United States slaves were, overall, treated quite well

I might have to bring back the Weekly Stupid for this shit 

the labor is seasonal and follows the planting and harvesting seasons.

U is in turn a product: hours/day x days/year x intensity/hour. The product U of the

slave plantations in the southern United States was greater than that of the non-slave ones

in the northern states, even though on average slaves worked 2798 hours/year and

workers in the plantations in the north worked 3100 hours/year. The difference (slaves

worked 10% less than the time of the non-slaves) is explained by the greater intensity of

the slave work hour: around 94%. John F. Olson, “Clock Time versus Real Time: A

Comparison of the Lengths of the Northern and Southern Agricultural Work Years,” in

Fogel and Engerman, Without Consent or Contract, 77-79.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41501700?seq=1

https://pdfhost.io/v/71KPuf4u4_Eastern_Nigeria_and_the_Rise_of_a_New_Cpdf.pdf

Look, I get you don't understand history, let me explain something

We don't have accurate or unbiased data collection fo 1600 to 1800s

so we use our only evidence we have, documents. These are all primary or secondary sources, which are the best sorts, and if two independent sources collaborate each other, that typically means that they are true

The evidence you've presented isn't comprehensive. You have shown adult food rations, literacy rates, and hours worked per year. I would look toward the quality of food, housing, healthcare, education, working conditions, and personal security and dignity, just off the top of my head. If I were to debate this seriously, I would simply deny that slaves were "treated quite well" on the basis that I lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the treatment of slaves in those areas. "You are making the argument, thus, you have the burden of proof."

This is essentially a concession.

I don't have every data point on every facet of slavery, but I have a lot

On a personal note, it doesn't matter if crimes against humanity far worse than anything we can imagine were not quite as horrible as we presume. They were still horrible beyond our ability to imagine, and the perpetrators were objectively evil.

To satisfy the burden of proof you must have enough. The claim here is that the slaves were “treated quite well” - That claim is broad and encompasses the totality of the treatment of slaves. What you have is adult food rations, literacy rates and hours worked per year. That is hardly adequate. There is a lot more to life than that, as I pointed out in my previous post.

Also, I know that the source which shows adult food intake also states that childhood food intake was rather poor. That is relevant evidence and it was hard to miss.

EDIT: If you’d like to point out that the portrayal of antebellum slavery in textbooks is misleading that’s a different issue. History books often are. We hear a lot about how horrible the internment of the Japanese was. We hardly ever hear about the Nihau incident.

This is precisely the hyperbolic nonsense that inspired me to write this thread.

The fact is that slaves were treated better in the United States than anywhere else in the world,

The American slaves would have been slaves had they stayed in Africa,

It's incredibly irresponsible to rattle off a source-less opinion piece that is so damning of something you've failed to demonstrate knowledge of. 

I'd never condone slavery and it shouldn't exist in our civilised societies,

but that doesn't mean Africans were barbarically treated in the United States en masse. 

You haven't demonstrated it to be nonsense, you've just bemoaned that it used ethics.

You seem to have missed the key word: slave. Something being less awful, still does not magically make it good.

That fails in any way to absolve the choice of involvement, a choice which further incentivized slavers.

I have elsewhere on this site countless times. In a debate I would bring out my sources to support that bad is bad, torture is torture, and evil is evil. This isn't a formal debate. Plus you're ranting about lack of knowledge to one of the very rare people with first hand knowledge of the horrors of slavery

At least we agree on something. To me a society falls below the threshold of being civilized if slavery is legal and/or socially acceptable.

And as previously stated: "having your fingernails pulled out doesn't hurt nearly as much as you would imagine before it happens, yet that something is less awful, doesn't make it a positive"

extreme racism

such as claiming that enslaving a black person is little different than owning a dog

I am done attempting to interact here.

I have fulfilled my burden by providing sources to prove my assertion

I've covered substantial. Slaves worked 54 hours a week, and thus that and sleeping (similar amount of time: 56 hours) accounted for most of the time. Eating accounts for a little time, too. That's the majority of the time accounted for.

I suppose I could have added how poorly slaves were treated in Africa, especially compared to the United States, and thus by virtue of being shipped across, African slaves were treated better as slaves in the United States when compared with Africa. This (correctly) assumes that slave supplies were inelastic. Perhaps this should be included in a 2.0 version of this thread, of which would account for criticism of this one.

The worst cases of punishment usually revolved around escape attempts.