Why is there only one picture of a whipped slave in existence and it's some unidentified guy that likely murdered his wife? Was slave cruelty that rare? That's all they got. One photo.
Why is there only one picture of a whipped slave in existence and it's some unidentified guy that likely murdered his wife?
because photography wasn't that widespread in the antebellum South
If you owned slaves, why would you ever take pictures of the ones you brutalized? There's no incentive to in most cases.
To show to your pals and fellow buck-breaking enthusiasts
People were happy to swap postcards showing photos of lynched bodies (with happy onlookers), so it's not beyond the bounds of credibility.
Bro israelite newspapers for paying TOP DOLLAR for any Black who had back scars. They couldn't find anyone though.
Photography was not as common back then, and whippings weren't something you'd want or need photographed.
>abolitionists wouldn't want photos of abused slaves
This was when photography was still in its infancy. Fugitive slaves also had to lay low lest they be captured and returned.
people didn’t photograph the commonplace
Also, photography was a real pain in the ass back then. You had to sit perfectly still for 15-20 minutes just for the photograph to develop properly. Besides,who wants to see a bunch of ugly old Black folks,NOBODY!
>Besides,who wants to see a bunch of ugly old Black folks,NOBODY!
Lies. An entire industry formed from talking pictures of them and memorabilia about them.
>was a punishable crime
And it still occurred and often was not punished.
>many of them were treated as family
Lol
>it still occurred
blacks say this but it's the kind of dialectical "it happened" where they just assume it happened without any evidence
>they just assume it happened without any evidence
There is a lot of evidence anon. Unless you are willing to handwave every single account away just to die on your anthill so to speak
>There is a lot of evidence
not retally, you'd think with the entire intellectual force of blacks they would have been able to prove systemic slave cruelty
except it was never the goal of the propaganda in the first place to actually educate people about truth now is it
>not retally, you'd think with the entire intellectual force of blacks they would have been able to prove systemic slave cruelty
Written accounts, eyewitness account, obssever accounts, oral and written testimonials. Can't handwave those away.
>except it was never the goal of the propaganda in the first place to actually educate people about truth now is it
It was. They ket people see what rralkt went on. Why is the idea of actually recorded material so anathema to you?
>100 written accounts of mistreated slaves means the gorillions of slaves were all mistreated
this is propaganda, outside of a court of law
It's not propaganda because people also talked about it before abolition occurred. Because people who write tend to mention the things they see. Darwin went to Brazil and him witnessing the labour and slave conditions there actually traumatized him and he was just on a work trip.
>It's not propaganda
There's just as many slave accounts of how much they liked being slaves
And countless more that don't or desire freedom. Again, I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove exactly? That for sone reason white written accounts don't count when it's inconvenient your chud narrative? Even the slaves that were "fine" with it still wanted freedom because they didn't want to play the roulette once they get sold or their master dies.
It's marxist dialectics and propaganda is all it is, that's all you're offering
>slaves were tortured
>source?
>99% of people that say this: don't have any
>1% of morons that say this: uh testimony
>okay what about the testimony that says they really enjoyed life as slaves
>doesn't count
propaganda, you've got nothing
>It's marxist dialectics and propaganda is all it is
Before Marxism actually existed and before Marx actually finished writing it?
>I don't understand how numbers works
brilliant display of the average black nationalist propaganda spewer's intelligence
The Civil War started in 1861 and ended in '65. Marx only published the first part of Das Kapital in '67.
yes and your mental moronation was made in the 20th century
And how did Southerners read about Marx before he even wrote his book in German or its translations
Is this the best you mentally moronic rejects have to offer? "I can't prove slavery was cruel so I'm going to have a mental breakdown"?
>I can't prove slavery was cruel
We do. With countless accounts on top of skave owners also talking about it. There's also the type if guy who sees his own mullato kid to ither people or dies and doesn't even set his own flesh and blood free in his will lol.
Even if slavery is "nice" it's morally wrong why engage this argument? This is clearly a whiteboy trying to fill his time and you fall for the bait. You are stupid?
Look at what I post here, how do we know the crackers aren't exaggerating to feed some cuck vore fetish?
Mentally moronic
I'm not the one suggesting that. You are lol.
>Written accounts
Hearsay.
>Eyewitness accounts
Hearsay.
>Observer accounts
Same as eyewitness accounts. Also hearsay.
>Oral and written testimonials
Same as written and eyewitness accounts. Also hearsay.
Photographic evidence is a reasonable ask, Anon. Not even that guy, but if you're going to prove guilt you have to have actual evidence, not hearsay.
>actual evidence
Those things you listed are evidence. Unless you think anything ever written by a whitey or will be written by one is innately hearsay.
He will bring up hearsay to support him but if you present hearsay that says the opposite he changes the subject. He's just stupid
>He will bring up hearsay to support him
Would you call that hearsay?
huh? english please
>hearsay
>noun
>information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
But written, oral and corroborated accounts of obssrved and experienced events that have been verified do not really fit that mold.
Do you think you're intelligent? It would be sad if you did, though if you're brown you're probably above average for one of them. But that's not saying much
because slave mistreatment was a punishable crime and many of them were treated as family
Based mongols putting crackers in their place
It was expensive to get a photo taken and developed back then and no one had cared to spend money on their slaves getting photos.
It's just propaganda that was persuasive to people outside the South who had never experienced or witnessed slavery themselves. It wasn't anything unusual or at all new for slavery so no one in the South would have blinked an eye at that picture.
OP picture is propaganda
>Minimum-Wage Workers and 19th-Century Slaves: An Economic Comparison
No, but they're not much better