NH-GOP state rep in hot water for saying slavery was an economic decision

[Anti Federalist]

Of course it was...how that plain statement of fact can even be considered "controversial" is just an indication of how far gone things are.




'Owning slaves was a business decision': New Hampshire Republican lawmaker Werner Horn comes under fire for saying slavery was not based on race but on economics

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...economics.html

Republican state Rep. Werner Horn suggested in a now-deleted Facebook post that owning slaves 'wasn't a decision predicated on race but on economics'

Horn added: 'It shouldn't be surprising since owning slaves wasn't a decision predicated on race but on economics. It's a business decision'

'Slavery later on in the American South was not about the color of the skin of the slaves but their value as workers on the plantations,' Horn told the Union Leader

By ROD ARDEHALI FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 09:20 EDT, 20 July 2019 | UPDATED: 14:09 EDT, 20 July 2019

A New Hampshire lawmaker has been slammed after he claimed American slavery was based on economics and not racism.

Republican state Rep. Werner Horn suggested in a now-deleted Facebook post that owning slaves 'wasn't a decision predicated on race but on economics' and claiming that it was 'a business decision.'

The outrageous assertion came when former state House member Dan Hynes posed the question: 'If Trump is the most racist president in American history, what does that say about all of the other presidents who owned slaves?'

[Swordsmyth]

Europeans kept slaves of many different races and ethnicities throughout history, even the choice of Africans in later times was an economic/geopolitical choice not a racial one.

A few may have tried to defend the practice on a racial basis when it came under attack but that was dishonest and unrelated to how the situation came about.

[familydog]

Were the thousands of white indentured servants in colonial America enslaved because of race as well?

[AngryCanadian]

Europeans kept slaves of many different races and ethnicities throughout history, even the choice of Africans in later times was an economic/geopolitical choice not a racial one.

A few may have tried to defend the practice on a racial basis when it came under attack but that was dishonest and unrelated to how the situation came about.

Just like the Roman empire that used slaves for labor work. When some of these empires majority of the slaves were returned back.

[Stratovarious]

They drew from dumb , gullible, and readily accessible , sold out by themselves, Negros sold negros.
This was a culture of dirt floor grass hut and skirt population that wasn't considered not recognized as fully bona fide
humans at the time, not that that mattered, White slaves throughout history dwarf the slavery
of blacks in America, America did not invent slavery , not by a LOOONG SHOT.

[oyarde]

Economic decision certainly . Not sure it is free of race selection though , I mean hell lets face it , nobody is going to try and get any work out of Dankes people .LOL

[kona]

Very few people in this country (as well as globally) are not slaves.

[Swordsmyth]

Economic decision certainly . Not sure it is free of race selection though , I mean hell lets face it , nobody is going to try and get any work out of Dankes people .LOL

His people were so lazy they captured other Europeans for slaves.

[Danke]

His people were so lazy they captured other Europeans for slaves.

. True.

[donnay]

And Betsy Ross was an abolitionists...

The media tells lies and people believe it because they are historically illiterate.

[Anti Globalist]

African leaders from african countries sold their own people into slavery.

[Occam's Banana]

The existence of human chattel slavery and the ownership of other humans as chattels is indeed fundamentally economic in nature, regardless of the race of the slaves involved.

Nevertheless, it is simply absurd to claim or even suggest that the institution of slavery that was particularly manifested in America (and throughout the British Empire) was not profoundly - indeed, even absolutely - racist in character. It certainly and obviously was. Black Africans were subject to slavery, while white Europeans were not - and there is simply no economic "justification" for that distinction. It was racist. Period.

And note that I have not said that this Horn fellow made such a claim. Going solely on the basis of the quotes in the OP article, it appears that he did not. But he is a fool if he thought he could actually get away with (correctly) pointing out the ultimately economic basis for the existence of slavery in America without at least acknowledging the deeply racist character of the system of slavery that was erected on that foundation ...

[timosman]

The existence of human chattel slavery and the ownership of other humans as chattels is indeed fundamentally economic in nature, regardless of the race of the slaves involved.

Nevertheless, it is simply absurd to claim or even suggest that the institution of slavery that was particularly manifested in America and throughout the British Empire was not profoundly - indeed, even absolutely - racist in character. It certainly and obviously was. Black Africans were subject to slavery, while white Europeans were not - and there is simply no economic "justification" for that distinction.

And note that I have not said that this Horn fellow made such a claim. Going solely on the basis of the quotes in the OP article, it appears that he did not. But he is a fool if he thought he could actually get away with (correctly) pointing out the ultimately economic basis for the existence of slavery in America without at least acknowledging the racist character of the system of slavery that was erected on that foundation ...

His true crime is failure to acknowledge racism?

[tod evans]

Is this dude 'woke' enough to comment on such matters?

[Occam's Banana]

His true crime is failure to acknowledge racism?

He didn't commit any crime.