It's complicated because even though he's from South Central, he's also a Republican.

So he's half-black.

Was there an official story in the caribbean that differs from black people/slaves had no rights/protection under the law and thus were effectively not even considered human--or are we off in opinion land?

I'm not too well versed in this, but not all societies have treated slavery the same so you can't make broad comparisons like that.

His thesis is that the greater heat apparently led to an environment ie the owners were nicer? and that it was noticeably different(better) for slaves than here. Meanwhile slaves there had no rights. That doesn't trip your bs detector at all? At best it's splitting super fine hairs when you're talking about people with no rights who were viewed as the property of their owners.

I mean obviously slavery has been a horrible thing whenever and wherever it's taken place, my only point is that it's obviously not all equal.

And I have no clue about slavery in the Caribbean -- but climate based arguments are always fun so I don't see any reason to not entertain it.

Well for my part I stopped reading after beating children for being light on their daily quotas/owners getting pissed for having to provide clothes and that's before some of the horrid slave code language with burning metal into faces and death etc. But maybe it gets downright pleasant a little later on as you read.

For ages we've also had the people here who try to claim slavery was like summer camp with free room and board. Heard enough from them over the years to have my fill too.

I didn't say the owners were nicer. I specifically said the work conditions themselves could be worse. I'm talking about the effects of the American doctrines that accompanied slavery and the effects post emancipation.

The weather was a factor in less European women going there (have you ever been somewhere tropical without access to AC?), but so were the meager community areas, lack of good roads, housing that deteriorates quickly by being rained on and baked constantly. It wasn't a comfortable place. It was a place to make some quick cash. Whites there thought of Europe as home. They weren't so much thinking about some immutable caste system as purely ideological but more practical. When the economy was slumping and the price of sugar went down half the Whites would just leave. The transient nature of the White population spared Black people, to some extent, of the sort of doctrinal, Calvin Candy (Decaprio's character in Django Unchained) like thinking which still permeates our American society.

The lack of European women meant more interracial children. There were different rules on different islands but a lot of the offspring of Whites and slaves would be free. Freedom was sometimes granted in return for sexual favors (typically there would be a lot more free Black women than men). There was a creole character in varying degrees across the Islands and with that some degree of liberal sentiment. Slavery was just an economic engine, not a race based social order mandated by God.

We’re figuring it who the real black people are. Turns out the successful ones aren’t real ones because of climate and cultural evolution.

Ya I've been to various islands--obv ac isn't/wasn't completely unavailable--but of all the times I've been to those places the vast majority of my time there has been spent outdoors anyway. Was a little different back in the day too. Around the Caribbean it can definitely get super hot--but so can Louisiana etc. Hawaii/Maui etc are pretty agreeable weather-wise--it's not like all tropics are brutal. Slave owners here felt they were in the tropics as well fwiw--they even mention it in the secession letters.

Maybe we see things slightly differently--but I don't really see being able to trade yourself as a living sextoy to the prison guards as a bonus. Owners being occasionally absent in a place where the growing season is effectively year-round seems like kind of a red herring--I'm sure they had plenty of aholes to leave in charge. It may sound crazy--but farms can operate w/o the actual owner present--it just depends on a number of things to be sorted. I'm sure being a purely domestic servant/slave in some places here was a different experience too. I don't know dude--overall I think it's kinda looking for a distinction that really doesn't amount to much at the end of the day.

You're missing the distinction entirely, which is about ideology and not about the day-to-day conditions of the slave. This distinction has implications relevant mainly to what happens after emancipation.

Let me try another angle. Say you had a baby and, for whatever reason, you had to give that baby over to either one of two slavers. One of the slavers, choice 1, just wanted economic gain from your baby after it grows enough and would work it very hard. Maybe it would gain freedom through one of a few mechanisms and maybe even have its own slaves one day. Choice 2 slaver also wanted to work your child, but they also would incessantly instruct the child that it was inherently inferior, that God placed it on the earth only to serve the White man, that it wasn't a human being, that it and it's progeny are to forever and all time fulfill it's role at master's feet, etc etc. The larger society would erect all sorts of pseudo scientific arguments based on skull dimples and other nonsense to "prove" the inferiority. This child would never see people like itself in any other context. Do you think such daily indoctrination starting from birth would have no effect? Would you be indifferent to which slaver you chose?

So was Colin Powell a real black man or no?

Colin Powell's parents were immigrants. So he definitely did not have the same experience as the descendants of American slaves. He's not nearly as encumbered by the effects of American racism. It's not possible to know if that is the reason for his individual success, but it conforms to a clear pattern.

It's amazing, once your eyes are open to the effects of American slavery, what you see. In most cases where you see a Black kid get a perfect score on the SATs the kid is an African immigrant or 2nd generation immigrant. Under the pseudo science of people like Charles Murray, Bell Curve co-author, one would expect the opposite since ADOS have so much White ancestry and so, according to Murray, should be smarter. Murray is wrong. I'm right.

Pretending that all Black people suffer equally from racism and ignoring the particular legacy of American slavery is just another insult to this country's descendants of slaves. We can send a bunch of African born students to Harvard and keep avoiding dealing with the persistent problems affecting ADOS.

What about Condi Rice?

Condi was the "face of White Supremacy" before Larry Elder was.

The Slave code/s in the Caribbean(no rights/viewed as property etc) served as a model for other British colonies as well--like right here in America. Are you of the mind that everything's been peachy for black people since emancipation down in the islands or something? Or that there's been no aspects of racism there wrapped up with bs science? Children born to slaves fathered by their owners being freed/educated etc wasn't unheard of here either. In both of your examples the slave was still entirely subject to either owner--the 'nice' one could sell you to a psycho/or whatever else they wanted whenever they wanted.

Are we going to have to start putting our race in email signatures next to the pronouns?

That's like saying all prisons are equal because either way your rights are reduced. Would you not care whether you were getting the Epstein prison experience (when he was just a not-so-famous rapist) or a Shawshank situation?

It's a pretty simple hypothetical question you are dodging. If you want to be pugilistic about this you can't just pretend you opponent isn't making points.

Here is another one. Say you were the representative of a large group of people (I guess people who don't care that you can't read well). You are conquered and you have to decide whether or not to either sacrifice half your population to slaughter with the other half going on with life as usual, or enter into 200 years of American style chattel slavery inside of a society that maintains an array of cross discipline doctrines about the innate inferiority of your people. Which would you choose?

Answering the hypos serves no useful purpose--and you haven't proven there's any real difference in the situations down there/here that amount to anything.

If the euros down in the islands(vs the euros/us here) didn't think they were better w/god's approval--then why did their laws on the topic sound Exactly like that's what they believed?

What are some of the books? Why do I get the feeling it will be a list of books written by said euros trying to absolve themselves by claiming we were meaner over here? Is that about the size of it?

The purpose was to get you to engage with my argument instead of some other argument you keep engaging. But you seem scared of doing that.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2014...caribbean-zola
That aside, culture plays a big part in his analysis, so you'll probably agree with him on at least a few of the points you're hitting on.

I don't know man, they still live in shacks on Caribbean islands. Right next to the mansions. I'm not seeing how emancipation made it all better. Maybe no slave patrols but....I wouldn't even bet on that. Likely they'd hunt ex slaves for sport if they're anything like the southerners in the US.

I think this take I am about to put out is worth exposing myself to an actually square on hit from Trolly. I didn't start noticing these distinctions from accounts of slavery in books. I was in a class in college and I saw a Black student look up at an approaching TA and smile a relaxed, inviting smile. I said to myself that dude isn't from America. It was like an Obama smile. When he spoke his accent confirmed it. I started thinking about it later, how did I know he was foreign simply from his facial expression, a normal facial expression, given that he otherwise had no indication of being foreign? The fact is, by and large, people with slave ancestors in this country don't smile like Obama, at least not when interacting with White people like the TA. Among peoples of most any other origin I have seen, including American Whites, some of them smile like Obama. But there is something about the slavery here in America that murdered a lot of smiles over a long expanse of time, even in time long after its reign.

But there are definitely more material indicators of the phenomenon. Typically American immigrant families go through a process of starting out in low level jobs with hopes, often materialized, that their children will do better than them. And the children of those children will do even better, etc. But Black immigrants actually have higher incomes than U.S. born Blacks. They are doing better than Blacks whose families have been in this country for hundreds of years going back and they just got here. Some racists say that's proof that racism doesn't exist. That's nonsense, of course. There is an institutional level explanation for it.

Yup, authentic black people don’t smile. That’s the dead giveaway right there.

Simple straw men is all you have Trolly. You're like a kid who's been in art class for 11 years and is still drawing stick people.

How did you know they didn't have any slave ancestors by their accent?