Why do many New World cities/countries have higher murder rates than Old World?

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Well the Haitian rebellion was basically genocide of the French white settlers, including women and children

It was much more than that, actually, but yeah that part of it was an atrocity. Still, I don't know if you can call the murder of a few thousand French-born colonists a 'genocide'. In any case, French forces ordered the mass slaughter of far more innocents -- to say nothing of the British and Spanish campaigns against Haiti -- and where were US sanctions against those countries?

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

And there was genocide of indigenous peoples across 19th century Latin America, to deny this is ahistorical

Would never deny it happened -- but to a far less complete degree, considering the demographics of these countries today, the presence of indigenous communities still living on ancestral lands, and continuing to speak their hundreds of languages.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Well the Haitian rebellion was basically genocide of the French white settlers, including women and children

And there was genocide of indigenous peoples across 19th century Latin America, to deny this is ahistorical

It’s funny how some people only focus on the Haitian Revolution being basically a genocide of white settlers. It only adds on to the racist history of American slavery. It means that a slave class should not have liberated itself completely from the control of their masters. Not to mention this pales in comparison to the deaths suffered in the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. That’s some high level wild bullshit if you ask me.


There’s a good chance this thread will close, but I just had to put my two cents. Especially with me being Haitian.

[Encolpius]

^ 'The American Revolution was basically a genocidal campaign against the Iriquois by General Sullivan in 1779.'

[dc_denizen]

Well it was the entire white population of the island, 25000 people. That’s 5 times as many died on the trail of tears

Genocide is usually what happens when you completely and deliberately eliminate a population. This happened in some parts of the us (California) but it’s incorrect to label the wars against the plains Indians as genocide. Otherwise why not label the Minnesota massacres of 800 white settlers in 1862 a genocide

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Jim Crow lasted about as long as the period of time between the Revolutionary War and Civil War. The Reconstruction period, the time between the end of slavery and the beginning of Jim Crow, only lasted roughly 15 - 20 years. And although there managed to be some African Americans elected to statewide offices in the South during that period (and even to the U.S. Senate), Reconstruction was obviously no picnic for black Americans at large. This was the same period that the Ku Klux Klan was first founded.

Maybe reconstruction wasn’t a great picnic, but it was more of a picnic than this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here...maqua_genocide

Or this in fact

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

When guns outnumber people, you're going to have a lot of murders. It's just common sense. If you flood Japan with 150 million guns in private hands I can guarantee you the murder rate will skyrocket overnight. It's not that complicated.

Yeah no. Gun ownership has increased and the murder rate has plummeted in the US.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It wasn't their treatment, necessarily, that was more inhumane than most. It was the enslavement itself that was so grossly inhumane, quite literally - they were targeted for enslavement specifically because they were thought to be less than human, due to the racist ideology and pseudoscience that was prevalent at the time. That ideology hasn't completely gone away either...

No. They were targeted because they were the most easily enslaved folks for Europeans. Geography and the fact that Africa had no powerful nation to fight back helped the situation.

[38R]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Well the Haitian rebellion was basically genocide of the French white settlers, including women and children

I don't think you know what the word means.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Jim Crow lasted about as long as the period of time between the Revolutionary War and Civil War. The Reconstruction period, the time between the end of slavery and the beginning of Jim Crow, only lasted roughly 15 - 20 years. And although there managed to be some African Americans elected to statewide offices in the South during that period (and even to the U.S. Senate), Reconstruction was obviously no picnic for black Americans at large. This was the same period that the Ku Klux Klan was first founded.

Yes, and the other little thing that lasted twenty years was the invasion and occupation of Haiti by the US between 1915 and 1934. That was a great example of a prolonged little picnic of domination, too.

[dc_denizen]

Canada was part of the British empire at the time, which occupied 1/4 of the world

So there’s that

But let’s declare the American occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934 what it was: genocide

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah no. Gun ownership has increased and the murder rate has plummeted in the US.

You are confused. Obviously there are myriad factors that influence violent crime rate through time. Instead of muddying the waters, the goal is to try and isolate the influence that widespread gun ownership would have on murder rate. That was the whole point of that hypothetical Japan example.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

No. They were targeted because they were the most easily enslaved folks for Europeans. Geography and the fact that Africa had no powerful nation to fight back helped the situation.

"most easily enslaved folks"... Don't try to whitewash just how horrible it was. Africans were thought to be racially inferior and treated like livestock. There was a whole science behind it. It was a widespread belief at the time. Do you deny this?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Janissaries weren't castrated, weren't conscripted from birth and were not just elite soldiers but an elite social class. They ended up practically controlling the sultan.



You're thinking of Christians, not slaves.

Wow really? Slaves were absolutely used to fight animals in Rome, the most famous story you know is the "Christians" having it happen to them. Furthermore I guess its okay to be a slave as long as its comfortable slavery.

I suppose concubines in the courts of ancient Persia were good to go because they had nice accommodations ?

Its amazing how much people try to bend over backwards to pretend like the only sins of slavery were committed by modern western nations.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by badrunner

You are confused. Obviously there are myriad factors that influence violent crime rate through time. Instead of muddying the waters, the goal is to try and isolate the influence that widespread gun ownership would have on murder rate. That was the whole point of that hypothetical Japan example.

Yes, because African slaves at least in north America did have legal protections they were not seen as literal livestock. Maybe by some but that was never the law in the British Empire nor the early American Republic.

Your statement about Eugenics is a concept that comes after the African slave trade was hundreds of years old and while related is not the same thing as the slave trade.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Well it was the entire white population of the island, 25000 people. That’s 5 times as many died on the trail of tears

Genocide is usually what happens when you completely and deliberately eliminate a population. This happened in some parts of the us (California) but it’s incorrect to label the wars against the plains Indians as genocide. Otherwise why not label the Minnesota massacres of 800 white settlers in 1862 a genocide

Because there isn't an attempt for academic honesty they want to rail against the USA and "whites" generally, which is racist. I've been accused of benefiting from the racial degradation of Natives and Africans despite my family being poor factory workers and at least one LITERAL prostitute from eastern Europe that didnt get to America until the early 1900's most of them not until after WW1.

But hey I got blue eyes so I guess I benefited from Cotton plantations from 1804 Georgia.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

"most easily enslaved folks"... Don't try to whitewash just how horrible it was. Africans were thought to be racially inferior and treated like livestock. There was a whole science behind it. It was a widespread belief at the time. Do you deny this?

Oh jesus, not this again. Why are you making slavery from 150 years ago personal? Like I am making fun of your mom.

How is that whitewashing? I literally said they were the most easily enslaved people at the time. Is that false? Even if it is false(it's not), then how is that offensive or whitewashing?

The attitude towards Africans by Europeans, E Asians, and SW Asians were indeed negative, but that had nothing to do with the enslavement of Africans. It was the most convenient source of a lot of slaves.

Deny that racism was around in 1500? No. What is your point?

[JManc]

Africans were found to be most 'suitable' for slave labor as they were found to be the most 'hearty' for their colonial masters and fairly immune to Old World diseases and Africa was really only region underdeveloped enough at the time to source people from without resistance. This is why Native Americans were not used as slave labor in the Americas and the Atlantic Slave Trade began. The science of why Africans were the inferior race probably grew out of that justifying that practice.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Oh jesus, not this again. Why are you making slavery from 150 years ago personal? Like I am making fun of your mom.

How is that whitewashing? I literally said they were the most easily enslaved people at the time. Is that false? Even if it is false(it's not), then how is that offensive or whitewashing?

The attitude towards Africans by Europeans, E Asians, and SW Asians were indeed negative, but that had nothing to do with the enslavement of Africans. It was the most convenient source of a lot of slaves.

Deny that racism was around in 1500? No. What is your point?

Who's taking it personal? This is just history.

So you're denying that widespread racist beliefs about the inferiority of Africans had anything to do with the African slave trade? Whatever lies you need to tell yourself I guess

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Who's taking it personal? This is just history.

So you're denying that widespread racist beliefs about the inferiority of Africans had anything to do with the African slave trade? Whatever lies you need to tell yourself I guess

The primary reason that plantations turned to African slaves was pretty simple. Native American slaves died off too fast, and even European indentured servants had high death rates. In contrast Africans were both somewhat resistant to Eurasian diseases like measles, along with tropical diseases like malaria. This meant they were literally worth more to plantation owners, because they were a more dependable labor force. It also meant over time that all of the agricultural endeavors in warm climates in the lowlands (everywhere malaria became endemic) which didn't rely on African slaves tended towards failure.

[niwell]

Are we seriously trying to compare the (non) merits of Antiquity era slavery to chattel slavery during the period of the Atlantic Slave Trade? Society as we would recognize it operated in a fundamentally different manner, to say the least. Talk about academic dishonesty...

This could have actually been an interesting topic but yet again, ruined by a few usual suspects.