They traded them for guns, tobacco and spices.  These African chiefs didn't abolish slavery, white people did.

[alex330]

Slavery, while terrible and despicable, was common throughout the world. 

Slavery is still prevalent in the World with more now than at any time in past history.

[BillyB]

That is why I referred to it as a "colony." 

That is why I said you weren't wrong but when it came to American decisions, not from a single Englishman in control of the colony of Georgia, the Northern states were the first to abolish slavery before any State down South.

This RWD discussion about slavery started when it was correctly explained that whites built America. 

I consider blacks back then a big enough minority group to get some well deserved credit too. Although they weren't motivated to build this country, they were forced to be here. Besides slavery making it easier to build the nation, we stole land from the Indians and Mexico. I'm not for giving back land to Indians and Mexico or paying reparations. What is done is done and that was the way things got done back then and although the whites get the most of the credit for building the country, they also get the most of the blame for the dark chapters in our history.

My real reason for getting into the debate was because I felt that less than 17% was a low number for blacks when it came to population back then, not to dispute who gets most credit for building the country.

The industrial base was built by whites because as you noted the North had no slaves.

In the 1860 census, there were no slaves up north but the slaves that were living up north eventually became free men and continue to work there....many times working under their former slave owner.

[Anotherkiwi]

The beatings and rapes were mostly figments of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novelette, Uncle Tom's Cabin.

No, they weren't.  I've seen countless references to these in works that I've read on the subject.

If any logical person were to think about it, beating slaves would not make economic sense.  Slaves were expensive and needed to be in top condition for hard all day work.  A modern farmer would not go out and destroy a tractor he just mortgaged the farm to buy, and slave owners tried to keep the slaves healthy and happy (relative to slavery) so they could count on them for maximum production.

Logically, you would think so.  However, my take on it is that a lot of the worst behaviour was done as an example to show other slaves what their fate might be were they to transgress (even slightly) against the overseers or owners.  Fear is a very strong motivating factor in how someone conducts their life, especially when there appears to be no means of escape from a particular situation.

What modern liberals forget is that slave owners were driven by money, not the desire to own humans.

I think you'll find that most liberals have not forgotten this.  However, there were also plenty of the second kind.

Slavery, while terrible and despicable, was common throughout the world.  The white folks of America didn't invent it, or even perfect it.  But the white folks of America were responsible for eliminating it here in America.  And, they spilled a lot of their own blood to do it.

The ownership of slaves was a product of the need to produce and the lack of automation.  It was accepted enough the African tribal chiefs captured the neighboring villagers and sold them to the slave traders.  They traded them for guns, tobacco and spices.  These African chiefs didn't abolish slavery, white people did.

Agree to some extent, but you don't need slaves to cover for the lack of automation.  If those land owners had actually paid wages to free people to pick the cotton and tobacco, who knows how American society might have developed?

[Gator]

Agree to some extent, but you don't need slaves to cover for the lack of automation.  If those land owners had actually paid wages to free people to pick the cotton and tobacco, who knows how American society might have developed?

One cuts tobacco, not picks.      You must be a city slicker.   The free Southerners were busy farming too, many of them involved in tobacco. 

The cotton gin, invented in the 1790s, was a form of automation that reduced the massive amount of labor involved in preparing cotton for the market.   Two men on a gin could replace 50 men separating seeds manually.  This greatly lowered the cost of cotton production, increasing its world-wide demand, and thereby the demand for slaves.  The South provided two-thirds of the world demand for cotton.

The cotton gin was a key part of the industrial revolution.  It is said that the invention of the cotton gin started the Civil War.

[Anotherkiwi]

One cuts tobacco, not picks.      You must be a city slicker.  

Guilty  .  In mitigation, I would point out that New Zealand's tobacco industry is quite small and, as a lifelong non-smoker, I'm not actually too bothered about the mechanics of harvesting it.

I have actually lived on farms as well, but ones where the main activity was training racehorses, not growing crops.

[Gator]

I have actually lived on farms as well, but ones where the main activity was training racehorses, not growing crops.

Racehorses, the sport of kings.  At least you got poop on your boots.  Not the same as tobacco farming where leaning for hours to cut suckers from tobacco plants burns your neck from sun exposure, hence "redneck."