Why didn't more American blacks return to Africa?

cookies221

The country of Liberia in West Africa was established by freed American slaves in the first half of the 19th century, with the help of the American Colonization Society, a private organization that believed ex-slaves would have greater freedom and equality in Africa. It is my understanding that these freed slaves were offered a free ride back to Africa, so why didn't more of them avail of this offer?

Even today, we hear American blacks complain about slavery (which ended 150 years ago) and how they are disadvantaged in society (Kanye West's infamous and cringe-worthy "George Bush hates black people" speech comes to mind). Yet these same people are more than happy to choose the United States as their home over Liberia. It seems like they are biting the hand that feeds them.

Anybody know the reason the blacks chose not to return to their motherland where they would be truly free?

Tordelback

For that matter, why don't we all go back to Africa where our ancestors came from, before they lost out in the competition for local resources and had to shift? After all, we never stop complaining about the government and the licence fee and the weather in this place. Surely we'd all be happier kicking about Olduvai Gorge, where we belong?

Man, that is some quality trolling.

Chuck Stone

cookies221 wrote: »

It is my understanding that these freed slaves were offered a free ride back to Africa, so why didn't more of them avail of this offer?

Free ride? Maybe compensation would have been more appropriate seeing as their slave labour created vast wealth and power for slaveholders.

How many of these slaves were 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation 'Africans'?

Did the slaves even know where back home was? Did they even consider themselves African?

'Back to Africa' isn't 'back home'.

cookies221

Not trolling. Just wondering why if blacks were unhappy with their conditions in America, why didn't they avail of the opportunity to go back to the motherland. Yes I'm aware homo sapiens originated in Africa half a million years ago (or China if you believe competing theories) but let's be practical - Irish immigrants in America would consider Ireland the motherland, Polish immigrants would consider Poland their motherland etc

How many of these slaves were 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation 'Africans'?

I'm sure a lot would have been 2nd and 3rd generation Africans. Some would have probably also been mixed race, from their white slave masters raping their mothers.

Did the slaves even know where back home was? Did they even consider themselves African?

Native Africans that were captured, brought to America, and then subsequently freed were obviously aware they were African. The American blacks would surely then have realised that they were not native to America, but came from the same place as the other black people - Africa. Do you question a black's level of intelligence regarding their ability to make this leap in logic?

Victor

cookies221 wrote: »

Even today, we hear American blacks complain about slavery (which ended 150 years ago)

And you hear Irish people complain of Famine times and earlier.

Realise that due to segregation, the repeal of slavery didn't radically improve the lives of many former slaves and on certain grounds the situation disimproved, e.g. a slave owner was responsible for feeding and housing a slave, but had no such obligation to a freed slave. This in no way justifies slavery. Legally, segregation lasted another 100 years and socio-economically is still persistent in a lot of places.

TheUsual

This thread will be shut down, but the same (drunk) logic applies to the Irish and Germans who came to make up the majority of the USA.

cookies221

Victor wrote: »

And you hear Irish people complain of Famine times and earlier.

Realise that due to segregation, the repeal of slavery didn't radically improve the lives of many former slaves and on certain grounds the situation disimproved, e.g. a slave owner was responsible for feeding and housing a slave, but had no such obligation to a freed slave. This in no way justifies slavery. Legally, segregation lasted another 100 years and socio-economically is still persistent in a lot of places.

Then surely this provided an even greater incentive to go to Liberia and be truly free?

TheUsual wrote: »

This thread will be shut down, but the same (drunk) logic applies to the Irish and Germans who came to up the majority of the USA.

The Irish and Germans emigrated to America under their own free will. Africans were captured and brought there against their will. Do you understand the difference?

Victor

Perhaps more free, but within social structures that were alien to them. And no employment.

Question: why didn't the southern ascendancy move back to Europe and hand their assets over to former slaves?

TheUsual

Victor wrote: »

And you hear Irish people complain of Famine times and earlier.

They should and I will, the single worst reduction in Popululation in any Country in the 19th Century (read "Tim Pat Coogan" for Historical Referencenes).

Victor wrote: »

Realise that due to segregation, the repeal of slavery didn't radically improve the lives of many former slaves and on certain grounds the situation disimproved,

Segregation exists today in Ireland.
This thread will be shut down soon, but lets pretend that an answer means something.

cookies221

Victor wrote: »

Perhaps more free, but within social structures that were alien to them. And no employment.

The only social structure familiar to them was being treated like an animal at the bottom of the ladder, with whites at the top. Anything would have been better than this. They could be masters of their own destiny in Liberia, living under self-rule.

Question: why didn't the southern ascendancy move back to Europe and hand their assets over to former slaves?

"What about" doesn't answer the question, but I'll play along with you. The Southern ascendancy were quite comfortable in America. They ran successful cotton businesses and ruled themselves.Why would they move? The same cannot be said for the blacks.

Note: Posters please don't feel compelled to reply to the thread if you don't know the answer. Are there any history professors on this board? I'm genuinely curious to find an answer to this question.

Chuck Stone

cookies221 wrote: »

The Southern ascendancy were quite comfortable in America.

Of course they were. They had slaves to ensure their priviledge.

They ran successful cotton businesses and ruled themselves.

Owning people who toiled in cotton feilds and reaping the benefits of their captivity and labour should never ever be described as 'success'.

What the hell is going on here?

meglome

cookies221 wrote: »

The only social structure familiar to them was being treated like an animal at the bottom of the ladder, with whites at the top. Anything would have been better than this. They could be masters of their own destiny in Liberia, living under self-rule.

Why didn't they go to the moon? I mean that's about about as far as Liberia was to most of them. These people would have been from different parts of Africa from difference tribal backgrounds. America as **** as it was, was home.

cookies221 wrote: »

"What about" doesn't answer the question, but I'll play along with you. The Southern ascendancy were quite comfortable in America. They ran successful cotton businesses and ruled themselves.Why would they move? The same cannot be said for the blacks.

Note: Posters please don't feel compelled to reply to the thread if you don't know the answer. Are there any history professors on this board? I'm genuinely curious to find an answer to this question.

Your concept of success and mine are different. Keeping slaves to enrich yourself is never something to be considered successful.

jensennhook

:pAbsolutely they have their own reason, why is there any bill that says black american must stay in africa only?haha:P

Tordelback

OP, are you perhaps under the impression that 'Africa' is one homogenous country, rather than a vast and diverse continent? Or maybe you think all slaves brought to America came from the Pepper coast? Or are you possibly unaware that most slaves were captured and/or sold by local or neighbouring rulers, so where they (or more likely their grandparents) came from wasn't exactly friendly territory either? Maybe all Irish in the 19th C US secretly longed to be returned to the Crimea?

ejmaztec

Have I arrived on Stormfront by mistake?

jonniebgood1

OP, If you wish to have a proper discussion on this forum you need to learn properly how to frame the discussion. Now this is a topic that if you were to properly source reasons behind your query, it could be discussed. I'm not usually to bothered about being PC but the fact that you have premised the thread on your 'understanding' with no reference to where this understanding comes from is more of a problem. But you should also be aware that your blunt terminology can be construed in discriminatory terms. So for future reference the thread title is not acceptable, your OP needs sources regarding Liberia, free trip to Liberia, current complaints and perhaps more of an explanation of what these people would do if they returned to where their ancestors had been taken many generations previously.

Without this I shut this thread down and have not yet decided if further action is required. You can PM me if you wish but please take this as a warning.