South Carolina PingAdd me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
Please welcome our newest South Carolina ping list member, snippy_about_it.
Interesting PC twist. The slaves didn’t bring it, the African slave traders sold it to the European slave traders along with the slaves.
Everyone knows America was built on rice!
(and on the back of Uncle Ben)
that made many a colonial plantation owner rich was brought to the United States . . .
The finding suggests that African slaves are responsible for nearly every facet of one of the first rice varieties grown in the U.S. . . .
for several thousand years before the start of the slave trade with the colonies . . .
Ship masters wanting to deliver healthy slaves to the U.S. bought rice in Africa as provisions for the voyage . . .
In 1685 plantation owners in the Carolinas . . .
That was really fundamental for the economic growth of this country . . .
Anybody else notice how the National Geographic author is seemingly confused about the difference between the colonies and the United States? This article conflates the two. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves whether that anachronism was intentionally slipped into the narrative multiple times in an effort to make a political statement, or whether it was simply done out of ignorance.
For reference, note that the only date quoted in the article excerpt is the year 1685, yet the United States was not founded until the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, which was more than ninety years later. So it would appear that many or most of the references to the "the U.S." or "the United States" are simply false.
Oh, and notice if you read all the way to the end of the article you find out that all of this is speculative, and that in fact it could be incorrect, and the actual source of the Carolina Gold could have been from somewhere other than West Africa and thus might have had no direct connection with the slave trade or with foodstuffs purchased by slave-trading ship captains in West Africa (although the role of slaves in cultivating rice in the Western Hemisphere is pretty well established).
South Carolina public television is currently filming a documentary about this subject. It will air sometime next spring and will be titled “The Golden Age of Rice: The Story of Carolina Gold Rice.” Anna McClung who is quoted in this article will be interviewed for the film and will also narrate part of it.
Rice was a common crop in parts of Europe by medieval times. It’s cultivation did not originate in Africa but most likely in India. The ship from Madagascar in 1685 brought rice as a part of it’s cargo and the captain of the ship gave rice as payment for the repairs done to his ship. In all likelyhood other variations of rice were also brought by other settlers during the 200 year period of settlement that preceded this event.
Damn, and here I was thinking America was built on okra.
Aunt Jemimah’s done it again...
South Carolina PingOh great, one more thing to feel guilty about.
So.....why didn't the west Africans sail to the colonies, enslave a bunch of crackers, and take them back to west Africa to work on their own rice plantations??
There are a few things questionable about this, above and beyond the anachronism of placing the United States into 1685.
Rice that keeps well, that stores and does not spoil, is so-called white rice. The husk and outer bran layer has been removed. Ship stores would likely have been white rice as a result. It will not germinate.
I have no problem with the idea that rice or several other foods associated with the south have ultimately African origins, having been brought over by individuals desinted for slavery. Okra and yams are two others.
But, this is somehow convoluted. If it was brought it was brought to plant, concealed on their persons. The legendary route told to tourists on plantation tours sounds far more plausible, but plagiarizing a brochure isn’t the route to grant money I guess, speaking of routes.