Replies

That is the same exact argument that leftists often used to defend the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They said that the average quality of life of Russians under communism, was higher than it was under the Tsars.

They pointed out that Russians under Brezhnev, were better educated, had better health care, and were better fed, than under the Tsars. And they had the life expectancy statistics to make their case. Would you argue that communism was good for Russians?

It is better to be poor and free, than to be well-fed and in slavery.
_____________________

The problem with the argument of the Soviets was, they were lying. The people of Russia were “free” under neither the Tsars nor the Communists. YOU think Brezhnev’s party people were telling the truth?! If they did, do you think they lived? Do you think if the people protested, THEY somehow managed to remain alive AND outside the Siberian GULAG? Uh, NO.

With regard to the problem of your applying the plight of the Russian people to that of Africans, it’s apples & oranges.

Quite clearly, most Africans would have probably rather remained in their native lands and been free. But, let’s face it, that wasn’t always possible, especially in Africa. Consider the fickle climate and tendency of the continent to experience famines, not to mention the nature of the peoples to tribal warfare and despotic governments and repression, and you might understand why Africa was inhospitable to a great number of people who wished to be BOTH free AND prosperous. Now, lest you suggest I am being “racist” in my thesis, I’d recommend you read the works of the good Dr. Thomas Sowell, especially “Conquests and Cultures,” “Race and Culture,” and “Migrations and Cultures.”

A second major problem you have is that Europeans and Africans had a tendency to be, well, “Libertarian Capitalists” shall we say? They rarely let their morals get in the way of a good deal. Slavery, contrary to the modern mythos of the Obamunists, did not begin in the American South, but in Europe - or maybe more accurately, in Africa itself. It was transplanted naturally into the Caribbean and the North, Central and South American colonies by most of the European Colonial powers. Natives were enslaved in the Americas and on the Islands, and as the triangular trade routes in the Atlantic developed in the late 1500’s through the 1700’s, from Europe to the South/Central AMerican Colonies or the Caribbean and then to North America and then back to Europe, the trade of slaves fit nicely into the scheme. And don’t believe for a second that mean white Europeans or American Colonists went deep into the interior of Sub-Saharan Africa to capture poor, unsuspecting, peaceful tribesmen (ala “Roots”). Some good reading on this topic would be “Slavery, Terrorism & Islam” by Dr. Peter Hammond,because Islamic slavers figure prominently into the picture, though politically correct scholarship likes to hide ANY negative reflections on either African or Muslim involvement in slavery. Another place to find source material about this topic is www.africawithin.com/kwaku/afrikan_involvement.htm . NOT a “friendly” site, but on this topic, acknowledges the facts...

Likewise, scholars refuse to admit that once chattel slavery was built into the agrarian system particularly in the South, that the people who profited the most from trafficking in, transporting and selling slaves were NOT in plantations “away down south in Dixie,” but a way up North in New England.” I can hear the screams of the Yankee apologists now, but I would commend to your further reading “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery” by Anne Farrow and a very practical and succinct couple of chapters in “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South” by Clint Johnson.

Much more could be said to counter the fallacies of your argument, from false Soviet premise you suggest, and from the far too complex and historic realities of slavery in North America that you compare it to. Nice try though.