Originally posted by dadudemon
😆No thanks. I'll wait until a better offer comes my way. Besides, you can't offer me reparations on behalf of the U.S. when you are a UK cit.
Probably not the best idea to give out reparations in the form of pieces of paper with a picture of a slave owner on them anyway.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not quite true. Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South in order to add justification for the Civil War, slavery actually remained legal in the North for a while afterward.
That is false on both accounts.
Lincoln abolished slavery to free the slaves. 😐 They were already at war. The southerners declared that it was another tactic by the Union to cut off their economic ability to sustain war. It was also to turn the slaves against their slave holders.
The reason for war was the secession of several southern states from the union..
Edit - AND slavery of the Southern states.
Also, slavery was illegal in many Northern States Well before the Civil War.
Here is a list of the states that slavery was illegal in, before the Civil War, in alphabetical order:
California
Connecticut
Kansas.
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wisconsin
Note: I did not check this list. That was off the top of my head. I had to have it memorized for my test yesterday...of which, I missed one question. I dare you to prove that my list isn't complete. 😐
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
Ofcourse, we would have come around to the point where we realised that slavery is completely wrong and the slaves would have been freed, but it would have been much later, and we would probably be either in or just entering the civil rights movement right now.
But we certainly DID have states that came around as early as 1780. (Massachusetts)
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
So, take it how you want. Lincoln did a great thing and righted a great wrong, but it wasn't for righting that wrong that he did what he did. He instead did it to quell revolution.
Lincoln was anti-slavery well before he was president. He lost an election to the senate in 1858 to Stephne A. Douglas. Part of his platform for senate election in Illinois was that slavery was morally wrong.
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
And also contrary to what seems to be a popular belief, the Civil War was not about slavery, it was States Rights vs. Federal Rights.
This is incorrect.
It was mostly about slavery. Fer realz. 😐
If it was about state rights versus federal rights, then explain the South's support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
The south wanted to ceced from the north, and the north didn't want that,
But why didn't they want that? It's because they wanted to keep their slaves. They were losing a battle of slavery. The balance was broken with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which nulled the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
So they fought. Slavery, like Chaos said, was tagged on later to add justification to the war, and to, like I previously stated, quell any future uprisings from the south.
The war did not need further justification and that wasn't the intentions.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Exactly.
Besides, between 1530 and 1780 almost million and a quater white Europeans were enslaved by various Middle Eastern countries. Slavery, unfortunately still exists in Islamic world (most notably Saudi Arabia)Robert C. Davis wrote about this.
Slavery is not an American nor European phenomenon, nor did it start with African enslavement.
I doubt any of them could have freed themselves on their own.
given that the topic is about the freeing of black slaves from white masters, I hardly see how the international/interracial/non-time specific abstract idea of slavery is relevant. Nor about who else has had how many slaves and when.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh...don't forget about the hundreds of thousands of white Northerners who fought for the slaves' freedom. You know, the ones who actually freed the slaves.
A) America was one of the last (if not the last, some Caribbean nation might have lasted longer...) white country to outlaw slavery (maybe barring some E-European ones, but concerning the North Atlantic trade route, it was at least half a century behind the rest of Europe).
B) The northerners didn't just wake up and think black people were equal. The abolitionist movement, which, QUELLE SUPRISE!, existed before the Americans outlawed slavery, had already been successful all around the world in convincing Christians that there was no moral footing to slavery.
Proof: Olaudah Equiano's slaver narrative, which was PIVOTAL in convincing white Christians that slavery was wrong. In his book, using the language and religion of his oppressors, he is able to basically show that it is unchristian to hold slaves. He died not 2 decades after the American Revolution. That is where the white Americans, decades later, got their justification for abolition. America was behind the times when it came to ending slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaudah_Equiano#Pioneer_of_the_abolitionist_cause
and wow. A civil war history class? For realz dude! and at an American institution?????
My courses on black culture and history, with focus on the impact that black people had on both their emancipation and oppression, both past and current, must overqualify me for this conversation... No more need to measure penises?
Originally posted by dadudemon
If I'm not mistaken, there were even white people that were slaves before 1865. (In the US.)
No other forms of slavery have involved such international institutions as the North Atlantic Trade route.
True, slavery is a human phenomenon. I may take issue with the term, but the "Chattel" like treatment of blacks, the vicious inhumanity, and the industry behind it are, as far as I know, unique to this context. Maybe only matched by ancient civs? I dont know...
No other slaves have been such a commodity in such an industry.
To be completely clear, slavery was important because of money not morality. Let's please keep in mind that slaves were property that amounted today to a new mid grade car, labor would have to be paid, the South consistently skipped tariff payments to the federal government (i.e. the North), Europe had already moved to industrialization, and so many other reason related to money lead to the war.
That would be true if blacks were treated like machinery when they were kept as slaves.
Beating them into submission, raping their women, sadistic murder, all of these things paint slavery as a non-economic system. The proof was that slaves who were better treated were not only more profitable, but were more loyal and less likely to attempt escape.
Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.
Originally posted by inimalistBlack slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.
I'm getting more of at the why it happened rather than the reasons given for it.
Hardly any large scale violent conflict is actually based on the moral grounds given, instead often the people in control doing something that gives them capital gain.
I believe there were white people who truly believed slavery was unfair, but that on it's own would not be enough to "free" slaves without other incentives. There is hardly any evidence for the rest of the 19th century that suggest that most U.S. citizens believed blacks should be treated equally (and well into the 20th century).
I do not disagree with your points though. 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.
Entirely in religious terms? Not true, scientists at the time honestly believed black people were genetically inferior and others felt that giving black people stuff to do might improve them.
Originally posted by inimalist
No other forms of slavery have involved such international institutions as the North Atlantic Trade route.
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of ''black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after'' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.
It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.
The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.
Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they're not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?
Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?
Of course it is relevant!
Yet you're so engrossed in ''we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt''. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.
I don't come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this idea that slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
It did not. It had to do with economics.
Originally posted by inimalist
That would be true if blacks were treated like machinery when they were kept as slaves.Beating them into submission, raping their women, sadistic murder, all of these things paint slavery as a non-economic system. The proof was that slaves who were better treated were not only more profitable, but were more loyal and less likely to attempt escape.
Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.
Shut the hell up and go back to training for the special olympics. Your posts are making me go blind!
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of \'\'black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after\'\' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.
The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.
Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they\'re not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?
Of course it is relevant!
Yet you\'re so engrossed in \'\'we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt\'\'. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.
I don\'t come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this type of slavery where black people are oppressed and white are the oppressors as if the slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
AS Ali G would have said, Is it because i is black?
Originally posted by chithappens
I'm getting more of at the why it happened rather than the reasons given for it.Hardly any large scale violent conflict is actually based on the moral grounds given, instead often the people in control doing something that gives them capital gain.
I don't know if that is necessarily true. I think it is fair to say that external factors influence people, but, not to sound glib, how many more middle class Muslims with university degrees need to blow themselves up before personal beliefs are seen as a strong motivator for action?
I don't think the two are the same, suicide bombing and slavery, and obviously if there were no economic benefit, at the very least, no major industry and trade route would have been created. But, even with modern technology, slavery would still be more profitable than not. The time when Britain had abolished slavery, yet America still had it, when you claim Britain was modernizing and industrializing, was when the American economy began to become the force it was today. Even with industrialized equipment, the profit motive would have said "keep slavery".
Originally posted by chithappens
I believe there were white people who truly believed slavery was unfair, but that on it's own would not be enough to "free" slaves without other incentives. There is hardly any evidence for the rest of the 19th century that suggest that most U.S. citizens believed blacks should be treated equally (and well into the 20th century).
The American context may have had more to do with economics, I'm not sure, and maybe the abolition of slavery more so than the justification and continuation of it.
My only point would be that, were white slave masters more interested in money than in the power over another person, they would have treated the slaves better, because it was well known, even to slaves, that better treated slaves were more productive and profitable.
Even the types of mistreatment. Like, you can't rape a cow's sister and have it be particularly relevant to the cow, you can't whip a tractor into submission, or putting uncomfortable gags and bindings on a pitchfork doesn't really have a desired effect. These were humiliations, and required that the slaves were treated as humans, though treated VERY poorly. This is actually the reason I take issue with the term "Chattel" slavery. They weren't chattel, it was the human aspect of the oppression that is most salient, imho.
Originally posted by chithappens
I do not disagree with your points though. 🙂
nor I with yours, something like this can't have a single cause.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of ''black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after'' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.
The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.
Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they're not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?
Of course it is relevant!
Yet you're so engrossed in ''we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt''. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.
I don't come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this idea that slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
It did not. It had to do with economics.
I'd be careful before you start putting words in my mouth.
I said that the industry behind the north atlantic slave route was unique in the history of slavery, and to the best of my knowledge it is. Please prove me wrong.
I did say something comparing the institution of the slave trade and the treatment of people vs other forms of slavery. I would argue that the examples above aren't the same form of institutional slave trade, but point taken. To note though, what you quoted of mine deals solely with the international slave trade institutions, which would be very hard to find an analog for, as the political context of the British Empire was huge in enabling the trade to form in the first place.
Nothing I've said should indicate I support reparations. This would be because I don't.
I've just made a couple of posts to Chit outlining why I feel the symbolism and morality in the justifications for the north atlantic slave route play at least as large of a role as the economics, feel free to respond to those specific points.
My point about relevance would be because of the thread title, which is "Why did blacks need white to free them from slavery". I assume the OP isn't talking about coke.
When talking about the specific reasons for the abolition of black slavery from whites, whether or not Muslims enslave people is 100% irrelevant. That doesn't mean it isn't important or isn't worse, just that the topics have nothing to do with each other except that they are generally about the topic "slavery". The thread isn't about general slavery, but rather the specific example of whites enslaving blacks. Unless you would make the argument that all slavery is the same and happens for the same reasons.
Well, in the part of the world I come from, we like to talk about things from a less reactionary viewpoint. I wasn't even saying the memes you are replying to.
Originally posted by inimalist
A) America was one of the last (if not the last, some Caribbean nation might have lasted longer...) white country to outlaw slavery (maybe barring some E-European ones, but concerning the North Atlantic trade route, it was at least half a century behind the rest of Europe).
Brazil was the last of us western countries to end slavery.
Originally posted by inimalist
B) The northerners didn't just wake up and think black people were equal. The abolitionist movement, which, QUELLE SUPRISE!, existed before the Americans outlawed slavery, had already been successful all around the world in convincing Christians that there was no moral footing to slavery.
You're correct. It started in the North as early as 1780. I mentioned this already.
In fact, some colonists came to the Americas already being against slavery.
Originally posted by inimalist
Proof: Olaudah Equiano's slaver narrative, which was PIVOTAL in convincing white Christians that slavery was wrong. In his book, using the language and religion of his oppressors, he is able to basically show that it is unchristian to hold slaves. He died not 2 decades after the American Revolution. That is where the white Americans, decades later, got their justification for abolition. America was behind the times when it came to ending slavery.
1. Your reference is out of chronological context. Equiano's narrative was sociologically important to ending SLAVE TRADE, not slavery. Sure, it was a small contributing factor for the abolitionists, but it was not nearly as big of a factor as other works more recent to pre-Civil War time period.
If you want to pull that it helped change the minds of the Northerners so that they would free their slaves and make it illegal, fine. That's great. But it is not in the same league as Uncle Tom's Cabin, as far as influence goes for the Civil War.
2. The distinction of heavily influencing both politics and the sociological acceptability of slavery goes to Uncle Tom's Cabin. Guess which book sold more copies than any other book except the bible, in the 19th century?
3. It should be obvious why other works such as 12 Years a Slave didn't carry as much weight as HB Stowe's work of fiction: She was white. MANY more people read UT'sC than 12 Years a Slave, during that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaudah_Equiano#Pioneer_of_the_abolitionist_cause
I see your wiki article and raise you another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin#Reactions_to_the_novel
Since my information is coming from Professors. David Goldfield (University of North Carolina), Carl Abbott (Portland State University), Virginia DeJohn Anderson ( University of Colorado, Boulder), Jo Ann E. and Peter H. Argersinger (Southern Illinois University), William L. Barney (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), and Rober M. Weir (University of South Carolina), I'll stick with that for now. No where have I read that Equiano's narrative heavily influenced the minds of the people, shortly before the Civi lWar, as much as UT'sC did. It's unanimous in everything I read that HB Stowe's book was one of the catalysts for the Civil War.
Originally posted by inimalist
and wow. A civil war history class? For realz dude! and at an American institution?????
😆
Don't be sore because someone contradicted you.
Originally posted by inimalist
My courses on black culture and history, with focus on the impact that black people had on both their emancipation and oppression, both past and current, must overqualify me for this conversation... No more need to measure penises?
No. If you're wrong, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what classes you took. I've contradicted you with fact. There's no shame in being wrong. I've been wrong on many occasions.
So what are we actually debating, now?
Anything?
HB Stowe's book was more influential than Equiano's narrative. This is fact.
That's out of the way...what else are we "arguing" about? Anything? I don't think we are.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Entirely in religious terms? Not true, scientists at the time honestly believed black people were genetically inferior and others felt that giving black people stuff to do might improve them.
True, but when you read Galton and the like, there is a clear Christian/Cultural influence on the work.
It was a case of having the answer and working backwards. I would compare it to the evolutionary and geological science being done by the Discover institute, only in those days it was mainstream science.
Point taken though.