ChatterBank4 mins ago
Another One Getting A Kicking For Stating The Obvious
120 Answers
https:/
It'd be a pretty poor slaver or owner that bumped off the assets wouldn't it?
It'd be a pretty poor slaver or owner that bumped off the assets wouldn't it?
Answers
jim - // Whether or not slavery was a genocide is, perhaps, only a matter of pedantry. // I suggest not. Pedantry is fussing over small details - there are no small details involved in the difference between genocide and slavery, only a massive gap, because the two are entirely unrelated. Large loss of life may have been a by-product of slavery but not its main...
20:29 Thu 02nd Jul 2020
Jim360
Emphasis added, but as success isn't necessary for genocide -- indeed, nothing called "genocide" has ever been entirely successful, as far as I am aware -- it is clearly wrong to add "and succeeded" as a condition.
The numbers are small but not as a percentage.
//At the time of British settlement in 1803 there were an estimated four to seven thousand Indigenous Tasmanians, by 1847 there were just 147. While some mixed-race communities endured, the last full-blooded Tasmanian, Truganini, died in Hobart in 1876.//
https:/
Emphasis added, but as success isn't necessary for genocide -- indeed, nothing called "genocide" has ever been entirely successful, as far as I am aware -- it is clearly wrong to add "and succeeded" as a condition.
The numbers are small but not as a percentage.
//At the time of British settlement in 1803 there were an estimated four to seven thousand Indigenous Tasmanians, by 1847 there were just 147. While some mixed-race communities endured, the last full-blooded Tasmanian, Truganini, died in Hobart in 1876.//
https:/
// This is of course where jims argument fails. Why would Black Africans want ethnic superiority over other blacks? //
The problem with suggesting that my argument fails is that again you're assuming a narrow definition of racism that can only apply to White people. I've explained elsewhere why this is mistaken. The focus in the UK is on the racism of White people because of obvious historical reasons, but this is to mistake focus for exclusion. Clearly there are examples of racism, and slavery, throughout history, perpetrated by any powerful group over some less powerful one. But this doesn't undermine the idea, at all, that slavery is an economic solution to a racial/superiority complex.
I can see the point you're all making, I think, but it still seems like you're framing slavery and racism as "how can I justify this economic decision?" -- and that is a mistake. What comes first, always, is the power dynamic. You cannot enslave a people unless you have defeated them in battle, or controlled them through some other means; and you would not enslave people you did not respect as equals. Slavery is a condition that denies the humanity of the victim.
Hence, also, the utter fallacy in "demonising the White race they despite" -- at least from my point of view. I can't claim to speak for anyone else. But this isn't about some white guilt complex.
The problem with suggesting that my argument fails is that again you're assuming a narrow definition of racism that can only apply to White people. I've explained elsewhere why this is mistaken. The focus in the UK is on the racism of White people because of obvious historical reasons, but this is to mistake focus for exclusion. Clearly there are examples of racism, and slavery, throughout history, perpetrated by any powerful group over some less powerful one. But this doesn't undermine the idea, at all, that slavery is an economic solution to a racial/superiority complex.
I can see the point you're all making, I think, but it still seems like you're framing slavery and racism as "how can I justify this economic decision?" -- and that is a mistake. What comes first, always, is the power dynamic. You cannot enslave a people unless you have defeated them in battle, or controlled them through some other means; and you would not enslave people you did not respect as equals. Slavery is a condition that denies the humanity of the victim.
Hence, also, the utter fallacy in "demonising the White race they despite" -- at least from my point of view. I can't claim to speak for anyone else. But this isn't about some white guilt complex.
//The problem with suggesting that my argument fails is that again you're assuming a narrow definition of racism that can only apply to White people…..this doesn't undermine the idea, at all, that slavery is an economic solution to a racial/superiority complex. //
Black people didn’t enslave other black people out of any sense of superiority. They did it for the money … just as everyone else did it for the money. It was big business - and cheap labour.
Black people didn’t enslave other black people out of any sense of superiority. They did it for the money … just as everyone else did it for the money. It was big business - and cheap labour.
// Black people didn’t enslave other black people out of any sense of superiority. //
Whatever gave you that idea?
So far as I've seen, there is still no answer, nor even an attempt to answer, the basic point I'm making: you do not enslave cultures if you respect them as equal human beings. The moral starting point of slavery and genocide is the same. Economy and slaughter are just different solutions to the same "problem".
Whatever gave you that idea?
So far as I've seen, there is still no answer, nor even an attempt to answer, the basic point I'm making: you do not enslave cultures if you respect them as equal human beings. The moral starting point of slavery and genocide is the same. Economy and slaughter are just different solutions to the same "problem".
Perhaps; but if it were false then it would be demonstrable. Find an example of one society enslaving another society that they somehow also treat with respect and I'll accept my mistake. But as it is, I can't see how this isn't a contradiction in terms from the start. Which came first, the utter disregard for the humanity of the "other", or the desire to save on labour costs?
//Find an example of one society enslaving another society that they somehow also treat with respect //
As I said, your argument is idealistic. You ignore human nature.
//Which came first, the utter disregard for the humanity of the "other", or the desire to save on labour costs? //
Money came first. Slaves weren't enslaved for any other reason. Selling, buying to provide cheap labour, it was all about money.
As I said, your argument is idealistic. You ignore human nature.
//Which came first, the utter disregard for the humanity of the "other", or the desire to save on labour costs? //
Money came first. Slaves weren't enslaved for any other reason. Selling, buying to provide cheap labour, it was all about money.
In what way am I ignoring human nature? It's human nature to disrespect "the other", is it not? And then to impose upon that any excuse needed to justify this disrespect.
Still it's the chicken-and-egg. I accept that money motivates slavery rather than genocide. I do not accept that money is the sole or primary motivator. You would not even think to enslave a people if you did not look down on them. That thought *has* to come first. People do not enslave their friends and allies, they do not enslave their equals.
Still it's the chicken-and-egg. I accept that money motivates slavery rather than genocide. I do not accept that money is the sole or primary motivator. You would not even think to enslave a people if you did not look down on them. That thought *has* to come first. People do not enslave their friends and allies, they do not enslave their equals.
Jim - you are persisting, even in the face of rationally argued contradiction, that genocide and slavery are the same thing, because they share aspects in common.
As I have pointed out, one thing sharing characteristics with another means just that - they share characteristics, it does not automatically make them the same thing.
What has four legs, a mane, a tail, big teeth, and whinnies?
A horse.
Oh, and a zebra.
They are not the same thing.
As I have pointed out, one thing sharing characteristics with another means just that - they share characteristics, it does not automatically make them the same thing.
What has four legs, a mane, a tail, big teeth, and whinnies?
A horse.
Oh, and a zebra.
They are not the same thing.
jim - // People do not enslave their friends and allies, they do not enslave their equals. //
No argument there.
But the enslaving is done for economic reasons, not ideals of superiority.
You are taking a simple economic situation and investing it with political and social complications that are simply not there.
Slavery is a seriously simple concept - find people you can capture and sell in large numbers - continue, get rich.
It's really that straightforward - why you insist on trying to invest it with a socio-political background is a mystery. It was not there, and your over-thinking is never going to put it there.
No argument there.
But the enslaving is done for economic reasons, not ideals of superiority.
You are taking a simple economic situation and investing it with political and social complications that are simply not there.
Slavery is a seriously simple concept - find people you can capture and sell in large numbers - continue, get rich.
It's really that straightforward - why you insist on trying to invest it with a socio-political background is a mystery. It was not there, and your over-thinking is never going to put it there.
// But the enslaving is done for economic reasons, not ideals of superiority. //
Here, again, this is still misunderstanding my argument. I am not denying the economic motivations of slavery. I am saying, however, that they are not the primary motivation; that the economic considerations cannot even enter the picture until you have so degraded another society that you view them as property.
// Slavery is a seriously simple concept - find people you can capture and sell in large numbers - continue, get rich.
It's really that straightforward - why you insist on trying to invest it with a socio-political background is a mystery. It was not there, and your over-thinking is never going to put it there. //
I'm sorry but that is utterly nonsensical. The idea that there are is no socio-political background to slavery is just... how can you say that with a straight face? Where remotely is the justification for this? Where is the evidence for it in history?
As far as I can tell, the entire counter-argument revolves around claiming that slavery is purely economical, or that everything else is incidental to this. If so, I would like to see you provide evidence for this point, because I am perplexed how you could claim it. If we restrict ourselves to the case of slavery in the New World it is manifestly false: law after law after law passed shows that the slaves were regarded as a lower race. I already pointed you to Columbus's perspective on his arrival in the New World, which amounts to "here is a lower class of life: we could exploit them." It should be revealing which of these two statements comes first.
Here, again, this is still misunderstanding my argument. I am not denying the economic motivations of slavery. I am saying, however, that they are not the primary motivation; that the economic considerations cannot even enter the picture until you have so degraded another society that you view them as property.
// Slavery is a seriously simple concept - find people you can capture and sell in large numbers - continue, get rich.
It's really that straightforward - why you insist on trying to invest it with a socio-political background is a mystery. It was not there, and your over-thinking is never going to put it there. //
I'm sorry but that is utterly nonsensical. The idea that there are is no socio-political background to slavery is just... how can you say that with a straight face? Where remotely is the justification for this? Where is the evidence for it in history?
As far as I can tell, the entire counter-argument revolves around claiming that slavery is purely economical, or that everything else is incidental to this. If so, I would like to see you provide evidence for this point, because I am perplexed how you could claim it. If we restrict ourselves to the case of slavery in the New World it is manifestly false: law after law after law passed shows that the slaves were regarded as a lower race. I already pointed you to Columbus's perspective on his arrival in the New World, which amounts to "here is a lower class of life: we could exploit them." It should be revealing which of these two statements comes first.
Have you ever read Dred Scott v. Sanford, by the way? Or read the first pro-slave activists in the US? They ought to reveal the socio-political factors that you so blithely dismiss:
"Our new Government is founded upon ... the great truth that the *** is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
(Alexander Stephens, 1861, justifying the Confederacy)
It is not difficult to find countless other speeches saying similar things.
"Our new Government is founded upon ... the great truth that the *** is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
(Alexander Stephens, 1861, justifying the Confederacy)
It is not difficult to find countless other speeches saying similar things.
Jim, you are determined to maintain your position, even in the face of history, and simple human nature, so I am leaving you to vex yourself with your argument, and to persist in moving the basis of the discussion.
You seem even more convinced as more and more AB'ers with solid reputations for clear and concise argument come on to disagree with you.
Others may not see debate with you on this subject as pointless, but I do, and am withdrawing.
You seem even more convinced as more and more AB'ers with solid reputations for clear and concise argument come on to disagree with you.
Others may not see debate with you on this subject as pointless, but I do, and am withdrawing.
Oh dear, Andy.
// Jim, you are determined to maintain your position, even in the face of history, and simple human nature //
I'm providing arguments based on historical sources, so it is hardly "the face of history" that I'm fighting against. I may have misunderstood those sources. But I'm asking you to explain my error, not merely repeat it.
// You seem even more convinced as more and more AB'ers with solid reputations for clear and concise argument come on to disagree with you. //
Reputation is irrelevant; what matters is the argument *now*. People have merely repeated that economics was the main or sole driving force behind slavery. That isn't a clear argument. It's just a contradiction. Show me an example, as I said, where the sole and overriding factor was economic rather than racial and I'll listen. Merely insisting that it must be so without evidence isn't "clear and concise argument".
// Jim, you are determined to maintain your position, even in the face of history, and simple human nature //
I'm providing arguments based on historical sources, so it is hardly "the face of history" that I'm fighting against. I may have misunderstood those sources. But I'm asking you to explain my error, not merely repeat it.
// You seem even more convinced as more and more AB'ers with solid reputations for clear and concise argument come on to disagree with you. //
Reputation is irrelevant; what matters is the argument *now*. People have merely repeated that economics was the main or sole driving force behind slavery. That isn't a clear argument. It's just a contradiction. Show me an example, as I said, where the sole and overriding factor was economic rather than racial and I'll listen. Merely insisting that it must be so without evidence isn't "clear and concise argument".
//You would not even think to enslave a people if you did not look down on them.//
I haven’t read the whole thread so I don’t know if anyone, apart from you, Jim, has suggested that people were enslaved *because* others ‘looked down on them’, but that wasn’t the reason. Slavers and owners doubtless looked down on them - everyone looks down on someone else in one way or another - which is where human nature comes in - but racism wasn’t the reason they were abducted into the slave trade. Slaves were regarded as a lucrative commodity - and unsophisticated Africans were an easy target.
//I do not accept that money is the sole or primary motivator.//
Money was the only motivator. There’s no benefit in keeping a slave who doesn’t earn his keep.
I haven’t read the whole thread so I don’t know if anyone, apart from you, Jim, has suggested that people were enslaved *because* others ‘looked down on them’, but that wasn’t the reason. Slavers and owners doubtless looked down on them - everyone looks down on someone else in one way or another - which is where human nature comes in - but racism wasn’t the reason they were abducted into the slave trade. Slaves were regarded as a lucrative commodity - and unsophisticated Africans were an easy target.
//I do not accept that money is the sole or primary motivator.//
Money was the only motivator. There’s no benefit in keeping a slave who doesn’t earn his keep.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles49 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.