Roots

Picture a boss that is essentially your father forever. He's allowed to beat you and choose who you marry, along with how hard you work. He has an odd sort of detached care for you, and might even grow to be fond of you as a person, but there is always that employer-employee divide. But since your well-being is entirely up to him, hurting you horribly would be against his best interests because you wouldn't be able to churn out enough profit for him. So would underfeeding you too much, or giving you very rotten and diseased housing all the time.

You cost about as much as a car today, and he doesn't want to dent his new car or stop it from going. There are some psychos who love to do burnouts or basically wreck their car, but they aren't as numerous as you might think.

It's not a good life, but aside from packing you in a boat like sardines on the trip over from Africa because it's 'buying cars in bulk', it's not how we picture it today.

This isn't exactly what it's like to be a slave, but it would be a close approximation without anachronisms.

Sounds like the father I never had. wtf, I want to be a slave now.

WHY DIDN'T DADDY RAISE ME, LADS?

...

Trump bump

Shitposty as your post reads… You're not wrong at all. That's probably exactly what's going through his mind.

The few we are talking about is supposedly in the millions and with ships losing like 2/3rds of the new slaves before they reached land. No ship lost 2/3rds of its crew or even needed to to make a trip. In no way would it ever be profitable to lose so much property that you just paid for.

The stories are very much like muh shoah stories where (((whites))) abused or killed niggers for shits and giggles even though there was money involved. Nobody is so careless with their goods.

The Arab slave trade involved castrating the males and approached a loss rate of 90% and still was profitable.

Conquered slaves is entirely different scenario than kidnapped and brought across an entire ocean slaves. Conquered slaves cost nothing to those who took them, there was no profit to lose.

I - I think I have a new fetish now.

The Arabs bought their slaves. And marched them over giantic distances overland where a crapload of them died too. It still was a profitable enterprise for them.

Niggers were tamed easily, after a certain point there was no need for overt brutality. lynching a violent nigger is not unnecessary brutality

Indentured servants on the other hand were not easy to tame at all, they were also cheaper than african slaves. They often got treated much more brutally than the niggers.

They were white though, so it doesn't matter how badly they were treated.

They actually had to stop breeding the Irish indentures with Africans because the Jews who owned the slave ships started bitching it cut into their profits.

Not really. Most of that is just Northern propaganda. That's not to say it never happened, but the few people who did beat their slaves were usually shunned and ostracized by their fellow slave owners. People in the North heard about the few stories of slaves getting beaten and made it sound like all slaves were being beaten in the South. They did this to make the public think that the war was about fighting for the freedom and justice of slaves instead of it being about extending federal power.

Well, that practice did have almost crash the British economy altogether in the 1670s, not just the slave market.

African slaves were purchased from other Africans. There was no kidnapping, those people were always going to be slaves one way or another, either in Africa, Europe, or the Americas.

This myth exists only in the US, if you ask around in Brazil and other parts of Latin America where large numbers of negroes were imported you will be laughed at if you said they were mistreated.

It was a business, you don't mistreat cattle.

What's next? Whitey abused cows and mules?

BTW, far more negroes were shipped to Latin America than to the USA.

Only really rich people owned slaves

Slavery isnt as exagerated as the Holohoax, because the Holohoax never happened

Well they gave them names so they could identify them. It's easier to call out 'Noah boy!" or "Hey John!" than "Hey dark skinned, black haired, brown eyed man number 40!"

Slavery is milked like the Holocaust, but the intention wasn't to kill the slaves, and I guess people forget the casualties from crossing the ocean so it's considered better. Blacks were shipped and mistreated, and the demand for slaves brought niggers to America so I guess everybody loses in the end.

I never understood why all southerners were blamed for slavery when only the upper 2% of society was able to afford keeping them. For the average 98% working class white man, slavery was a very bad thing, because it took jobs away from the working class.

And what everyone tends to forget is that the boats in which so many died on were owned by Jewish merchants, who purchased them from African and Arab slavers and warlords to sell to wealthy plantation owners in the south.

...

Not only that, but they had to pay more taxes so that the government could afford to hire people to hunt down and retrieve escaped slaves.

Right so you give them the names of your neighbors and ancestors? No, that makes no sense. You would give them names more akin to pet names. This isn't me saying they didn't have those names, it is me saying that they weren't treated as badly as claimed. It makes absolutely no sense to give a name of your people to those you treat like disposable animals.

wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/

Whites give name to everyone, asian included.

Because it's easier to spell and say.

Better question; how many slave owners wives and daughters sneaked to the slave shack and get some of that sweet BBC?

I would free them immideatly of course. But they would have to endure that treatment after that for a bit.

You do realize that people also gave animals english names and "civilized" them by training them and giving them food, right?

So yeah, they were treated like animals.

Yeah? Would you feed them eggs too?

only if they want to and their mouth is big enough to dit in my entire package

Most animals are not named with people names, but other kinds of names. The words being english is a given you fucking retard, not the names being popularly used white names. It makes no fucking sense.

Go back to the fields you outdated farming equipment.

We're slaves as well.

maybe if whites hadn't invented imperialism and used it to oppress six million blacks every year since the first century they wouldn't be bad today.

ur ugly.

about 1% of whites owned slaves, so you're talking about an affectation by the extremely wealthy.
paris hilton carries around a dog in her purse, that's not a rational action. neither is giving a nigger a human name, but people did it.

I want him to fuck my wife.

Goons don't have wives, silly.

Well, you hear of male slave owners fucking their slaves. For instance, Tomas Jefferson.

is the new roots any good?

And the south only put up with it because they had a low workforce because it was less desirable to immigrate to than the north and the slaves were basically a temporary measure until their population reached a reasonable level so that the people could afford to have children.

...

...

...

Why? Gay sex is common in Africa. How many years has it been since they were brought to the states at the time of that painting?

You know the black man is just begging for whitey to poz his neghole

...

Why does hannibal look so gay?

That's the coon male ideal.

Those Roman paintings and that niglet statue are pretty damning, actually.

most male models are gay

The problem with them is that there's no evidence they were made to depict your typical Roman outside of that unsourced jpg.

eeeeeh

Those paintings are actually Egyptian.

Hannibal had Phoenician heritage, and that area didn't become nigger dominated until sandniggers started raging across it. That first portrait comparison is just retarded, while the others are more mediterranean than african. That Aphrodite plate actually made me laugh, it was common for things being painted as black in greek art to make it pop out, you see that in vases.

Don't forget the worst offenders: Muslims.
They made America look like a minor blip on the radar.

Not only that, but consider this: the only reason there is such a thing as African Americans is because America treated slaves well. Muslims, South Americans, and most other nations castrated their slaves. They were invested in never having them reproduce. Never even considered giving them freedom. Worked them to death and bought some more.

So white people, how's that compassion working out for you?

America is a multicultural mistake of history. It will collapse like every empire.

Only nations that even have potential for saving are european ones.
Germany can always decide to uncuck themselves and institute a German only state, same with britain, italy.

Only nations that won't get saved are France and Sweden- For different but same reasons.

Well for one, skin color of art doesn't mean it's an accurate depiction of skin color:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-figure_pottery

for two:

There probably were black romans, even in Rome proper, after all the roman empire extended from southern france to northern africa and into the middle east. It also wouldn't surprise me if some romans weren't even a modern ethnicity (race, breed, whatever); either popping up due to trade and citizenship creating breeding conditions between areas that hardly interbreed now, a native population that eventually diluted itself into not existing, or simply evolving into something different because of natural genetic drift.

and three:

I know it'll trigger idpol faggots, but it doesn't matter what skin color or race or whatever the romans had. The roman empire doesn't exist anymore, and their accomplishments are their own. Trying to claim credit for shit people did thousands of years ago because you share a similar skin tone is fucking retarded.

idk bro they look like greasy wogs in most of the portraits

Roots is complete fiction. The nig that wrote it plagiarized almost half of it from some white dude, and made up a fake ancestor. The fact that Americans are hunting niggers down in Africa with nets should have raised a huge red flag for you.

Next you're gonna tell me you think Nat Turner was a revolutionary hero, and not a barbaric baby killing peice of shit because you just got through watching the both of a nation.

If only man
If fucking only

The rich elite were white

There probably were blacks in Rome, yes, which is not to say there were black Romans. You're being an imbecile here, Romans well understood ethnicity, which is why they made a clear distinction between themselves and everyone else, even Greeks, from whom they inherited a large part of their culture and customs.

Northern Africa was not a nigger and mudshit infested shithole back then. The dominant power at that point had been Carthage, and the Carthaginians were Phoenicians.

No, Moshi. Romans back then and Italians today are the same people.

How about claiming their accomplishments because the various kingdoms that formed after the fall of Rome all inherited their culture and customs and tried, for centuries, to recreate the empire? And there is nothing wrong with taking pride in the accomplishments of your race. The only people that oppose this are niggers, because their race has never accomplished anything worthy of praise, cuckolded whites because they are mentally ill, self-loathing vermin, and Jews, because they are Jews and lack a soul.

Stop trying to fit in, you're not fooling anyone with your initial mockery of WE WUZ, the stench of Marxist clings to you like inferiority to niggers.

Why do tv shows have this dark blue filter over it compared to older shows?
youtube.com/watch?v=VGTYBbcEvHg

I think it comes from blurays.

IIRC they add a blue filter to older movies when they create a bluray version for that. Yes, they literally post-edit a movie's bluray to give it a blue filter.

Nigga is you high?

cool thread

It's actually boiling down here. It's 90 fucking degrees in october