if African American slavery never happened in the 1700s, would

>Civil rights
Probably not as those African Americans were the central focus of it.

>Immigration
Assuming the scenarios remain the same minus black people in America, I can't see how this changes in any way. Especially in Europe.

>>2355025
Europe never had much of a problem with blacks like americans. Germans treated black american soldiers better than their american countrymen after ww2

>>2355042
I figured since civil rights became prominent with black americans and their 'fight for equality', that now there's a fight for the equality of refugees, and I figured that fight for refugees wouldn't be happening without black history
maybe not in Europe, I don't how the civil rights movement of the 60s affected them

>>2355025
This depends on whether Africans were still brought over to America en masse or not,

>>2355025
You'd still have civil rights though. Also a replacement underclass in place of blacks.

>>2355042
The Civil Rights movement had a pretty huge cultural impact. I doubt there'd be nearly as many liberals lining up to suck third-world cock if not for the white guilt.

would be preferable, damn southerners

>>2355109
maybe, but I don't think to the extent there is now. There were SJWs in the 18th and 19th Century fighting for black rights, a lot in the North, and looking at the Civil War alone shows there were a lot of high up politicians who were willing to sacrifice young white men to free slaves (way more to it than that, I know, but black rights were used as a reason to end slavery)
I think those civil rights activists getting to grow in the academic communities of the North, and spread around for around 200+ years on such a hot topic like black rights has peaked recently.
Someone would probably take their place, because someone had to pick that cotton. Maybe we'd have a lot more trouble with workers rights or something, if white americans were getting worked that hard back then, or maybe Brazilians would've been slaves.

>>2355025
Yes, America would be an agrarian shithole and thus set back the western world progress so people wouldn't be trying to immigrate to it.

>>2355025

with no slavery, either the cash crop latifundia is economically unsustainable or they import labour from elsewhere.

so basically, following the british precedent of the 19th century, the americas import millions of indentured pajeets to work the plantations, like they did in the caribbean and south africa.

>pierre patel, the liberator of haiti
>martin luther gururananthan, civil rights activist
>the southern hindu league
>the grand mufti of alabama

lols

>>2355159
they weren't really SJWs

>>2355184
proto-SJW then? Most of them were doing for economics reasons, right?

>>2355206

SJW's are moral activists, but not all moral activists are SJW's.

>>2355159
The incubator for civil rights ideas back then was the church, not the academy.

>>2355206
Abolitionists were doing what they did because they thought slavery was a sin. The movement was heavily associated with Christianity.

>>2355221
SJWs are moral activists, but they are the most annoying, obnoxious, and the most retarded moral activists.

>>2355166

lolwut

slavery was part of the antiquated agraian shithole mindset, industrialization was independent of the existence of blacks

>>2355206
Or maybe some of them did because it was the "right thing to do"; which it kind of was

>>2355053
>Europe never had much of a problem with blacks like americans
Yes because europe is full of virtue signaling cucks infact its europeans or British fuckhead that got slavery ended in the first place.

>>2358678
Because the south had an obsession with farming. Literally the gentry had a hard on for it and banked everything on it.