Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Discussion of the Rationalization of Slavery
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 50 (546220)
02-09-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
02-09-2010 11:12 AM


Bush?
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble ignoring the connection automatically popped up in my head between your statement and Bush's "it's somewhere in between... it's up for debate" statements when asked about evolution and creationism. Let's cut through the bullshit. We all know he was a creationist.
I thought I remembered Bush making some distinctly pro-evolution remarks around the time he left office. Is my memory failing me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 02-09-2010 11:12 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 02-09-2010 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 17 of 50 (546234)
02-09-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 9:10 AM


Isn't that very mentality racist itself? I am pointing to the cultures, not the races of said culture. There is no genetic predisposition known to science that would cause certain races to be more or less violent.
You did see how I put the term race in single quotes meaning that I put no reliance in using race as a factor for having a predisposition to being violence.
Regardless, my focus was that not all of history regarding slavery, manifest destiny, or the like can be summarized so neatly in absolute terms of good and bad.
I am sorry I disagree. Slavery, ethnicide, etc as defined by history are morally reprehensable and unacceptable by our current human society. Whether you want to call these acts 'bad', 'evil' or any other loaded term I could care less. No matter how you swing it, these are not morally acceptable behaviors.
That being said the real history doesn't exactly make monsters out of the settlers either. Like anything else it should be viewed case by case.
Agreed. I never said nor insinuated that all the American settlers were monsters. If you think I did please point this out.
My point to Buzz was it is illogical and insane to try to place blame of slavery and ethnicide on the victims of these autrocities instead of their perpretators. In no way am I saying that every European/Colonialist is guilty of these attrocities. However, when a government sanctions said attrocities than the people that are part of that government do have some amount of shared blame in how that government acted.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 9:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 1:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 50 (546242)
02-09-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
02-09-2010 11:12 AM


Your caricaturization of historians are getting tiring. While I'm not a historian myself, I have mentioned many times on here that I'm a history buff and almost declared that as my major back in college a kazillion years ago because I have a passionate love affair with history (still not sure if the wife approves). Yes, the truth lies somewhere in between the two caricatured positions you summarized. Usually, caricaturizing a position is a sign that you lean towards a position that is not PC.
So what would you like me to do about that?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 02-09-2010 11:12 AM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 50 (546245)
02-09-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DevilsAdvocate
02-09-2010 12:59 PM


I put the term race in single quotes meaning that I put no reliance in using race
Thank you for clarifying your position.
quote:
Regardless, my focus was that not all of history regarding slavery, manifest destiny, or the like can be summarized so neatly in absolute terms of good and bad.
I am sorry I disagree. Slavery, ethnicide, etc as defined by history are morally reprehensable and unacceptable by our current human society.
Right, but you have identified the problem; by today's standards. Social mores evolve over time so that what is reprehensible to us today was normal in the past.
My point to Buzz was it is illogical and insane to try to place blame of slavery and ethnicide on the victims of these autrocities instead of their perpretators. In no way am I saying that every European/Colonialist is guilty of these attrocities. However, when a government sanctions said attrocities than the people that are part of that government do have some amount of shared blame in how that government acted.
Well, I would agree that it is not right, but at the same time we do have to look at history in its context. Like it or not, that was just the way things were. Conceiving of a world different than that (which was that way for thousands and thousands of years) was very difficult.
But there were a few who recognized the sheer hypocrisy of freedom and yet having slaves. People like Thomas Jefferson advocated the owning of slaves, while John Adams never once owned a slave and spoke out against it.
"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part." - John Jay (First Chief Justice of SCOTUS)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-09-2010 12:59 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-13-2010 6:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 20 of 50 (546248)
02-09-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2010 10:19 PM


There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
In regards to slavery and manifest destiny I usually only find two kinds of people, and they are at ideological opposite ends. One finds every justification for why early settlers were right to have slaves and to massacre natives because natives were diabolically evil and barbarous, and slaves were just too stupid to know any better like unreasoning animals. The other end paints a picture where the settlers were just diabolically evil and hell bent on raping every last vestige of mother earth, a typical story played out in half of the Walter Disney collection.
The reality is, like it is with most things, probably is a mixture of both sides minus the extremism of each view.
The reality is that there is no discernible "good guys/bad guys" in this scenario. There's smatterings of good and bad in both cultures, just like it is with all people.
Africans enslaved Africans, Asians enslaved Asians, Middle Easterns enslaved Europeans, Europeans enslaved Africans, different tribes among native Americans enslaved each other, so on and so forth thousands upon thousands of years before the time frame being currently discussed in this thread.
So what's the problem here?
The problem is we have revisionist historians who have a role to play and an agenda to defend.
It's not a matter of "revisionist history." It's a matter of making unilatleral judgments ("slavery is bad") regardless of the context.
In the context of slavery in the US, is the enslavement of human beings on the basis of the color of their skin more or less justified if slavery was also practiced in Native American and African cultures?
The answer is no, of course not, for the same reason that killing Jews isn;t made more acceptable by the fact that the Holocaust happened. Whether an act is practiced by others, regardless of popularity, has no inherent effect on whether that act is ethically justified.
History is more complex than how you're portraying it. The answer is not "in the middle of two sides." There aren't even two distinct "sides."
The ethical justification of any act is dependent on its consequences, as compared to the consequences of other actions or no action at all. There are far too many variables involved in this topic to get a clear picture on whether or not a "short-term" evil eventually resulted in a longer-term good.
What we can say is that, regardless of whether slavery was common in other cultures in that era, whether or not being in American after slavery ended (and especially after the civil rights movement) benefited the descendants of African-American slaves, slavery in the US was definitely ethically unjustifiable at the time. It was tantamount to genocide - untold millions died, and the survivors were treated like beasts. For those individuals, the actual slaves and their enslavers, the practice of slavery was undeniably evil, and no matter of religious apologetics ("we're saving the poor heathens' souls!") can change that.
Generations later, life may be better for modern descendants of slaves than if no action were taken. I just don't see how that positive in any way negates the incalculable harm done by American slavery. Not to mention the fact that minorities today still feel the aftereffects of slavery, over a century after it was abolished.
Buzz's original arguments surrounded the barbarism of slavery-era African cultures. He mentioned:
quote:
If white people were pagans who boiled one another for dinner, barbariously tortured one another by scalping, disemboweling alive, sacrificicing their children and wives in fire to their gods, sold their enemies as slaves etc as pagan Native Americans and African blacks practiced, perhaps they too would have no true god to deliver them from their opressive govenments as was the case with the pilgrims.
This is absurd. Partially because Europeans did perform acts of equal barbarity (the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, various brutal and torturous methods of execution such as being drawn and quartered, etc). Buzz is living in a fantasy land where European culture at the time was civilized in comparison. Let's be honest - European culture was "more civilized" only in that there were more organized societies. They were no less brutal and monstrous than any other culture on Earth.
The other reason it's absurd is because it's completely irrelevant. Whether slavery was practiced in African culture is not an excuse for others to engage in the same practice. Whether African culture was "pagan" is irrelevant to the objective fact that millions of African slaves died just on the voyage to the Americas, let alone those who survived the trip to be worked to death. Whether human sacrifice was practiced in Africa is irrelevant when attempting to justify the rape of slave women.
Slavery is the denial of human dignity, the erasure of the self, the removal of self-determination, the absence of human rights, the destruction of cultural and personal identity. It wraps up rape, murder, assault, imprisonment, genocide, and a thousand other sins all into one short word. There is no justification or mitigation for American slavery. Period. Whether some Masters were"nice" while they forced other human beings to work like cattle does not in any way reduce the crime - "benevolent Masters" were in no way innocent, they are simply a little less guilty than the Masters who cut off their slaves' feet when they tried to escape, or raped their women.
This is not revisionist history. This is simple fact. Were African cultures civilized by modern standards? No. Was slavery a "positive?" Certainly not, and anyone who tries to mitigate that in any way (Buz) is ethically reprehensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2010 10:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 3:53 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 50 (546262)
02-09-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rahvin
02-09-2010 2:01 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
It's not a matter of "revisionist history." It's a matter of making unilatleral judgments ("slavery is bad") regardless of the context.
In most cases, absolutely and especially in reference of the slave trade to the America's. But before that time, things were vastly different back then. Slavery also meant employment which meant survival. A lot of people were considered lucky to be beholden to a kind master.
In the context of slavery in the US, is the enslavement of human beings on the basis of the color of their skin more or less justified if slavery was also practiced in Native American and African cultures?
No, and in fact that is a fallacy of revisionist history as you have alluded to. No one went to Africa and said, "Hey look, these people are black. Because they're black lets enslave them." Slaves were always viewed as victims of opportunity. Slave traders were opportunistic in the sense that if they could exploit people for selfish ends, they would.
The English enslaved the Irish and Scottish for centuries, which obviously has nothing to do with race. The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
The issue of race came long after the slave trade.
History is more complex than how you're portraying it.
But that is exactly what I am getting at. It seems to be viewed historically in a black and white context (no pun intended) when in actuality there are so many dynamics at work.
slavery in the US was definitely ethically unjustifiable at the time.
Agreed.
Not to mention the fact that minorities today still feel the aftereffects of slavery, over a century after it was abolished.
Indeed. The black man still struggles with his stigma of the past even in todays time of increased freedom and prosperity, and the white man pays for the sins of their forefathers. We all feel the past to some degree and none of us deserve it. But it is what it is. We can't change the past, but we can do our part to ensure the past never revisits itself.
quote:
:If white people were pagans who boiled one another for dinner, barbariously tortured one another by scalping, disemboweling alive, sacrificicing their children and wives in fire to their gods, sold their enemies as slaves etc as pagan Native Americans and African blacks practiced, perhaps they too would have no true god to deliver them from their opressive govenments as was the case with the pilgrims.
White people, both pagans and professed Christians, DID do all of those things.
Let's be honest - European culture was "more civilized" only in that there were more organized societies. They were no less brutal and monstrous than any other culture on Earth.
For some reason people equate technological advancement with moral superiority, which is of course laughable. While Europeans at that time were arguably some of the most technologically advanced, they were absolutely no different (if not worse) for their inhumanity. Some of the cruelest tortures were devised in Europe.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 02-09-2010 2:01 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 4:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-09-2010 6:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 22 of 50 (546266)
02-09-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 3:53 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
*Ahem*
The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
Pathetically, painfully wrong. This would only be about half as amusing if you hadn't complained about "revisionist historians".
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 3:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 6:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 23 of 50 (546279)
02-09-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 3:53 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
It's not a matter of "revisionist history." It's a matter of making unilatleral judgments ("slavery is bad") regardless of the context.
Hydroglpyhix writes:
In most cases, absolutely and especially in reference of the slave trade to the America's. But before that time, things were vastly different back then.
And this it ok because? Just because we understand the historical reasons why certain events occurred does not mean we have to morally justify why they occured. One has to objectively research history while at the same time learn from our past mistakes.
Edmund Burke writes:
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
. No one went to Africa and said, "Hey look, these people are black. Because they're black lets enslave them."
Bullshit. Who is being revisionist? There were people who did say and enacted that very sentament.
Racism and many other prejudiced beliefs were not only deeply engrained but were whole-heartedly sanctioned by entire governments. Were there people who objected to racism? Yes, by the were the minority as opposed to the majority of those in today's modern socieities.
Many Europeans did look at black people (and other 'foreign' cultures) as inferior because they were spured by superstition, social norms and religious belief. It wasn't that long ago (and some still do) that many fundamental Christians believed that Africans were inferior because of the Curse of Ham as depicted in Genesis 9:20-27.
Slaves were always viewed as victims of opportunity.
But why were they seen as being slave material in the first place? You are missing the elephant in the room.
Slave traders were opportunistic in the sense that if they could exploit people for selfish ends, they would.
And race, religion and other discrimenating factors gave them the 'justification' for there practing there attrocious behavior. Even the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned slavery because of these discriminating factors.
The English enslaved the Irish and Scottish for centuries, which obviously has nothing to do with race.
You are projecting your modern definition of the term 'race' onto people who had no biological definition of this term. Back then anyone who was of a different culture, ethnicity, language, religion, etc were considered 'foreign', 'barbarian', 'different' and therefore justifiable in being taken advantage of. This is a direct survival technique going all the way back to our animal intinctive behavior. Again does this make it 'right'? Of course not.
The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
And the Romans were like the Germanic and Norwegian Pics, Brits, Anglo-Saxons, Normans how?
The issue of race came long after the slave trade.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Again who is doing the revisionist history? I believe it is you Hyro.
Slavery has long been used as a justification for slavery going back to antinquity, and I suspect all the way back to prehistory. Here are just a few examples:
Hippocrates (460-370 BCE) writes:
The idea that dark people are cowards and light people courageous fighters is found already in Airs, Waters, Places...
Posidonius (135-35 BCE) writes:
Those races nearest to the southern half of the axis are of lower stature, with swarthy complexions, curly hair, black eyes and little blood on account of the sun. This poverty of blood makes them over-timid to stand up against the sword...On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed ready to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity
or how about from the Bible itself:
Leviticus 25:44-46 writes:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
St. Augustine writes:
Slavery is not penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.
The 'Great' Protestant Reformer Martin Luther writes:
We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them...The blind Jews are truly stupid fools...such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews...we are at fault for not slaying them...burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them
To think these people were speaking in a vacuum is idiotic and ludicrous. Racism and other forms of hate speach and thought was not just common but rampant and was the driving factor of slavery and many other attrocities. Those who objected to this form of thinking and behavior until recently (the 21st century) were the minority not the majority. It has only been within the past several decades that this has reversed, and then only in some regions of the world. Racism and other forms of discrimination are still common in many parts of the world and regions of the United States.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 3:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 9:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 4:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 50 (546281)
02-09-2010 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Granny Magda
02-09-2010 4:17 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
quote:
The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
Pathetically, painfully wrong. This would only be about half as amusing if you hadn't complained about "revisionist historians".
Granny, the Roman occupation of Britain is a thoroughly documented fact. Are you objecting to my hyperbole when I said "all" or are you unaware that such a Roman campaign ever took place?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 4:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 7:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 50 (546288)
02-09-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Bush?
DrA writes:
I thought I remembered Bush making some distinctly pro-evolution remarks around the time he left office. Is my memory failing me?
If anything, Bush is the perfect politician. When he was governor of Texas, he openly supported the Texan law that criminalized homosexuality. Of course, when it was struck down by the federal supreme court (finally), he began to take a more neutral position.
I don't care what kind of remarks the man made toward the end of his presidency. He's a crank... and a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2010 12:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 26 of 50 (546292)
02-09-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 6:42 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
Hyro,
Granny, the Roman occupation of Britain is a thoroughly documented fact.
Obviously. It's clearly one that you don't know much about though, so perhaps not the best example you could have chosen.
Are you objecting to my hyperbole when I said "all"...
Yes. You massively overstated it. Slaves were taken yes, but you make it sound like the entire population were enslaved.
...or are you unaware that such a Roman campaign ever took place?
Yes I am. I am unaware of any Roman occupation of "all of what is the UK today", mostly because no such campaign ever occurred.
The main problem here is that you keep bringing up examples of other cultures who behaved horribly, as though they were relevant. This, despite Rahvin very eloquently pointing out that no group's misdeeds can be expiated by the misdeeds of others. No-one was talking about Roman slavery. Roman slavery isn't the issue. American slavery is the issue, along with apologists for the same. Whatever spurious point you want to make about slavery not being based upon race, you can't make it by reference to ancient Rome.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 6:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 8:21 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 27 of 50 (546300)
02-09-2010 8:10 PM


Hyro writes:
The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
Wrong and simplistic history. Have you ever heard of Hadrian's Wall? They could not push further North because of pressure from the Northern Brits, Pics, Scots, etc. The Roman's didn't enslave all the native British south of Hadrian's wall either. In fact most of the lands the occupied became allegianed with Rome rather than being in forced bondage/slavery (though they did take slaves and soldiers from some of these 'occupied' territories). Again you need to take a history class and stop being so simplistic.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 28 of 50 (546303)
02-09-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Granny Magda
02-09-2010 7:37 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
It's clearly one that you don't know much about though
You couldn't possibly have deduced as much in two brief sentences.
quote:
Are you objecting to my hyperbole when I said "all"...
Yes. You massively overstated it. Slaves were taken yes, but you make it sound like the entire population were enslaved.
It's hyperbole. I doubt that anyone would literally believe that every single soul living on what is known today as Britain was taken in to slavery and/or conquered.
I am unaware of any Roman occupation of "all of what is the UK today", mostly because no such campaign ever occurred.
For all intents and purposes, Britain was under the control of Roman legions under various caeser's for a long, long time. Again, it is hyperbole and obviously so. This of course does not mean there were not resistance groups active, or resistance leaders like Boudicca, and it does not mean that no one was unable to escape to the countryside. But there is historical and archaeological evidence to support the notion that much of what is Britain today was controlled by Rome. That is mostly because there really was no real central form of English government to unify the people. Most lived in clans.
The main problem here is that you keep bringing up examples of other cultures who behaved horribly, as though they were relevant. This, despite Rahvin very eloquently pointing out that no group's misdeeds can be expiated by the misdeeds of others. No-one was talking about Roman slavery. Roman slavery isn't the issue. American slavery is the issue, along with apologists for the same. Whatever spurious point you want to make about slavery not being based upon race, you can't make it by reference to ancient Rome.
I was simply agreeing with Rahvin that European misdeeds existed, to show that slavery and racism do not necessarily go hand in hand. My only real point for mentioning it is that some Europeans enslaved other Europeans and some acted every bit as vile as Buzsaw's Native American pagans. Particularly since he conveniently forgets the pagan history of Britain.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 7:37 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 29 of 50 (546309)
02-09-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 8:21 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
Okay, we are agreed that you are using hyperbole. That doesn't change the fact that what you wrote was wrong.
You couldn't possibly have deduced as much in two brief sentences.
Well, you don't seem to know basic facts about Roman Britain, so...
For all intents and purposes, Britain was under the control of Roman legions under various caeser's for a long, long time.
Again, no. Most of Britain, not all of Britain, as DA has noted, the Empire only extended to Hadrian's Wall during most of the Roman period. Certainly, not all of modern Britain, since the Romans never conquered any part of Ireland.
Again, it is hyperbole and obviously so.
There's a difference between hyperbole and just plain wrong. If you are trying to make a point, perhaps it might be an idea to use facts instead of hyperbole. You could further refine this practise by choosing only relevant facts. Just a thought.
This of course does not mean there were not resistance groups active, or resistance leaders like Boudicca, and it does not mean that no one was unable to escape to the countryside.
You miss the point. During the Roman presence there were many free Britons who did very well from Roman rule. It wasn't a choice between slavery or hiding out in the woods. Again, you are painting with a ludicrously broad brush, with the intention of making a point and mangling history in the process. This is pretty ironic for someone who complained about revisionist history.
I was simply agreeing with Rahvin that European misdeeds existed, to show that slavery and racism do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Rahvin never claimed that slavery is not based on racism. You introduced that theme. Rahvin said this;
Rahvin writes:
In the context of slavery in the US, is the enslavement of human beings on the basis of the color of their skin more or less justified if slavery was also practiced in Native American and African cultures?
You agreed with his Rahvin, but then diverged into a spurious point about how race and slavery are not connected. Again, this is completely irrelevant, since we are not talking whether all slavery is based on race. Besides, it's quite clear that in the US, slavery and racism absolutely did go "hand in hand".
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 8:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 30 of 50 (546311)
02-09-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate
02-09-2010 6:21 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
And this it ok because?
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happened. I also am saying that early slavery and the social mores that drove them were of such a different time that to compare them by today's standards and ethos of today's times won't explain their reasoning.
quote:
No one went to Africa and said, "Hey look, these people are black. Because they're black lets enslave them."
Bullshit. Who is being revisionist? There were people who did say and enacted that very sentament.
You aren't being serious are you? You don't honestly believe they enslaved Africans because they were black do you? Please tell me advantage their "blackness" made?
They enslaved them because they were easy targets of opportunity.
Racism and many other prejudiced beliefs were not only deeply engrained but were whole-heartedly sanctioned by entire governments. Were there people who objected to racism? Yes, by the were the minority as opposed to the majority of those in today's modern socieities.
"Racism" as we know it today is a later invention as a result of different cultures clashing. I mean, honestly DA, they didn't go to Africa to enslave people because they looked different, they enslaved them because they were easy prey.
Many Europeans did look at black people (and other 'foreign' cultures) as inferior because they were spured by superstition, social norms and religious belief.
Yes, of course. Of this mindset there is little doubt and ample evidence to support it. This is, however, vastly different than enslaving people because of racism.
But why were they seen as being slave material in the first place? You are missing the elephant in the room.
Because they couldn't sufficiently defend themselves. Why did the English have it out for the Scots and Irish? Was it because of racism?
And race, religion and other discrimenating factors gave them the 'justification' for there practing there attrocious behavior. Even the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned slavery because of these discriminating factors.
I'm not saying it isn't discriminatory and I'm certainly not saying it isn't fucked up, but I do not think it could be misconstrued as "racism" as we know it. It's discriminatory in the sense that these were pagans and the Christians felt it was their duty to "purge sins from heathens."
You are projecting your modern definition of the term 'race' onto people who had no biological definition of this term. Back then anyone who was of a different culture, ethnicity, language, religion, etc were considered 'foreign', 'barbarian', 'different' and therefore justifiable in being taken advantage of.
Now that we are clarifying our terms, then I agree.
And the Romans were like the Germanic and Norwegian Pics, Brits, Anglo-Saxons, Normans how?
They're all caucasian, bearing in mind that modern Italians and ancient Romans are very dissimilar due to a later influx of cultures like the Moors.
Slavery has long been used as a justification for slavery going back to antinquity, and I suspect all the way back to prehistory. Here are just a few examples
Posidonius (135-35 BCE) writes:
Those races nearest to the southern half of the axis are of lower stature, with swarthy complexions, curly hair, black eyes and little blood on account of the sun. This poverty of blood makes them over-timid to stand up against the sword...On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed ready to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity
This isn't "racist" in any kind of term as we know racism at all. This is opportunistic, speaking prevalently about their timidity; i.e. their lack of willingness to stand up for themselves. In other words, easy prey.
To think these people were speaking in a vacuum is idiotic and ludicrous. Racism and other forms of hate speach and thought was not just common but rampant and was the driving factor of slavery and many other attrocities. Those who objected to this form of thinking and behavior until recently (the 21st century) were the minority not the majority. It has only been within the past several decades that this has reversed, and then only in some regions of the world. Racism and other forms of discrimination are still common in many parts of the world and regions of the United States.
No one is denying that racism has existed in one form or another since the whole thing began, but it certainly was not a lasting motivation for slavery. If it was, the races would not enslave one another. As it is, MOST slavery has occurred within their own races for the simple fact of proximity.
Of those that took to the sea in search of slaves certainly developed biases based on cultural differences which were recognized because of physical differences. That much is bloody obvious, but that is a later invention not a primal motivation for slavery. The exploitation of people as means of cheap labor is obviously the prime reason, but historians often draw a false parallel from slavery to racism.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-09-2010 6:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-10-2010 6:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024