On plantations with hundreds of slaves, what stopped the slaves from rushing the owner's house, slitting his throat...

On plantations with hundreds of slaves, what stopped the slaves from rushing the owner's house, slitting his throat, and raping his wife and daughter? There's one male master and hundreds of slaves.

I guess blacks are more peaceful after all.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion#North_American_slave_revolts
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion#North_American_slave_revolts

Learn history. You'll see there were many examples of slaves assaulting, raping and even killing either each other or plantation owners families.

Many slaves wilfully and gladly returned to their former masters as freed employees after emancipation had taken place.

Well known fact.

What if the concept of aggression was non existent in their cultures? Mind also the fact that not all of them came from the same area, so language is always a barrier when you want to get organized.

Just sprinkling some logic here.

First, you should look up "Haiti Slave Revolt", especially its historical implications -- it became the exact thing every slave owner and colony dreaded.

Then, you should look up "The Citadel" of South Carolina: an institution whose purpose was to keep down potential slave rebellions.

THEN, you should stop and consider the how and why of keeping slaves using only a little bit of brutality will lead to a docile slave population.

or they are fucking stupid animals who were easily coerced. also that "boom stick" really scared their primitive minds as they tried to comprehend what kind of "magic" the white man possessed.

they were fucking retards and likely had better living conditions then when they were in the jungle.

malnurishment = weak of body and mind, plus they had people surveilling the slaves, and these guys had guns, self preservation is usually stronger than the will for freedom through highly likely death

Then what? Who takes their masters place as provider? They probably never learned to take care for themselves. That's what their masters willingly disclosed/prevented. That alone is enough to keep people in check. The survival instinct does the rest. Just make sure you provide bread and games

They did from now and then
Of course the consequences would be extremely severe (mass lynchings, even of slaves who had no involvement in it) to discourage further revolts

Mind control. Clever social engineering by the slave owners, techniques pioneered by the Romans. Techniques like having the old slave woman hold the whip and motivate the men in the field, therefore keeping their brains from developing past childhood.

You're right to assume that that type of situation where you're outnumbered by men who despise you and wish to be free is incredibly dangerous, so the idea was to remove strong, confident, take responsibility men from the equation.

>On plantations with hundreds of slaves, what stopped the slaves from rushing the owner's house, slitting his throat, and raping his wife and daughter?

Low IQ.

Yeah i mean would you want a place to work + safety, or be "free" on your own the streets where people were hanging niggers.

>Blacks are dumb apes that live for instant gratification

>Slaves refused to kill their master and rape white women because they were worried about how that would affect their five-year personal development plan

Pick one

because they weren't mistreated as badly as the leftists want you to think. pic related, a northern business man's journal about his travels in the slave states.

>I guess blacks are more peaceful after all.
Nah bro. Had they shrugged their white masters a black master would've naturally filled that void. Black slave owners were far far worse than whites. Just look at Africa today and all the Dindu's in charge there.

Because there wasn't one master to hundreds of slaves. There might have been one family who owned all the slaves, but more likely it would have been a joint venture between several people to purchase that much property. Regardless, there would be people lower down the line actually out in the fields making them work. Then there would have been blacks who were in charge of disciplining other blacks. I would be surprised if there were even 10 blacks for every white or black slavedriver. Guns + locked doors + strict discipline would render them pretty docile.

you know if you dropped the slaves part out that´d sound like average normal 2017 day in america

To add to that, it was their fellow blacks that round them up and sold them off to start with. They well knew what the deal was.

Jim Brown tried to raise a rebellion in Virginia after he killed a bunch of people from Missouri during bleeding Kansas. It's funny because he thought he could get a few thousand blacks to join his cause, but maybe a dozen people actually came. It is even more ironic that they killed a freed blackman on a train that passed by in an effort to keep their element of surprise. Frederick Douglas and Lincoln both denounced the idea of inciting a slave rebellion. Ideologues often get caught up in their own bullshit and fail to realize what the actual consequences of their action mean. They real problem is that no one actually really worked to introduce black people back into society.

This so much. People act like slaves in the US were treated like shit. But they weren't. Tell me, if you bought a new car, would you beat it and scratch it up when it didn't work?
Slave owners wouldn't damage their own property.

>"Haiti Slave Revolt"

except it wasn't led by slaves. It was led by educated free blacks. The slaves just traded one master for another. The Haitian leaders quickly installed "slavery-lite" form of farming after they realized the economy would crumble.

I wasn't talking about blacks

Ever heard of Haiti?

Because they weren't treated poorly. One of the biggest lie the left tells us

What stops a dog from killing its owner?

Belly rubs :3

In fact, the first legaly recognized slave owner was a black man...whoda thought that?

Because no white guilt and they knew what would happen,. Same as our colonies, outnumbered, on the other side of the world, how did we keep order? By doing things like this, following a native chimpout

"The British troops were horrified and enraged. Upon learning of the massacre, the infuriated British garrison engaged in a surge of violence against the local population of Cawnpore, including looting and burning of houses, with the justification that none of the local noncombatants had done anything to stop the massacre.[5][18] Brigadier General Neill, who took the command at Cawnpore, immediately began a program of swift and vicious drumhead military justice (culminating in summary execution) for any sepoy rebel captured from the city who was unable to prove he was not involved in the massacre. Rebels confessing to or believed to be involved in the massacre were forced to lick the floor of the Bibighar compound, after it had been wetted with water by low caste people, while being whipped.[19] The sepoys were then religiously disgraced by being forced to eat (or force fed) beef (if Hindu) or pork (if Muslim). The Muslim sepoys were sewn into pig skins before being hanged, and low-caste Hindu street sweepers were employed to execute the high-caste Brahmin rebels to add additional religious disgrace to their punishment."

Actually the change came when Toussaint L'Ouverture, the educated black leader of the revolt was killed by Jean Jacques Dessalines, an uneducated former slave. Dessalines crowned himself "Emperor" and Haiti began its downward spiral. When the French gave up the island it was one of the most resource rich places on earth, a veritable gold mine for France.

That is false

Here in Brazil even the slaves belief that slavery was a necessary evil.

You think there was only one guy keeping them in line?

dogs enjoy the relationship

also dogs are typically 100 lbs smaller than their owners and lacking in thumbs

Institutional-ism. In theory slaves could have easily broke the small institution of one plantation and gotten away from or killed their master, but they would still find themselves in a southern state where the institution of slavery is still at play on a grand scale. They would need to escape to the North which was a highly dangerous and uncertain prospect versus the familiarity of a plantation.

Assuming they got away from the plantation a large manhunt would likely ensue and they would likely be executed if they couldn't escape recapture.

Basically "having freedom" wasn't all that much better an alternative considering the risk and ensuing danger. Sneaking off the plantation was a far more sensible option but it just had to be on individual basis for most people.

Safety sometimes doesn't apply

...

Because they had no where to go, and contrary to popular belief being a slave in America was not so bad you'd suicidally attack your masters.

They were treated as inferior to whites, but not as animals.

...

...

...

>Safety in numbers sometimes doesn't apply

I studied slave culture and history in school and even lived in Barbados for a while on old plantations and shit.

One thing I can definitely tell you is that in many places it was not common for the owner to be on the plantation. Sure they would take summer weeks there here and there. But if you owned a plantation with many slaves you often had other homes closer to cosmopolitan areas and you also didnt have to be around your slaves.

Also the drivers, masters henchmen, and elite slaves were all black too. As a slave the guy whipping you was black, the guy ordering you around was black, your boss was black, everyone around you was black. Only those in the house and those very trusted/completely subservient slaves really had that much contact with whites at all.

And finally, probably the most important reason there were far less revolts than you would think is that owners were smart enough to mix and match those areas of africa from which their slaves came. For instance, you could have 50 slaves from 10 different locations and tribes and regions entirely and it would take them years if not generations to even speak fluently to each other and begin to trust each other. This was an enormous boon for the owner because the slaves trusted no one, not even each other.

A thing not many people realize is buying an African slave was fucking expensive, you would have to be the dumbest land owner in the universe to just beat and kill your slaves for no discernible reason. Imagine if a farmer went and burned his combine down the first time it broke down in the field?

I imagine there were the occasional 'wild retard' owner that just beat folks for funsies but it wasn't the norm. Most landowners knew they were an investment, and from the mixed race status of modern African Americans they had other jobs. Like a musical, self propelled, combine/Roomba/fleshlight.

Most slave owners who had big plantations had at least 20 people supervising the slaves (with guns) and din't let them congregate into groups more than 2 or 3.

The government stopped them. All citizens were legally required to stop and return escaped slaves or be convicted themselves. Thats why, even though only 2% of white people (but 45% of jews) owned slaves, the system perpetuated.

Nowhere to go afterwards? Though some fought back anyways.

>what stopped the slaves from rushing the owner's house

Gee I wonder, maybe it has something to do with subhuman IQ levels and biting the hand that feeds them.

Dogs dont bite the hand that feeds them.

Pic related retard