How did people not realize this was evil?
How did people not realize this was evil?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Why didn't they revolt?
If they weren't sissies they wouldn't have been captured and enslaved by the less pussy naggers in the first place
You think buck breaking was an accident? All the half-white slave babies? No, they were all fags, they couldn't impregnate the slave women if you locked them in a cage together.
Slavery was never profitable.
Let mods join homosexualry and delete my post.
MEDS
NOW, JEREMY
>Slavery was never profitable.
Honestly, I don't believe in slavery, but this is just cope by leftards.
It's made up by this one conspiracy theory alt-right retard who doesn't understand the difference between market price comparisons and detailed economics of scale.
It doesn't seem very conducive to a leftist agenda though. Wouldn't it be more useful for them to emphasize the degrees of evil that profit-seeking can lead people to?
Sure it, selling slaves was so profitable they crossed an entire ocean to sell them.
Assuming you're asking why they didn't revolt in Africa or on the ships, there were some attempts (one was dramatized in the film Amistad). However, at that point, the slaves probably didn't really know what they were in for. Of course, they knew they'd be slaves wherever they ended up, but they didn't know about the dismal life expectancy of slaves in much of the New World.
>they didn't know about the dismal life expectancy of slaves in much of the New World
As opposed to the fantastic life expectancy of slaves in Africa?
Nigeria has the life expectancy of Europe without malaria.
Both of your replies speak to the total retardation of his, and how every reply to this thread is pure retardation. All posts below are spam and will ignore this.
>Nigeria has the life expectancy of Europe without malaria.
But malaria is very much a thing, so, what exactly is your point?
That the thread is pure retardation, slavery literally did nothing, it was normal to have a high death rate on voyages.
>slaves
>using the life expectancy stat of the general population
>from a region not heavily engages in the slave trade
nagger check your own retardation
Your reply is dumb, the entire thread is retardation.
I will bump it to entrap more of his in retardation.
Compared to the life expectancy of slaves in Brazil or the West Indies, yes, the life expectancy of slaves in Africa was almost certainly higher. It's worth noting that slaves had a higher death rate than birth rate in those places (unlike in the US).
Chattel and plantation slavery is different from traditional slavery.
You basically lose a skirmish, get captured, lose several pegs of the social ladder, might be forced to do hard labor until somebody figures out you speak some cool languages, and then maybe you get a position of merely being a high status servant. And Serfs go from being Serfs to being bonded serfs, not a big difference either.
So in a lot of cultures it was viewed as "play stupid games, win stupid prices", even if it just involves on what ethnic border you where migrating or settling.
There is some exception such as
Which are examples of parts of society being wealthy enough to waste extremely expensive manpower to show off.
In fact, Locke gave a justification for American slavery based on the traditional “conquest” notion of slavery, which even justified slavery on the latifundia in Rome. The idea was basically as you said, if you got conquered then you were basically the prisoner of the conqueror, and in the idealized formulation the conqueror could give you the option of death or a deferment of punishment via enslavement. So in essence there was thought to be a “consensual” element of enslavement, which was that you chose it over an honorable death. This also contributed to the notion that the enslaved Africans were constitutionally amenable to slavery, because they had become such a high proportion of the enslaved population that it was easy enough for philosophers to suggest that clearly they were incredibly dishonorable and servile people. But traditional slavery was often not based on labor so much as a kind of ritualized punishment of enemies. The slave was like an animal brought into the group, sometimes the slave was even bizarrely treated relatively well as though they were a pet, but the context was always within the understanding that the slave was a sub-human outsider. They were treated differently exactly because they didn’t have the same quality that group members did, and their presence as an outsider let the group members feel their own value, belonging and strength. The transformation of slavery into an institution majorly about production was definitely old (since Rome was clearly a famous slave empire), but coincided more with the growth of these massive civilizations and empires. The labor of slaves helped glue vast empires together because social tension could be offloaded onto slaves, which included social tension around who worked and who didn’t. The ruling class could increasingly rely on slaves and foreign tributaries for labor and supplies, and could in turn give some treats to the common citizens for their loyalty to the empire.
Rome rarely treated their slaves like that though. They were often teachers and the runners of small businesses, not relegated to hard labor, and in many cases could purchase their freedom. Those in the salt mines and the like were either egregious POW's or criminals.
Granted, it probably helped that most of Rome's slaves were the same color as the citizens, so it was harder to think of them as animals, and further, that such a huge portion of the population was slaves. It was more of a second class citizen position than mere chattel.
Oh I agree with that, I don't think Roman slavery was "traditional", but it had a legal basis in some traditional ideas about slavery. From what I remember, all the methods of becoming enslaved either had to do with what was considered a mostly consensual or willing process (like a result of debts or the idea that conquered people chose slavery over honorable death). I don't think "consent" was their primary concern of course, but "justice", and "justice" for the Romans involved some sense of reason that gave an account of how the slave came to be a slave, and since free men are in a mutual community that is dictated by the need for justice it just so happens that the methods of becoming enslaved start to be rationalized as resulting from some willful action of the formerly free man. The only contrary examples might be enslavement by being sold by your familial master, so the head of the family might sell his children for HIS debts, which is obviously no fault of the children. And I think this was generally seen as a tragedy for the children and a very dishonorable low for the head of the household.
But that is a bit of a tangent, I agree with how you frame Roman slavery otherwise. Roman slavery often had the implication that the slave COULD achieve freedom, though not all slaves even wanted freedom because a very valued slave of a rich and powerful master could end up being quite comfortable and "important", even if in a social sense they remained beneath free people. So the prospect of being free wasn't that appealing, unless your master was going to be so generous as to free you and give you some of his wealth or something. But I do think the reasons slavery developed that way in the ancient world are pretty complex and probably can't be distilled to any one reason, although I do think a sense that the slaves could be reasonably "assimilated" was important.
>chose slavery over honorable death
I wouldn't call that "consensual", but most slaves were simply born into that class. We seem to agree that Roman slavery and the Atlantic slave trade were entirely different beasts, to the degree where you practically have to put "slavery" in quotes, when comparing the former with the latter.
Amistad was slave ship moving slaves from one part of the united states to the other. At that point it was illegal to import slaves from outside the US.
The ship was moving them from one part of Cuba to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Amistad
Ethiopia, the largest player in the supply of slaves (to the middle east as well as the American colonies) bred their slaves in literal human farms, and raised them from birth to believe that their slavery was just the natural order of things, that it was what was best for them, and that being free would be terrible for them.
They wanted the BWC
They did and they didn't care, same as today.
For the most part, they did. They just didn't care very much. Besides, slave ships to the New World, just like Barbary slaving raids in the Mediterranean, were run by sailors, and at the time, sailors were probably the most unfeeling, most jaded, most unphazed-by-evil type of person you could possibly come across.
I know what you're getting at, but this isn't quite true. Some slaver crewmembers and officers were seasoned sailors, but others (especially the common shipmen) were often debtors or otherwise financially troubled men without many other good options.
It was generally considered a stinky, dangerous, all-round unpleasant job so besides the captain, first mate and the surgeon who got paid much more, sometimes even got a cut of the cargo and had more pleasant accommodation on board, it wasn't going to be worth it for most men.
you're full of shit because for starters every crew member got a cut of the profits, the size of which was determined by rank
You're a perfect example of the pure retardation of this entire thread.
that would depend on the ship tough
terms of enlistment where a ship by ship thing often even a voyage by voyage affair
and norms varied widely by nation and even home port
>every crew member got a cut of the profits
Obviously, every man got paid. What I was referring to was that only some men were entitled to an actual cut of the cargo on top of that (sometimes you even got to pick out your slaves, which would really be a big perk, since you could examine and observe good candidates for days or even weeks on board before making your choice).
Being black is evil. The word black used to be a euphemism for demonic, vile, sinister, etc...
Conditions on ships were generally terrible, so if slave conditions could be described even remotely as "like the conditions our poor suffer, but somewhat shittier," that was going to be humane enough for them to get away with it for a long time.
To be fair, restrictions and regulations on the transportation of slaves (maximum slave cargo per tonnage, requirement for there to be a surgeon on board, etc.) were introduced, although conditions still naturally fell short of what people today would think was humane.
Once the trade was well-established, the conversation about improving slave conditions always ended up framed as, "what are some practical, reasonable improvements we can make to the trade while keeping it profitable."
Not really that different from debates around workplace conditions or animal welfare regulations today.
most of the population didn't even know about it or at best had heard of the slave trade in passing.
those that knew about the slave trade and what it entailed where directly or indirectly dependent on it. And most that knew of it didn't know about the conditions.
those that knew about the conditions where pretty much all dependent on the slave trade.
"evil" becomes a very malleable term when your and your family relies on the trade to put bread on the table.
The bosses that profited of the trade where often let us say merchants that where very happy and considered all gentiles as no more than cattle anyway.
As a note of interest the royal navy had some early abolitionists because they came into contact with the trade and didn't rely on it. And would become nearly fanatical once the they where tasked with stamping out not just the athlantic slave trade but the slave trade all across the world.
It's also worth keeping in mind that initially, the slave trade and slave plantations were just something speculative investors knew anything about, like being into tech stocks or shitcoins or something. Hardly unknown, but not really of any concern to the average person.
Eventually it evolved in social terms into something like the textile/coffee business in the 90s when the whole Fair Trade thing was at its peak.
Even in the late 1700s, most people still didn't really worry about slavery too much, but for a certain kind of socially conscious type, thinking about where your sugar and other imported goods came from and the conditions they were produced in became fashionable and something to tut-tut about.
>Greedy Europeans and israelites giving their money to West African tribesmen for captured slaves just to carelessly kill them a day later
Sorry not buying it. When you invest in something or buy something you don't purposely break it on purpose the next day.
christians did this btw
In b4 >~~*New Christians*~~
Which was definitely a real thing, but Christians were involved, too. Basically it's misleading for israelites to blame it on "whites" and then act conspicuously oppressed and minority, and it's also misleading for non-israelites to blame it on israelites and act like the Catholics, Anglicans etc. weren't knee-deep in it, too.
Is there a religious group in the world today that never held slaves/condoned slavery?
Quakers
Their views developed and became strongly anti-slavery but it wasn't part of Quaker doctrine at the origin. William Penn for example owned slaves.
Judeobolshevism
>is not slavery comrade :DDD you are repaying your debt to society for being a reactionary counter-revolutionary by serving the peoples :DD
Unitarians...
...if you can call them a religion.
they didnt treat them like animals
Druze
Probably a bunch of new religious movements founded after slavery died out
Unitarians technically date back to the 16th century, and had their first church in the US setup in 1782. Abolitionists from day one.
The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was setup largely by Quakers in 1787 and eventually lead to the Slave Trade Act of 1806, ending slave trade throughout the British empire.
The Essenes rejected slavery as far back as 2nd century BCE, and often Philemon 15:16 and Revelations 18:13 have been cited by various Christian groups as suggesting the Bible forbids slavery.
>Is there a religious group in the world today that never held slaves/condoned slavery?
Eskimos?
All native american peoples held slaves, usually captives from raids against other tribes.
>All native american peoples held slaves
No, unless any POW is a slave.
If you hold a POW in perpetuity after the war is finished and force them to do work for you, then yes, that's a slave.
I dunno if Eskimos even had enough property to need slaves
>All native american peoples held slaves
I can't see how an Eskimo could keep another person enslaved?
Eskimos didn't have metalworking and thus couldn't make shackles/collars and living in small family groups with only a couple of adult males, who is going to keep the slave (even a slave girl) under control when the men are off hunting?
>live in arctic wasteland
>no food away from village
Eskimos had lots of slaves
Also Eskimo slavery wasn’t as bad as colonial plantation slavery
>Also Eskimo slavery wasn’t as bad as colonial plantation slavery
Maybe, but try the Aleutians or the Tlingit.
I think Zoroastrians were the only ones. I know they condemned slavery since at least the 5th century BC or so.
Religious groups were key to ending the slave trade.
They were, yes (if anything, that might be an understatement), but anon was asking if there were any religions that condemned slavery during their entire history.
Well, again, the Unitarians, Essenes, and Zoroastrians. I suppose the Quakers have at least been abolitionists for the majority of their history. I'm sure there's several other minor religions we're neglecting in the list as well as several newer ones, but abolitionism is not exactly a new idea, having ebbed and flowed throughout ancient times - though I guess it's more universal today than ever, since productivity is so high that 'wage slavery" easily replaces it.
Because the notion "Humans are basically good" is false.
Wy-pepo got their morality from the Bible, in which there was nothing that banned slavery. In fact Yahweh sanctioned it explictly.
Same goes for the Norther/Eastern slave trade by the Arabs.
Humans are cunts, and progress from cunthood is painfully slow and usually not driven by religion.
How did people not realise this was evil?
Several people, groups, and movements do realize animal abuse is evil and those who seem to not realize this are probably unaware of what happens on farms in the first place.
almost nobody says this is good practice but as a matter of fact i need meat and im fucking poor
>almost nobody says this is good practice but as a matter of fact i need sugar* and im fucking poor
And there we have it.
didnt say that but uhh yes? i need sugar
you dont? thats very interesting anon
You are very close to realizing that the plebs are usually not involved in the process but very dependent on the product. And that's why the image of vegan moralfags is one of arrogant assholes.
No-one NEEDS sugar, you fat fuck. And I'm not even a vegan, but this is actually a quite instructive parallel.
Before the 17th century, sugar was very much a luxury good, the average person certainly in urban areas couldn't afford honey and since they had no means of reliably adding sweetness to their breads or other foods (unless they were lucky enough to have for example a reliable source of fruit), they did without.
But come the 18th century, sugar is cheaper, and suddenly fashionable, and then, customary. You simply could no longer do without sugar, what if a guest came around and you had none? It would be shameful, it would seem mean, unbecoming of a host. And worst of all, it might smack of poverty.
The same goes for the eating of meat. The average person historically only ate very small quantities of meat, but is now accustomed to having it every day, if not with every meal. He does not NEED it, certainly not at such a cheap price. But he wants it.
>No-one NEEDS sugar
everyone needs sugar
17th century peasants sure were a beacon of health with a life expectancy of 35 years right?
eating a little meat is not vegan by the way
i know you want to claim to be vegan but you really are not
why are you always assuming everyone is on some kind of extreme diet?
>everyone needs sugar
No, they don't. The diet of average Europeans before the 18th century may have been basic or lacking in many ways, but not for want of sugar. Added sugar has always been a luxury good for pleasure, like tobacco, cocoa, and added salt. It is in no way an essential part of a diet.
please learn basic physiology
most living things need sugar in one form or another to sustain life
same applies to salt
Need sugar =! need added sugar
99% of people get enough sugar from eating foods that naturally contain sugar.
>same applies to salt
Yes, the same does apply to salt. As in, you probably don't need to add any to your food.
>The same goes for the eating of meat. The average person historically only ate very small quantities of meat, but is now accustomed to having it every day, if not with every meal. He does not NEED it, certainly not at such a cheap price. But he wants it.
Yes, but the difference is that, where the sugar could just be grown at a reasonable pace and in sufficient quantities via efficient, humane means if you simply ship the African laborers as part of a contract labor deal, the end goal of animal consumption is animal consumption.
You can't separate the death toll and brutality of industrialized meat production without removing the end product of meat entirely. There was a (seemingly) humane alternative coming from the EIC, and that further undermines the comparison.
Is this alternative much better?
NTA, but I'm all for things that make the lives of our meat more comfortable, even if it raises the price a bit, and there's some movement in that direction. I don't consider ending the animal's life at a certain age to be cruel, so long as the death is swift, as it's not as if the animal is aware enough to lay in dread of the day. All in all, I think it's better to hope for better conditions than to send all those species into extinction. If conditions were good enough, and they were capable, I think the animals would agree, as life rarely volunteers to die, especially collectively.
Eventually, lab grown meat is going to become efficient enough to make traditional ranching obsolete though... And then, yeah, all these animals are going to go extinct, comfortable or not, save maybe a few in zoos and in a few specialized rich-pervert ranches.
Then the vegans get into crazy shit like bees. Damn things have it made compared to their wild counterparts - no fungi, no bears, no wasps, readily available food, and prefect living spaces, all for the occasional bout of smoke and some of your excess honey up and vanishing. Don't think they'd leave if they could, and they don't, as swarms just tend to set themselves up in adjacent artificial hives. Close to consensual use as you can get, with an insect.
what im saying is priorities for most people lay elsewhere and most people cant afford to only buy the meat of happy pigs
and dont come along telling me that veganism is somehow natural or easy to live by
if you decide thats how you want to eat more power to you but its not a realistic option for the vast majority
>not a realistic option for the vast majority
If it was, we'd be looking at the largest land animal extinction in all of the Earth's history, assuming you measure by weight.
Think he was referencing slave labor on sugar plantations... Though cheap cotton might have been a better go-to. (
be damned.)
Not even a vegan myself but that's bullshit. A moderately healthy vegan diet is likely healthier than the Standard American Diet, and the B12 deficiency / basedbean memes are mostly just that.
What do you think is going to happen to all those livestock animals, that outweigh of all of humanity three times over, if everyone goes vegan?
>if everyone goes vegan
This would obviously be a gradual process, meaning that we could let the populations of livestock decrease naturally. No one thinks everyone is going to start being vegan tomorrow and we'll be left with a bunch of animals we can't eat.
Then a bunch of species just up and go extinct. So much for saving the animals.
Domesticated chickens, cows and pigs? So three species?
>muh breeds
Not species. Anyway, you would inevitably have some roaming the wild.
>killing all the animals but making new ones so we can perpetually kill them forever? that's good
>killing all the animals one time and being done with it? NOOOO
Besides, food-animals and chickens in particular have been bred to the point where they cannot have a meaningful quality of life even when taken out of the factory farm, they can not be rehabilitated. Such a species going extinct is a good thing and this is the goal of veganism, not keeping them around to kill billions of them for the rest of time.
>food-animals and chickens in particular have been bred to the point where they cannot have a meaningful quality of life even when taken out of the factory farm, they can not be rehabilitated
Although the domestic pig as we know it today took thousands of years to breed, just a few months in the wild is enough to make a domestic pig turn feral. It will grow tusks, thick hair, and become more aggressive
>A moderately healthy vegan diet
what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? are you talking about a vegan diet or not?
also im not american and my diet isnt close to what standard american diet would be
youre just strawmanning like theres no tomorrow
>A moderately healthy vegan diet
No such thing and even attempting it requires all kinda expensive vitamins and supplements and the vegan still ends up a sniveling weakling.
>what im saying is priorities for most people lay elsewhere and most people cant afford to only buy the meat of happy pigs
Most people could afford to buy higher welfare meat, if they ate it less often, and in smaller quantities.
tell that to the 829 million people starving this very moment
maybe they should eat each other
thats what vegans think
case in point
they are more concerned with animal suffering than with human suffering
maybe they should focus on working to improve human life and i believe animal life will naturally profit from this
because believe it or not humans are not "evil" for the sake of being so but they just want to get by
if their needs are fulfilled they will go out and try to improve things but some go overboard and develop a burning hatred for humanity seemingly not realizing they are part of it and their life is also based on human and animal suffering
they rather blame the helpless and do no good
Delusional, from every word to the last.
>tell that to the 829 million people starving this very moment
The problem isn't eating meat, it's that there are a bazillion people on the planet and the only viable way to produce meat at any kinda acceptable cost is thru brutal factory farming.
look up how much food needed to make meat
Counterpoint: Meat is delicious.
The point here wasn't to advocate vegetarianism or veganism for its own sake, but to draw a useful parallel that might help explain contemporary attitudes towards slavery. And perhaps some of the reactions in this thread have themselves been instructive in this regard, even if it is admittedly not an exact one.
How do 21st century Western people not realize abortion is evil?
Turns out most people are just products of their current and local society and tolerate what they've been taught to tolerate without ever thinking deeply about it.
>Douglass was born on a plantation in Eastern Maryland in 1817 or 1818 – he did not know his birthday, much less have a long-form birth certificate – to a black mother (from whom he was separated as a boy) and a white father (whom he never knew and who was likely the "master" of the house). He was parceled out to serve different members of the family. His childhood was marked by hunger and cold, and his teen years passed in one long stretch of hard labor, coma-like fatigue, routine floggings, hunger, and other commonplace tortures from the slavery handbook.
>At 20, he ran away to New York and started his new life as an anti-slavery orator and activist. Acutely conscious of being a literary witness to the inhumane institution he had escaped, he made sure to document his life in not one but three autobiographies. His memoirs bring alive the immoral mechanics of slavery and its weapons of control. Chief among them: food.
>Hunger was the young Fred's faithful boyhood companion. "I have often been so pinched with hunger, that I have fought with the dog – 'Old Nep' – for the smallest crumbs that fell from the kitchen table, and have been glad when I won a single crumb in the combat," he wrote in My Bondage and My Freedom. "Many times have I followed, with eager step, the waiting-girl when she went out to shake the table cloth, to get the crumbs and small bones flung out for the cats."
why are people like yourself outraged at historical slavery but completely OK with participating in contemporary slavery
because you buy products made by enslaved people, you participate in slavery
stop participating in the slavery of today, THEN you can bitch about historical slavery
until then, you are just another hypocrite
Profit and Capitalism.
>capitalism is preventing people from having property rights
>To own a slave was to have access to his entire labor and to be responsible for his full maintenance. Thus a slave was a form of capital; specifically, "fixed" capital (as opposed to "circulating" capital, such as inventories).
so why is it wrong to say capitalism is an ancient institution and not a recent invention like marxists claim?
They did and we had a war over it. Now explain how this is my problem 160 years later, keep in mind my ancestors fought for the union.
Slavery wasn't ended because it was evil it was ended because it stopped being profitable and was becoming obsolete. If it was ended because it was evil then it wouldn't taken hundreds of years for it to end.
Not sure about the American experience, but in general in England the more people *knew* about the slave plantations and slave trade, the more hated it became and the faster the pace of abolition became.
>Not sure about the American experience, but in general in England the more people *knew* about the slave plantations and slave trade, the more hated it became and the faster the pace of abolition became.
Basically this. There were three sorts of people:
>1. Those who had no firsthand experience of the slave trade and for whom it was remote and out of sight.
>2. Those who had first-hand experience and were horrified by it.
>3. Those who had first hand experience but whose livelihoods depended on it or who grew up in slave-holding regions so it seemed normal and unobjectionable to them.
Due to abolitionist campaigning more and more people became exposed to it and public opinion was pretty easy to move outside of the people in category 3.
Thank god we figured out how to outsource this shit to the chinese.
The vast majority of people never sailed and those that did were the ones who didn't care about their own lives let alone the lives of others.
How did people not realize this was evil?
Yes, the ZOG starting wars in the Middle East while running a refugee scheme is indeed evil
imagine the smell
Because the world was more brutal back then. It's still brutal, but there's a lot of good stuff we've invented. However, we are ultimately animals first. Morality is waaaay further down the chain.
a lot of people did
slavery was forbidden in europe before
It wasn't evil back then.
Evil is subjective.
Because they saw them as animals. This is no different from factory farming or from modern methods of transporting livestock.
You need to understand that viewing Africans as human beings is a fairly recent concept.
This is an oversimplification, and a case of presentism. You believe that if someone is a fellow human being, they don't deserve to be enslaved, and so you see Europeans having treated African slaves callously as a case of them being treated specifically as other than human.
It is perhaps more accurate to say that being a fellow human being throughout history hasn't always given you a claim on civility, respect, or minimally kind treatment. The idea that it should is a product of modernity.
This is an oversimplification, and a case of presentism. You believe that if someone is a fellow human being, they don't deserve to be enslaved, and so you see Europeans having treated African slaves callously as a case of them being treated specifically as other than human.
It is perhaps more accurate to say that being a fellow human being throughout history hasn't always given you a claim on civility, respect, or minimally kind treatment. The idea that it should is a product of modernity.
What is evil?
Because Europeans are souless automatons which are driven purely by short term profit incentives.
THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE WAS ON AN UNPRECEDENTED INDUSTRIAL SCALE
YES, OFCOURSE THEY HAVE A LOWER LIFE EXPECTANCY THAN SLAVES IN AFRICA
YES, OFCOURSE IT WAS A WORSE QUALITY OF LIFE
EVERYONE LIVED MISERABLE LIVES, BUT THEY OBVIOUSLY HAD SOME OF THE SHITTIEST LIVES
>YES, OF COURSE THEY HAVE A LOWER LIFE EXPECTANCY THAN SLAVES IN AFRICA
funny that former slaves once introduced to Liberia BTFO'd free native africans and viewed them as sub human. you'd think it would be the other way around.
>funny that former slaves once introduced to Liberia BTFO'd free native africans
They had education and modern weapons, not surprising at all.
>and viewed them as sub human.
Attitudes varied but yes the settlers did look down on them for being illiterate pagan savages
>you'd think it would be the other way around.
Native Liberians did mock the settlers for having been both enslaved and westernized though. Granted this was tempered by the reality that they had control over most of the country's resources and power