You know all races was a slave at some point in time or another but you know let's only remember the last ones we had.
I mean Jewish people were slaves. One point to have a Blond haired blue eyed slave was popular and you know what race that is don't you.
I might get down voted but it's the truth. And honestly we need to move on the people alive today didn't own a slave. Maybe in other countries there are some but I don't know. But in America we stopped long ago before even our grandparents.
We need to move on and just try to treat others as we want to be treated. As human. Man woman or and race or gender or sexual orientation or nationality. We are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.
It was almost 100 years ago that the government of Nazi Germany surrendered. Most Germans today had nothing to do with the Nazis or what they did. I’d like to think and do think that most Germans today would not join the Nazis if they tried to take the country again. Seeing that few if anyone alive today was part of that, or say in another 20 years when they’re all effectively dead- and that it happened so long ago- shall we forget about the Nazis, forget about what they did to the Jewish people?
Can most any discussion of modern geo politics or Hewish culture not in some way call on that history? Israel, without the Nazi treatment of Jews would not exist, who’s policies are shaped in large part by a desire to never face that again. Israel who’s very existence has had a profound impact on the Middle East and global politics. When we forget is when we allow it to happen again.
The concept of "moving on" doesn't really exist when talking about large, historical concepts. You can't "move on" from the transatlantic slave trade because it has informed so much of the history of the United States that we are still feeling it's effects today.
The Nazis stole art and money and other things from across the globe. The rulers and elites brought them home to provide them riches and allow them to provide for their children. A child who did nothing wrong, took nothing and hurt no one but was born to a Nazi parent- is found with wealth and treasure stollen from a French family. Does that wealth not go back to France? Should the people of Poland not have their cultural and historical artifacts returned to them because “it happened a long time ago and this kid didn’t take it. His great grandpa did. By the law of finders keepers it is now his.” Is that the rule? You can benefit from misdeeds as long as you didn’t partake and it was long enough ago?
But.... don’t we still celebrate our Independence Day? Don’t we still celebrate thanks giving day? On Memorial Day- are we only honoring those who served their country RECENTLY, are those who fought Korea, WW1 and 2, the revolution- are they NOT included in Memorial Day because it was so long ago? We should move on?
The civil war ended before slavery was over and Black Americans were truly free. We reenact the battles don’t we? Have statues? Name ships and buildings and parks after those on both sides? Some still fly the flag of their side, and aren’t so many people proud to say that their relative fought that war so long ago?
Do we end the reservations and any other aid or concessions to native Americans because it’s time they get over it? It’s odd to me that people are quick to say that the shame of slavery doesn’t touch them- it happened before they were born. They didn’t have anything to do with it. Yet... we immortalize our founding fathers and their exploits. We are proud of our military tradition, of the feats of engineering by past Americans.
We still like to point out what WE did in World War Two. Why- WE helped beat back the Nazis! WE were the first to put a man on the moon! It’s getting hard to find people of age to have taken part in an event from 1969, not to mention those of us who were alive- a small percentage had anything to do with it.
So to recap: when it is a point of pride, distinction, in our heritage- we mustn’t forget. Our military victories, our technological and cultural advances, those good things we did- we can’t forget those even if WE had nothing to do with them or weren’t even alive. BUT- if it shames is, if it is inconvenient- and it has been long enough- we need to let it go. I believe that is the point you are making?
On the subject of taking what we can learn and moving on... that doesn’t work so well on the “wronged” end. Taiwan isn’t about to move on and accept the communists overthrew the previous leadership. Should Hong Kong move on and concede to China? Or perhaps the British shouldn’t have returned Hong Kong to China since that was such an old deal? If the UK didn’t return HK- should China have just shrugged and learned a future lesson not to trust the Brits? What about post WW2 treaties with Axis countries- if they violate those treaties that are SOOO old should we just say it’s a lesson not to trust them but nothing else needs done? If Germany or Japan refused to give back the territory they took- it’s all even and we just learn for the future?
If they find royal jewels stolen by the axis in the war in 2019, should those stay with the great great great grandkid of the guy that stole them- or go back to the family or country they belonged to before being stolen? Does the dependent of the Axis thief lose their jewels? NO. they were never theirs. They were taken from someone else no? You don’t own something if it’s stollen even if you didn’t steal it.
@mrscollector@strongsad indeed. There's ugliness in every race throughout history. They've all been victims and villains. And it's fine to acknowledge that. But eventually people need to shift their focus from blame and onto healing and growing. If we can't do that, then there is no hope for humanity. We'll forever be forced into molds carved by generations before us, cast in roles we never played. The damage will never heal. We'll all pay for the sins of our fathers for all time
.
History makes slaves of us all in one way or another it seems
The reason why the Trans Atlantic slave trade is significant is because for the first time people were traded and sold as a commodity off which people profited. Keep in mind that the trans atlantic slave trade went on for 4 centuries, that's millions of people who were displaced and forced into a new life in a new place. And if that wasn't bad enough, they were also stripped of all identity and forced to forge a new one. Which in turn gave rise to new religions, new forms of politics, new forms of music and ways of communicating. So although slavery was not uncommon in all parts of the world, the Trans Atlantic Slave trade was the first type of grand scale slavery to have a global impact that is still felt today. And that is why we can't simply move on.
Whataboutism strikes again. There were about 130,000 rapes reported to law enforcement in the US in 2018. So if one guy only committed a tiny percent of those- why would we make a big deal about it? If The Russians carried out 90% of the cleansings during the purge, and other USSR governments only carried out 10%, well heck- why bother making a fuss about those 10%? Let Brazil worry about Brazil. We don’t make policy in Brazil. It isn’t our job to set right What Brazil did before we set right what our forefathers did. After our house is clean we can go talk to Brazil if we want. Don’t try and point fingers at others to avoid an unpleasant subject.
Source?
Not that I don't believe it, but am curious
1Reply
deleted
· 4 years ago
I have no idea what this should mean. Does it make any difference if slaves came directly from africa or from some transfer station outside of africa? It's just another shitty attempt to muddy the waters and reject accountability.
I believe the point of the post is not to say "we got some slaves from Africa but most of them we got from elsewhere." I believe it is trying to point out that slavery was very prevalent within Africa's own borders, as well as in other countries. And not just Africans were victims of the slave trade. And not just white europeans/americans were guilty of owning slaves.
.
There's a supposed estimate that around a million Europeans were taken into the barbary slave trade, but that's a guess at best. That particular slave cycle spanned a few centuries if memory serves correct. And, no, not all of them had it even remotely better than African slaves in America.
.
The slave trade has been wide and extremely pervasive in almost all parts of the world, and some of it -- particularly sex slavery -- is still prominent today.
I am always curious where abolitionists figure into this, though. Whenever topics of slavery come up it always seems to be "victim vs villain," as dictated by the color of your skin.
It never seems to take into account the shades of grey. There were black slave owners. There were black men and women who helped procure slaves, or punish others, and perpetuated the cycle. Not all of them were motivated by fear.
.
And there were white people who did everything in their power to help slaves find any hope of freedom. They bought them and treated them fairly because the price of freedom was too steep for them to afford. Or they helped the slaves escape. They risked their homes and families and lives to put an end to something terrible.
People are very content to scream about what they're owed because of what happened to their ancestors.. And some of them are still suffering fallout. But if someone else's ancestors already risked life and limb and potentially died to put an end to their suffering... what debt is left for their children to pay?
.
This isn't a topic that will get anywhere because people already have their minds made up. I just find it odd that this is always an aspect of slavery that's ignored. People really do want it to be a black and white issue, and never the twain shall meet
When we went to Baghdad, we didn’t target anyone specific who wasn’t raising arms against us. We were there for the regime and the wrongs it did. The people of Baghdad by and large couldn’t stop those wrongs. Some tried in various ways. Some may have loved America- even helped us. We tried to leave the hospitals and things that were not a part of the fighting alone- we didn’t target anyone but we still destroyed the streets they walked on. The offices and homes they lived in. The power grid and telecom grid they relied on.
That’s how that fits in. We did the same in Europe and Japan and all over the world that’s been done in one way or another. Because there are no bystanders in stuff like this. You’re either a part of the problem- or part of the solution. We are Americans. We live in America. We benefit in direct or indirect ways by misdeed done by Americans. By being an American and celebrating an Independence Day you weren’t alive for, so on and so on- by taking the benefits of men and women who came before you you take on their load too. That’s how this all works.
Japan and Germany are still tied up militarily and otherwise for what their great great and great great great ancestors did Does the Russian Federation get to just forge about all their nuclear sites and other weapons because “hey man, I was never a Soviet Communist. I didn’t make that stuff...” Of course not. It’s a problem- and who’s problem should it be? Should Ukraine have to clean up a nuclear site that provided materials for weapons currently benefiting Russia because it wasn’t them it was their fathers? Whoever takes the legacy takes it all. Good and bad. A Soviet defector or traitor living in Russia- their taxes will pay those disposals too even if they resisted the USSR because they live there NOW. It’s a Russian problem and they.. are Russian.
As for the kindly slave owner- by that logic I guess if a guy sees a group of dudes about to rape you, and is scared or unable to stop them, if he rapes you so they won’t, but is gentler about it- he must be a hero yeah?
Like I said: your mind is already made up.
.
You want to live in the black and the white.
.
To keep things simple I'll address only one issue: the kindly slave owner.
.
Let's be clear: freeing slaves in some parts of America was almost impossible. It was horrifically expensive (yes, you had to PAY to buy them and then pay to free them iirc), they were guaranteed no quality of life, and there was almost nothing in place to stop them from being re-enslaved, treated like shit, or even killed.
.
The "slave-owners" in this scenario want to help. They see slavery is wrong. They alone can't stop it - no one is listening. So now they have a choice: commit suicide by championing a cause to a mob that won't listen, likely also taking the rest of their family with them.... Or try to help in the way they can. Protect and give a quality of life to the ones they can buy. Keep them as slaves in name only but treat them fairly.
They keep families together. Don't rape them or beat them or force them to change their names. Maybe even eventually try to get them somewhere they can be free - if they want to go.
.
In your eyes someone who does this is the same as someone who kidnaps and sells children to be raped, men to be tortured, women to be beaten. And they deserve the same fate.
.
And, hero? Who said hero? In some instances ABSOLUTELY the abolitionists were heroes. And I guarantee some of the people they helped would say the same.
In the rape scenario - the "guy" in question doesn't want to rape anyone. The guys who were planning on raping her are wearing a contraption straight out of Se7en. She's not going to survive. There's at least a dozen other guys surrounding them. There's no way out. They're on an island, far away from anyone who might care about what's about to occur. No help is coming.
.
So it's clear: this is GOING to happen. It's been happening. If he tries to stop them, not only will she not survive, but neither will he. Now they're both dead, but hey, at least he didn't do anything that was morally vague, right?
.
And let's be clear - he doesnt have to participate at all. He could just turn away and let them do what they want.
.
Or he gets involved, participates in something he DOES NOT WANT TO DO. Makes sure she isn't horrifyingly mangled and tortured to death. Saves her life, gets her out of there.
He then does his best to get as many girls out of that situation as possible. And then, when it's finally over, and the authorities arrive... they take him out back and shoot him in the head because he's a rapist, just like the rest of 'em. And that's justice. Right?
.
All I can say is you paint a horrifying view of the world. People are either 100% on your side or they are the enemy.
.
I think the thing I find most bizarre is that YOU are the one often accusing others of having a narrow viewpoint. But then you make posts like this.
You assume a lot there. It’s a straight forward question, reframing the scenario changes the question. It doesn’t matter how nice a prisoner is treated if they are still a prisoner does it? It’s better to be a prisoner treated nicely than a prisoner treated poorly- but if you were kidnapped and I bought you and kept you as mine- would that mitigate that to you? “He keeps me as property but meh. I eat better than these other trafficked folks so what a great guy he is.”
You forget the part where he's himself made destitute and/or murdered if he tries to free them. Aren't you the one who told me that not everyone is a gunslinger?
Not everyone is. Faced with death of dishonor, harm of harming another- most people will choose the latter: especially if they have others who rely upon them. That’s a general truism. 2 men lost at sea long enough on a raft- one eats the other or they both die. That’s the truth. The distinction is that you ain’t a hero for being the fella what got ate; but you’re sure as hell not the hero for killing and eating someone to save yourself.
So... we are talking ONLY about slave owners who SPECIFICALLY bought slaves for the SLAVES good? Not people who bought slaves for their own good but just weren’t excessively cruel? Because while I a acknowledge some slave owners were almost hospitable to their slaves- THEIR slaves says what needs said. Anyone except those who specifically bought slaves to free them, by vast majority- used them as... slaves. If one guy in the cave bunker protected a US soldier from being abused as bad as he could have been but is still ISIS or Taliban- you’re really gonna say that he gets a free pass? He’s as good as one of our team?
Maybe he’s better than his pals. But if a team is going in or a bomb is on the way- are you gonna risk your life to warn him? Would you say he doesn’t need to be taken in, he gets cut loose because he followed good manners when dealing with his prisoner?
Slaves were still slaves. Find me a name. A name of a guy who we can confirm kept slaves but allowed them total freedom. Who did profit sharing or paid wages, allowed them to come and go as they pleased and held them equal in rights and status to any other employee. Find the name of this guy who is our hypothetical example of the benevolent slave owner- who’s slaves got the full benefit and freedom of their work as a free man would.
No, we're talking about slavers specifically. As a rule they should see the barrel of a gun or the end of a rope, but there is no reason not to distinguish the kind from the cruel, or the reluctant from the eager.
Not so much Haji vs slightly less terrible Haji, more like... Haji vs Kurd.
Because right not we are talking about a hypothetical situation that all but didn’t exist- and if did exist was in the extreme pocket case. It’s fair to say this guy or that guy was better than most for their time or place- but not to say they were good. When you’ve got bad and worse as choices- wether that’s in a life-raft or buying slaves or whatever- you do what you have to do. The thing that you can’t afford not to. That’s harsh reality. But choosing bad over worse doesn’t make you a hero. No man I’ve ever known who had much of anyone’s respect ever claimed the high ground for choosing the lesser of two evils. They did what they had to do.
Understand that. It’s critical, especially when we are talking life and death or weighing these lives against the other when its decision time. You can save 100 peoples lives and still feel real shitty about how you had to do it. That’s what being human is- being a real grown up in the real and ugly world is; when results are the primary concern. Distill it down- a man only can serve one master. The choices you make shows who that is.
You’re on a critical mission. You’re buddy goes down. No one else on the field but you. Scrub the mission and save your pal- or stop the next embassy bombing or this threat or that. Tick Tock on the clock- If he doesn’t get out now he dies. Know it. If you go off mission to extract you leave the rest of your team in the wind, and fail the objective. Your friend or your country and your team? Your answer here doesn’t matter. Hope you never have to find out- but those are the moments where who you really serve become clear.
So- I call bullshit on “saint slave driver.” Maybe this guy treated his slaves relatively well- but when he bought those slaves, kept those slaves, profited off those slaves- he made it clear it wasn’t the slaves who he was virtuously defending. It’s nice that some kind of “better than the alternative” came out of it- but you can’t paint that as “noble slave owner buys slaves to save them from a worse fate” as much as you could paint it “man has guilt over own actions. Lacks conviction to set right. Is complacent in wrong but tries to settle his nerves by at least doing less wrong.”
You're judging men of the past by modern sensibilities. Do that and all of us are monsters.
This cannot be related to military matters, your comparison is nonsensical to the argument. There is a clear cut answer, but that's irrelevant. Nobody is calling slavers saints, I've already said my piece.
Guest_ you're demonstrating that you don't actually understand the way the world worked during the slave trade, a complete disinterest in acknowledging any of those details, and are once again arguing points that I at the very least did not make.
.
It is good to know, I suppose, that if a situation ever arises where someone has to choose between saving someone's life and compromising their own morals they are free to let that person die knowing they're on the right side of history. Anything to keep that moral highground.
.
.
And fyi - "we're not talking about a hypothetical situation that didn't exist." And yet you turned slavery into a guy raping a girl so other guys wouldn't.
Says the person who in the past 3 threads we’ve debated can’t answer direct and simple questions. You can’t even define what a man or a woman is yet you were arguing for 2 genders. But I defer to your masters in American history and surely as it was only a minor for me I do not understand it as well as you.
Add the orgs etc. figure the rest out. Use google. Read something besides minstrel pamphlets and get to the fact that the credible community of American history will almost ALL agree that the “happy slave” is bullshit. Were there a few? Sure. By and large the closest most any reputable historian gets to saying “good slave owner” is to admit as I have- buying a family and then not setting them free was about as “good” as it got.
Believe what you want. Go read. REEEEAD. FOR GODS SAKE I WISH YOU PEOPLE KNEW HOW TO READ. Get your fucking news somewhere besides memes because it is WELL DOCUMENTED fact that can be easily sourced that the “happy slave” is sugar coated revisionist history. It’s white guilt and bedtime stories. I’m done with this thread.
You all get backed up and throw around words like “straw man” (often incorrectly in application) when you have no ammo. I already asked FOR A NAME. ONE NAME. OF ANY PERSON, VERIFIED IN A PEER REVIEWED HISTORY PUBLICATION- who supposedly was so benevolent. You haven’t produced it. This conversation is done until you can do that. Otherwise talk all you want in ignorance. Prove it with citations or it’s an opinion. Go. Be gone. Teacher is tired tonight. I’ll try to educate you urchins more tomorrow if you do your homework like good kids.
Says the man who, when faced repeatedly with a direct question in a previous thread, responded with "it's not my job to answer you."
.
And, no, hon, once again I didn't argue for two genders. I said the basis of genders is rooted in biology and our reproductive organs. Nobody has to LIKE that. I don't care. It's kind of like how nobody has to LIKE that slavery existed. That doesn't change the fact that it's part of history. Which you'd have noticed if you weren't so caught up in repeatedly telling me that "Francine mugwort" is a gender but "potato soup" is not.
.
Glad to see you've moved on from that thread, though.
.
I'm not sure what you want me to do about that. Perhaps you can ask your school for a refund. Either they didn't do a very good job, or, alternatively, you simply went in with a closed mind and by the end of it had it completely sealed shut. Either way it sounds like a waste.
And, again, I never argued the slaves were happy with their lot in life. Yet if I were given the choice between compassion and relatively fair treatment versus slow, agonizing march toward death at the hands of someone who lived to torment me... I know which I would pick.
.
I don't recall actually using the term straw man. Not sure if someone else did? I've used it a grand total of once in my life.
This argument is done, provided you can resist the need to get in the last word. I'm not even sure why it got started considering I stated early on there was no point. People come into these discussions with their minds made up and it's all downhill from there.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
"Glad to see you've moved on from that thread, though." - seems like some hasn't
He literally brought it up, mate. I mentioned our conversations in general over the past few months. He made it specifically about THAT thread, and, weirdly, about words I never said to prove a point he desperately wants to make. Again.
.
Nice to know your reading comprehension and ability to follow a conversation has peaked at a sustainable low, though, my friend.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
Yeah, you're right, I missed it. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Gobsmacking concept for you, innit?
Yes, your... humility.. Truly is an impressive thing to behold.
.
And I do, indeed, find you admitting you're wrong a gobsmacking concept. It must be something you've just taken up today. If only you could manage it without the snark you might almost come across as sincere. Alas.
Age is LITERALLY defined by date of birth. I believe you're getting it mixed up with maturity, Vizzini
deleted
· 4 years ago
That's precisely what I meant with schoolyard comebacks. You're exactly the type of brat who thinks they're smart after 1st year senior high. Just get fucked.
I mean Jewish people were slaves. One point to have a Blond haired blue eyed slave was popular and you know what race that is don't you.
I might get down voted but it's the truth. And honestly we need to move on the people alive today didn't own a slave. Maybe in other countries there are some but I don't know. But in America we stopped long ago before even our grandparents.
We need to move on and just try to treat others as we want to be treated. As human. Man woman or and race or gender or sexual orientation or nationality. We are all human beings and we all deserve to be treated as such.
.
History makes slaves of us all in one way or another it seems
Not that I don't believe it, but am curious
>no one is a slaver
Seems solved to me.
.
There's a supposed estimate that around a million Europeans were taken into the barbary slave trade, but that's a guess at best. That particular slave cycle spanned a few centuries if memory serves correct. And, no, not all of them had it even remotely better than African slaves in America.
.
The slave trade has been wide and extremely pervasive in almost all parts of the world, and some of it -- particularly sex slavery -- is still prominent today.
It never seems to take into account the shades of grey. There were black slave owners. There were black men and women who helped procure slaves, or punish others, and perpetuated the cycle. Not all of them were motivated by fear.
.
And there were white people who did everything in their power to help slaves find any hope of freedom. They bought them and treated them fairly because the price of freedom was too steep for them to afford. Or they helped the slaves escape. They risked their homes and families and lives to put an end to something terrible.
.
This isn't a topic that will get anywhere because people already have their minds made up. I just find it odd that this is always an aspect of slavery that's ignored. People really do want it to be a black and white issue, and never the twain shall meet
.
You want to live in the black and the white.
.
To keep things simple I'll address only one issue: the kindly slave owner.
.
Let's be clear: freeing slaves in some parts of America was almost impossible. It was horrifically expensive (yes, you had to PAY to buy them and then pay to free them iirc), they were guaranteed no quality of life, and there was almost nothing in place to stop them from being re-enslaved, treated like shit, or even killed.
.
The "slave-owners" in this scenario want to help. They see slavery is wrong. They alone can't stop it - no one is listening. So now they have a choice: commit suicide by championing a cause to a mob that won't listen, likely also taking the rest of their family with them.... Or try to help in the way they can. Protect and give a quality of life to the ones they can buy. Keep them as slaves in name only but treat them fairly.
.
In your eyes someone who does this is the same as someone who kidnaps and sells children to be raped, men to be tortured, women to be beaten. And they deserve the same fate.
.
And, hero? Who said hero? In some instances ABSOLUTELY the abolitionists were heroes. And I guarantee some of the people they helped would say the same.
.
So it's clear: this is GOING to happen. It's been happening. If he tries to stop them, not only will she not survive, but neither will he. Now they're both dead, but hey, at least he didn't do anything that was morally vague, right?
.
And let's be clear - he doesnt have to participate at all. He could just turn away and let them do what they want.
.
Or he gets involved, participates in something he DOES NOT WANT TO DO. Makes sure she isn't horrifyingly mangled and tortured to death. Saves her life, gets her out of there.
.
All I can say is you paint a horrifying view of the world. People are either 100% on your side or they are the enemy.
.
I think the thing I find most bizarre is that YOU are the one often accusing others of having a narrow viewpoint. But then you make posts like this.
It's a slave, a cruel slaver, and a reluctant slaver going out of his way to protect the former from the latter.
Not so much Haji vs slightly less terrible Haji, more like... Haji vs Kurd.
This cannot be related to military matters, your comparison is nonsensical to the argument. There is a clear cut answer, but that's irrelevant. Nobody is calling slavers saints, I've already said my piece.
.
It is good to know, I suppose, that if a situation ever arises where someone has to choose between saving someone's life and compromising their own morals they are free to let that person die knowing they're on the right side of history. Anything to keep that moral highground.
.
.
And fyi - "we're not talking about a hypothetical situation that didn't exist." And yet you turned slavery into a guy raping a girl so other guys wouldn't.
com/identities/2019project-anniversary/8/22/20812883/1619-slavery-
ushistory.0RG/us/27b.asp
history.C0M/news/debunking-slavery-myths
.
And, no, hon, once again I didn't argue for two genders. I said the basis of genders is rooted in biology and our reproductive organs. Nobody has to LIKE that. I don't care. It's kind of like how nobody has to LIKE that slavery existed. That doesn't change the fact that it's part of history. Which you'd have noticed if you weren't so caught up in repeatedly telling me that "Francine mugwort" is a gender but "potato soup" is not.
.
Glad to see you've moved on from that thread, though.
.
I'm not sure what you want me to do about that. Perhaps you can ask your school for a refund. Either they didn't do a very good job, or, alternatively, you simply went in with a closed mind and by the end of it had it completely sealed shut. Either way it sounds like a waste.
.
I don't recall actually using the term straw man. Not sure if someone else did? I've used it a grand total of once in my life.
.
Nice to know your reading comprehension and ability to follow a conversation has peaked at a sustainable low, though, my friend.
.
And I do, indeed, find you admitting you're wrong a gobsmacking concept. It must be something you've just taken up today. If only you could manage it without the snark you might almost come across as sincere. Alas.