"Roots" has been hard to watch.

[tigerbacker72]

What Southern slaveowners did to their African American slaves during that period is awful. Don't come on here and say that the miniseries makes it worse than it really was. If anything, it doesn't show how bad it was on a much bigger scale, as "Roots" just concentrates on one family.

If you are ever visiting Charleston, go visit the area where the slaves were taken off the boat and auctioned to the rich plantation owners. I've been there,and this overwhelming feeling of doom and dread enveloped me while standing there where so much human misery took place. Taking the Africans from their homes and bringing them over here against their will is similar to the Holocaust, on a much smaller scale.

This production of "Roots" gets to the bare bones much more than the 70s version did. This one is just plain raw and gritty.

 

[Pluffmudd]

You do know that southerners weren't the only people to have slaves right?

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

What Southern slaveowners did to their African American slaves during that period is awful. Don't come on here and say that the miniseries makes it worse than it really was. If anything, it doesn't show how bad it was on a much bigger scale, as "Roots" just concentrates on one family.

If you are ever visiting Charleston, go visit the area where the slaves were taken off the boat and auctioned to the rich plantation owners. I've been there,and this overwhelming feeling of doom and dread enveloped me while standing there where so much human misery took place. Taking the Africans from their homes and bringing them over here against their will is similar to the Holocaust, on a much smaller scale.

This production of "Roots" gets to the bare bones much more than the 70s version did. This one is just plain raw and gritty.

What African tribes did to their brothers was arguably worse.

 

[CuTigers4868]

Not trying to marginalize that the owning of another human being is wrong because it is plain and simple. However, The owning of slaves was very, very expensive. Slave owners were more akin to the 1%ers nowadays. It was similar to purchasing a car nowadays 100% upfront in cash. Not only that but you had to feed, clothe, and house them. Slaves were beaten, yes, but not as widespread as you might believe. If you beat a slave so severely to where they could not work or to the point of death, they were no good in the fields. Sure there were more slaves in the South as at that time we were an agrarian society and as much as 75-80% of the entire country's taxes were paid for by the Southern states at the time of the Civil War(probably the single biggest reason Lincoln wouldn't let the Southern States secede and be on their way but that's an entire different debate). Slavery was heading out with the turn of the industrial revolution anyways as those pesky 1%ers, always looking to make a profit, would have invested in machinery rather than human capital that, again, had to be clothed, fed, and housed thus eating into their margins.

Not even mentioning the fact that less than ~10% of slaves that were brought to the Americas were brought to the colonies and eventual states, the vast, vast majority of them ended up in South America and the Caribbean as to work in the colonies of the European countries.

So many slaves were brought because, if any of you have children and try to get them to do something they really don't want to do, you'll understand this, slaves typically don't make very good workers. Try getting little Jimmy to rake leaves or limb trees and you'll find he's not very efficient unless there is some sort of compensation involved.

Also, slavery is almost as old as prostitution and still exists in this world today as sad as that is to say.

 

[JAMCRACKER99]

You do know that southerners weren't the only people to have slaves right?

Not trying to marginalize that the owning of another human being is wrong because it is plain and simple. However, The owning of slaves was very, very expensive. Slave owners were more akin to the 1%ers nowadays. It was similar to purchasing a car nowadays 100% upfront in cash. Not only that but you had to feed, clothe, and house them. Slaves were beaten, yes, but not as widespread as you might believe. If you beat a slave so severely to where they could not work or to the point of death, they were no good in the fields. Sure there were more slaves in the South as at that time we were an agrarian society and as much as 75-80% of the entire country's taxes were paid for by the Southern states at the time of the Civil War(probably the single biggest reason Lincoln wouldn't let the Southern States secede and be on their way but that's an entire different debate). Slavery was heading out with the turn of the industrial revolution anyways as those pesky 1%ers, always looking to make a profit, would have invested in machinery rather than human capital that, again, had to be clothed, fed, and housed thus eating into their margins.

Not even mentioning the fact that less than ~10% of slaves that were brought to the Americas were brought to the colonies and eventual states, the vast, vast majority of them ended up in South America and the Caribbean as to work in the colonies of the European countries.

So many slaves were brought because, if any of you have children and try to get them to do something they really don't want to do, you'll understand this, slaves typically don't make very good workers. Try getting little Jimmy to rake leaves or limb trees and you'll find he's not very efficient unless there is some sort of compensation involved.

Also, slavery is almost as old as prostitution and still exists in this world today as sad as that is to say.

For not trying to marginalize the owning of another human being, you certainly marginalized the owning of another human being. Heaven forbid that the slave owners had to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for the people that they bought (you know, like a car). Then comparing slaves not liking to work like little Jimmy ......Please tell me this is a troll.

 

[CuTigers4868]

For not trying to marginalize the owning of another human being, you certainly marginalized the owning of another human being. Heaven forbid that the slave owners had to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for the people that they bought (you know, like a car). Then comparing slaves not liking to work like little Jimmy ......Please tell me this is a troll.

Just putting some facts out there. No more, no less. If you felt it was marginalizing, don't know what to tell you. Slaves weren't brought here for the fun of it. It was basic economics just like basic economics would have phased slavery out of the States. I'm sorry I don't well up with guilt after watching Roots. I had nothing to do with it. I look at things from a historical perspective.

 

[Poker_Tiger]

Just putting some facts out there. No more, no less. If you felt it was marginalizing, don't know what to tell you. Slaves weren't brought here for the fun of it. It was basic economics just like basic economics would have phased slavery out of the States. I'm sorry I don't well up with guilt after watching Roots. I had nothing to do with it. I look at things from a historical perspective.

I can't believe I am getting pulled in to this thread, but....

While there are some facts in your post there are some postulations too. For example, slavery was not on the way out - That is pure speculation. The industrial revolution and other factors would have had an affect on the slave industry, and it was in decline, but cotton plants still needed to be picked and plantation homes still needed to be run. Without the civil war it is hard to see slavery being totally eradicated in anywhere near the same timeframe.

 

[Blythewoodtigers]

I can't believe I am getting pulled in to this thread, but....

While there are some facts in your post there are some postulations too. For example, slavery was not on the way out - That is pure speculation. The industrial revolution and other factors would have had an affect on the slave industry, and it was in decline, but cotton plants still needed to be picked and plantation homes still needed to be run. Without the civil war it is hard to see slavery being totally eradicated in anywhere near the same timeframe.

4868 is pretty much historically correct. Slavery was on its way out and would have "ended" in the US (it was abolished in all other advanced countries) without the Civil War because, as we now know, the Civil War had more to do with the creation of money than human capital, i.e. the North could create it while the South could not.

This is the major FACT not taught in our public school systems, we are all taught that the Civil Wars primary cause was to free people. Well.... if that is the case, why is it that there are more slaves (by definition) today than at any point in human history? Why is there not any "Civil Wars" to free all of these people around the world?

To be honest, Roots is a perfect example of how f*cked up humans get over economics. Just as we are today, we have created slaves world-wide, in every country, just to gain monetary "advantages" over another. Pure insanity!

 

[pharout73]

So conscripting immigrants right off the boat to "fight for Lincoln" isn't the near equivalent to slavery (many never came back)? How about company towns where once you got there you had to pay 100% of your pay to live in the company houses and shop at the company store? Heard of the WV coal wars? How about mill towns where people worked 12-15 hour days 6 days a week?

The only difference is these involved people who came here by their own choice, the outcome was still pretty ugly.

All types of exploitation were and are sad comments on human behavior.

 

[clemsonjosh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB7MichlL1k

 

[Ron Munson]

What a terrible thread.

I don't know why butt pirates like the OP feel the need to start things like this.

 

[Ron Munson]

So conscripting immigrants right off the boat to "fight for Lincoln" isn't the near equivalent to slavery (many never came back)? How about company towns where once you got there you had to pay 100% of your pay to live in the company houses and shop at the company store? Heard of the WV coal wars? How about mill towns where people worked 12-15 hour days 6 days a week?

The only difference is these involved people who came here by their own choice, the outcome was still pretty ugly.

All types of exploitation were and are sad comments on human behavior.

Not to mention that as soon as the slaves were freed, the Union army went and ran all the Indians off their land and killed the ones that didn't go.

Either way, OP should just khs.

 

[Charleston3383]

What Southern slaveowners did to their African American slaves during that period is awful. Don't come on here and say that the miniseries makes it worse than it really was. If anything, it doesn't show how bad it was on a much bigger scale, as "Roots" just concentrates on one family.

If you are ever visiting Charleston, go visit the area where the slaves were taken off the boat and auctioned to the rich plantation owners. I've been there,and this overwhelming feeling of doom and dread enveloped me while standing there where so much human misery took place. Taking the Africans from their homes and bringing them over here against their will is similar to the Holocaust, on a much smaller scale.

This production of "Roots" gets to the bare bones much more than the 70s version did. This one is just plain raw and gritty.

ITT we'll see a lot of people trying to distract from how terrible it was.

"it wasn't just the south"
"Africans sold them into slavery"
"slaves didn't have it that bad"

Who cares? It WAS terrible and it's terrible for everyone, there's no "Yea, but" on this one without exposing yourself as a tool.

 

[CuTigers4868]

I can't believe I am getting pulled in to this thread, but....

While there are some facts in your post there are some postulations too. For example, slavery was not on the way out - That is pure speculation. The industrial revolution and other factors would have had an affect on the slave industry, and it was in decline, but cotton plants still needed to be picked and plantation homes still needed to be run. Without the civil war it is hard to see slavery being totally eradicated in anywhere near the same timeframe.

Every other major country was able to rid itself of slavery without a Civil War so I reject your point there. Just look at what Great Britain did.

Perhaps the biggest injustice to children and older folks alike is that they were taught the Civil War was fault to end slavery. That just simply isn't true. It's just the easy way out. It was so much more than that. I always have been, and remain, a huge states rights guy as well as a fan of history. Yes some things that happened then would never happen now nor should they but ignoring and flat out trying to change history because you don't like the story like folks are trying to do nowadays is extremely shortsighted and quite frankly, ignorant as those events are part of what made this country what it is today. All you're doing is choosing to bury your head in the sand. The easy way out isn't always the best.

 

[JAMCRACKER99]

ITT we'll see a lot of people trying to distract from how terrible it was.

"it wasn't just the south"
"Africans sold them into slavery"
"slaves didn't have it that bad"

Who cares? It WAS terrible and it's terrible for everyone, there's no "Yea, but" on this one without exposing yourself as a tool.

Exactly.

 

[clemsonu96]

What a terrible thread.

I don't know why butt pirates like the OP feel the need to start things like this.

Agreed. You will never convince one side or the other that they are wrong, therefore, stupid thread. Congrats on just getting around to watching roots. I always look to miniseries from the 70's and 80's for my historical perspective.

 

[tigerGUY]

SMFH. If only history were this cut and dry...and open and honest to any side of any argument of the history of our country.

 

[Orangeoveralls]

Agreed. You will never convince one side or the other that they are wrong, therefore, stupid thread. Congrats on just getting around to watching roots. I always look to miniseries from the 70's and 80's for my historical perspective.

Roots has been re-done.

 

[CodingTiger]

In.

 

[OakCrest11]

Agreed. You will never convince one side or the other that they are wrong, therefore, stupid thread. Congrats on just getting around to watching roots. I always look to miniseries from the 70's and 80's for my historical perspective.

There's a new remake that just came out on history channel, that's what he's referring to

 

[Tiger1425]

It never fails to amaze how some people can rationalize almost anything. I don't give a damn if slavery was on the way out, or the slaves "were well taken care of", or it was all about economics. Slavery was wrong. Period. It should have never been allowed in this country. And if the stupid plantation owners had just freed the slaves and paid them a small wage then there would never have been a war, and they would have gone right on being rich.

 

[TigerDutch]

Agreed. You will never convince one side or the other that they are wrong, therefore, stupid thread. Congrats on just getting around to watching roots. I always look to miniseries from the 70's and 80's for my historical perspective.

I think this is a remake. But, if you get your history from Hollywood, like the OP, then you should just STFU.

Dumb thread. Another Facebook post on TI.

 

[CuTigers4868]

ITT we'll see a lot of people trying to distract from how terrible it was.

"it wasn't just the south"
"Africans sold them into slavery"
"slaves didn't have it that bad"

Who cares? It WAS terrible and it's terrible for everyone, there's no "Yea, but" on this one without exposing yourself as a tool.

No **** it was bad. Nobody here supports the owning of another human being. People can't have a discussion these days without somebody taking offense to something.

Everyone repeat after me: Slavery is bad mmmkayy.

Everyone knows that. You just simply cannot apply 21st century morality to 18th and 19th century events. Just doesn't work. That's what I love about history. You have to sort of take yourself back mentally to whatever time period you're looking at to try and understand it better. Try to understand the economics, social climate, and conflicts of the time period you're looking at.

 

[The Mixed Mamba]

What Southern slaveowners did to their African American slaves during that period is awful. Don't come on here and say that the miniseries makes it worse than it really was. If anything, it doesn't show how bad it was on a much bigger scale, as "Roots" just concentrates on one family.

If you are ever visiting Charleston, go visit the area where the slaves were taken off the boat and auctioned to the rich plantation owners. I've been there,and this overwhelming feeling of doom and dread enveloped me while standing there where so much human misery took place. Taking the Africans from their homes and bringing them over here against their will is similar to the Holocaust, on a much smaller scale.

This production of "Roots" gets to the bare bones much more than the 70s version did. This one is just plain raw and gritty.

I haven't watched the new version of "Roots" yet, but I've seen news coverage on the controversy it has caused because of its "raw and gritty" nature. I'm not sure yet if I'm going to watch.

One quick point though. The Atlantic slave trade is by no means on a much smaller scale than the Holocaust. The numbers are disbuted, but there are some projections that place significantly more deaths in the name of slavery. Either way, they both were disgusting acts in human history.

I'm not surprised that some on here will try to marginalize or justify what happened. I knew it would occur the second I saw the title.

 

[clemsonu96]

Roots has been re-done.

Really?? Didn't know that. Well, like someone said, if you get your info from a movie or TV then good luck. The Patriot was awesome though!!

 

[Ron Munson]

It never fails to amaze how some people can rationalize almost anything. I don't give a damn if slavery was on the way out, or the slaves "were well taken care of", or it was all about economics. Slavery was wrong. Period. It should have never been allowed in this country. And if the stupid plantation owners had just freed the slaves and paid them a small wage then there would never have been a war, and they would have gone right on being rich.

Yes slavery was wrong and terrible...but so was they way the Indians were ran from the land. So was the way the Chinese were enslaved to build the railroad and so were internment camps.

the shvt is over, you can't rewrite history.

 

[tigrbybirth]

What African tribes did to their brothers was arguably worse.

We can't justify the actions of our forefathers by pointing to someone worse. By that standard, no one would ever be in the wrong because there is always someone worse.

 

[blue_62]

What Southern slaveowners did to their African American slaves during that period is awful. Don't come on here and say that the miniseries makes it worse than it really was. If anything, it doesn't show how bad it was on a much bigger scale, as "Roots" just concentrates on one family.

If you are ever visiting Charleston, go visit the area where the slaves were taken off the boat and auctioned to the rich plantation owners. I've been there,and this overwhelming feeling of doom and dread enveloped me while standing there where so much human misery took place. Taking the Africans from their homes and bringing them over here against their will is similar to the Holocaust, on a much smaller scale.

This production of "Roots" gets to the bare bones much more than the 70s version did. This one is just plain raw and gritty.

Umm, you do realize that "Roots" is a series that had as its source the book by Alex Haley.....and he passed the book off as the actual history of his ancestors. Problem is, it was fabricated. A pack of lies if you will.

If you are having a hard time with a fictional account of slavery, I suggest you get involved with some of the agencies who are fighting against the ACTUAL institution in places like Niger, Mauritania, and Sudan. Be careful, though. It's easier(and much less risky) to castigate Southeners who have been dead for over 100 years as opposed to engaging the Islamic slave masters who are very much alive and quite violent as well.

 

[Charleston3383]

No **** it was bad. Nobody here supports the owning of another human being. People can't have a discussion these days without somebody taking offense to something.

Everyone repeat after me: Slavery is bad mmmkayy.

Everyone knows that. You just simply cannot apply 21st century morality to 18th and 19th century events. Just doesn't work. That's what I love about history. You have to sort of take yourself back mentally to whatever time period you're looking at to try and understand it better. Try to understand the economics, social climate, and conflicts of the time period you're looking at.

What are you even trying to say. The OP was talking about how it was a strong picture into how bad it was. What else needs to be added to that which doesn't sound like apologetics for explaining away how it was just a part of the times. Are we going to do that with Hitler? "Well, son it was an impoverished country looking for a man to rally around. It just sort of happened, if you didn't live back then you wouldn't understand>"

 

[Charleston3383]

I think this is a remake. But, if you get your history from Hollywood, like the OP, then you should just STFU.

Dumb thread. Another Facebook post on TI.

Agreed, slavery wasn't that bad. I mean a lot of them got to sleep indoors and were fed and stuff. Stupid propaganda with fake accounts of slavery. Frederick Douglas was full of crap right?

 

[ClemsonGuy99]

Not trying to marginalize that the owning of another human being is wrong because it is plain and simple. However, The owning of slaves was very, very expensive. Slave owners were more akin to the 1%ers nowadays. It was similar to purchasing a car nowadays 100% upfront in cash. Not only that but you had to feed, clothe, and house them. Slaves were beaten, yes, but not as widespread as you might believe. If you beat a slave so severely to where they could not work or to the point of death, they were no good in the fields. Sure there were more slaves in the South as at that time we were an agrarian society and as much as 75-80% of the entire country's taxes were paid for by the Southern states at the time of the Civil War(probably the single biggest reason Lincoln wouldn't let the Southern States secede and be on their way but that's an entire different debate). Slavery was heading out with the turn of the industrial revolution anyways as those pesky 1%ers, always looking to make a profit, would have invested in machinery rather than human capital that, again, had to be clothed, fed, and housed thus eating into their margins.

Not even mentioning the fact that less than ~10% of slaves that were brought to the Americas were brought to the colonies and eventual states, the vast, vast majority of them ended up in South America and the Caribbean as to work in the colonies of the European countries.

So many slaves were brought because, if any of you have children and try to get them to do something they really don't want to do, you'll understand this, slaves typically don't make very good workers. Try getting little Jimmy to rake leaves or limb trees and you'll find he's not very efficient unless there is some sort of compensation involved.

Also, slavery is almost as old as prostitution and still exists in this world today as sad as that is to say.

"Slave owners were more akin to the 1%ers nowadays. "

I believe this has been proven many times over to be a myth. The idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).

The percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford slaves aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity. In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way, many non-slave-owning Confederates went to war to protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of the only way of life they knew.

And who cares where most of them ended up? I think plenty found their way to the US. And since when do slaves not make good workers? Obviously the slave owners disagreed. Otherwise, they would have gone out and hires a legitimate workforce. If you want to argue that they aren't as productive as someone with choices then so be it but no one these days is whipping little Johnny for not raking the leaves. We just take his IPad away...

 

[CuTigers4868]

What are you even trying to say. The OP was talking about how it was a strong picture into how bad it was. What else needs to be added to that which doesn't sound like apologetics for explaining away how it was just a part of the times. Are we going to do that with Hitler? "Well, son it was an impoverished country looking for a man to rally around. It just sort of happened, if you didn't live back then you wouldn't understand>"

I can already see this isn't going anywhere. Terrible example as Hitler rising to power is one of the more studied events today and yet whenever slavery is mentioned it's supposed to be a 'slavery was bad, end of discussion' event? Sorry but the time around the civil war is one of the more fascinating in American history and I prefer to delve into things a little deeper than that.

 

[bcs summa]

I've never owned a slave. I don't feel guilty at all about the miniseries.

What a terrible thread.

I don't know why butt pirates like the OP feel the need to start things like this.

 

[Frog209]

ITT we see facts brought by rational individuals only to be shouted down by guilty white liberals who just want to whine about ancient history while bringing no historical perspective to the conversation. I agree with Snoop Dogg when he said to start boycotting shows and movies like this because they are only made to create division at this point.

 

[TigerDutch]

Agreed, slavery wasn't that bad. I mean a lot of them got to sleep indoors and were fed and stuff. Stupid propaganda with fake accounts of slavery. Frederick Douglas was full of crap right?

If that is what you took from my post them I cannot help you. If you think Hollywood has given an accurate account of historical events then you can go stick your head in the sand with the other morons.

 

[shortbus22]

As with every social issue that gets discussed in hindsight, the idiots come out in full force, on both sides.

@Ron Munson hit it on the head... the shvt is over. You can't rewrite history.

 

[casellers84]

Yes slavery was wrong and terrible...but so was they way the Indians were ran from the land. So was the way the Chinese were enslaved to build the railroad and so were internment camps.

the shvt is over, you can't rewrite history.

I also love how NOLA took down specifically all confederate monuments, but leaves up the massive statue of Andrew Jackson...who was personally responsible for the murder and forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans.

 

[Ron Munson]

I also love how NOLA took down specifically all confederate monuments, but leaves up the massive statue of Andrew Jackson...who was personally responsible for the murder and misplacement of thousands of Native Americans.

Don't forget, Lincoln fought in the Indian wars, and Grant was a big driver behind forced relocation of the Indians.

 

[Trading Tiger]

I also love how NOLA took down specifically all confederate monuments, but leaves up the massive statue of Andrew Jackson...who was personally responsible for the murder and forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans.

There are basically no Native Americans left to make a stink about it. We eradicated them because they were too smart and too difficult to control. It is shameful.

 

[Maverick369]

"But maybe.... Every incredible achievement in human history was done with slaves" - Lewis CK