Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
Some of Your points are valid and are discussed in entry level overviews of the antebellum. I say they are "valid" in the sense that you are splicing in facts and real quotes in order to create a false narrative. I would go so far as to say most of your points are primers that white nationalists use to obfuscate American history.
I would say my op was never meant to tell the whole story, just the part of the story that is never told. Instead all we seem to get the very worst and that is presented as the entirety of slavery in the south. I would suggest it comes from Marxist historians who hate america.

Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
Your assumptions about "blacks today" show a frighteningly shallow understanding of Africa An entire continent with hundreds if not thousands of societies. Why cherry pick stats from Zimbabwe? It is in a region of Africa 0000s of miles away from the European slave trade.
Very true. i chose some of the worst to show just how bad it is in Africa as a whole. But as i suggested, show me where in all of Africa blacks are better off than in Mississippi, where blacks are worst off in America.

Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
Simply because slavery exists today does not absolve any state that participated in it.
agreed, never disagreed.


Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
Your sources are either unreliable or cherry picked. Fogel is an economist concerned with the utility of the slave state. The rest of your sources, once again, are primers for white nationalists.
Please do tell. I think if you go throw my op you will find it is based almost exclusivity on first hand observation the majority from slaves, or northern abolitionist. . Your simply trying to divert the op from its historical foundation, and resort to a logical fallacies attacking a source you make a baseless claim about. If you believe it is historically off base, than please do show why.