Thanks...

#83
#83
therealUT said:
This is not all that he said, though. I will repost the exact same quote this thread began with:
Click to expand...

I did not read your link. I read your excerpt from the link that you posted. From what I gathered, he was talking about the decedents of the slaves; which I agree with.

therealUT said:
1. Regardless of the consequences three hundred years later, the institution of slavery was an abomination.

2. "The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship". First, not every "black" that endured the conditions was rewarded with citizenship; in fact, the vast majority were not. Second, would you say that you were blessed if you were forced to endure chattel slavery x number of years in return for citizenship in America? How about citizenship in the reconstruction era in the South? Third, why not just say that the Holocaust was a blessing for the Jews? Those that could endure the concentration camps were then given a country in Zion...

3. "Even while in the throes of slavery..." Do you honestly believe that life as a slave in America was better than life would have been in sub-Saharan Africa?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with all this. However, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the actual slaves, not their decedents. Furthermore, if you compare apples to apples, being slaves sold out of the same port, I think one can make the argument that they were "luckier" if they were sold to America vs another country. Doesn't make it right, but fate of their family would change forever based on that decision.
 
#84
#84
therealUT said:
Insofar as there did not exist in 17th and 18th Century Africa what we today would refer to as countries (in the sense of nation-state), your statement is not a fact. There existed principalities, kingdoms, and tribal fiefdoms. Rival groups would raid other groups, enslaving those they captured and then selling those slaves to the Europeans. This was certainly not a case of any type of "fellow countrymen" selling each other into slavery.

However, one need not even take into account how these individuals ended up on a market, as chattel, in order to still posit that any individual who bought them without immediately setting them free was doing something abysmally wrong.

The only ways to justify slavery is either through some really non-reflective method of ethical egoism, or some incredibly dumb system of consequentialism. In doing so, however, you can justify absolutely any "heinous" act you can think of.

Slavery was/is an abomination. Slavery was/is horrible for those enslaved. While in the throes of slavery, almost any alternative is going to be more appealing.
Click to expand...

You are reaching for straws in this post.

Bottom line, Africans were enslaving each other. No doubt the economic triangle drastically increased the economic incentive for Africans to engage in the practice of enslaving each other for profit. Of course, we were apart of the economic triangle.
 
#85
#85
PKT_VOL said:
I did not read your link. I read your excerpt from the link that you posted. From what I gathered, he was talking about the decedents of the slaves; which I agree with.
Click to expand...

I have hard time coming to the same conclusion (that he was speaking of the descendants and not the actual slaves) based purely on the words that he used: specifically, "those who endured" and "even while in the throes of slavery".

PKT_VOL said:
I don't disagree with all this. However, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about the actual slaves, not their decedents. Furthermore, if you compare apples to apples, being slaves sold out of the same port, I think one can make the argument that they were "luckier" if they were sold to America vs another country. Doesn't make it right, but fate of their family would change forever based on that decision.
Click to expand...

One might be able to make the argument that if they were sold to America, survived the voyage, and ended up with a "decent" owner and set of overseers, they would have been luckier than if they had remained enslaved on the continent. However, seeing as their are historians who make claims that up to 45% of the slaves died in the voyages and in staging areas in the Caribbean, I cannot consent to the line that these individuals were luckier by being sold to America as opposed to enslaved in Africa (unless, you simply want to restrict the pool to the 55% who survived; but, then why not restrict the pool of the African slaves and get rid of 45% who were cruelly killed/raped, etc.)

Further, the children of the slaves in America cannot be said to hold the same relationship, relevant to "luckier" that the slaves who were sold from Africa to the Americas held with those who remained enslaved in Africa. These children were born enslaved; and, the option for those who kept them enslaved was simply: keep them enslaved or set them free (no argument for "betterment" because we are buying them and taking them away from remaining enslaved in Africa).

PKT_VOL said:
You are reaching for straws in this post.

Bottom line, Africans were enslaving each other. No doubt the economic triangle drastically increased the economic incentive for Africans to engage in the practice of enslaving each other for profit. Of course, we were apart of the economic triangle.
Click to expand...

Of course Africans were enslaving each other. It was an abominable practice. Actively taking part in and supporting that practice is abominable.
 
#86
#86
DD4ME said:
The rise of countries and economies typically follows the path of cheap labor. The cheapest of labor is that which is forceably taken. We despise what the Chinese and Indians do with their children and rue that China is flush with cash that we must borrow. We tout our country as the greatest due to the freedoms it affords it's citizens while forgetting that it was largely built on the backs of slaves, and indentured workers.

If we offered to steal your children and rape your women but offered to provide their offspring "better jobs and opportunities" I'm sure all of you to a man would be disgusted yet that is what you press forward with here in these ideals and discussions.
Click to expand...

You do get that no one alive today had anything to do with slavery and indentured servitude, right?

Any blacks on this board want to go live in Africa? I'm going to assume none will say "yes". That's the point. The entire point. It's not a justification for slavery or whatever you're trying to make it mean.

I don't know the circumstances in which my ancestors left Europe. Maybe they were being burned at the stake, maybe they were starving to death. I don't know if they had to endure indentured servitude or not. I do know that whatever they had to deal with I'm sure as hell glad they did it.
 
#87
#87
azVolFan said:
You do get that no one alive today had anything to do with slavery and indentured servitude, right?

Any blacks on this board want to go live in Africa? I'm going to assume none will say "yes". That's the point. The entire point. It's not a justification for slavery or whatever you're trying to make it mean.

I don't know the circumstances in which my ancestors left Europe. Maybe they were being burned at the stake, maybe they were starving to death. I don't know if they had to endure indentured servitude or not. I do know that whatever they had to deal with I'm sure as hell glad they did it.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the institution of slavery is/was an abomination?

The question is that simple. The State Representative from Arkansas is questioning that notion because of the "blessings that blacks in America have today".
 
#88
#88
therealUT said:
I have hard time coming to the same conclusion (that he was speaking of the descendants and not the actual slaves) based purely on the words that he used: specifically, "those who endured" and "even while in the throes of slavery".
Click to expand...

I think it was just a bad word choice. I can't imagine anyone framing it in the way you are perceiving it. I guess I don't believe anyone is that dumb (being the Senator). I know you are hanging on to every word he said. You interpret his quote literally, I interpreted his quote figuratively.

therealUT said:
One might be able to make the argument that if they were sold to America, survived the voyage, and ended up with a "decent" owner and set of overseers, they would have been luckier than if they had remained enslaved on the continent. However, seeing as their are historians who make claims that up to 45% of the slaves died in the voyages and in staging areas in the Caribbean, I cannot consent to the line that these individuals were luckier by being sold to America as opposed to enslaved in Africa (unless, you simply want to restrict the pool to the 55% who survived; but, then why not restrict the pool of the African slaves and get rid of 45% who were cruelly killed/raped, etc.)
Click to expand...

I said compare apples to apples. Slaves sold to different countries than America. I was not comparing unsold slaves in Africa to sold slaves in America. If you reread my post, you will catch your mistake.

therealUT said:
Further, the children of the slaves in America cannot be said to hold the same relationship, relevant to "luckier" that the slaves who were sold from Africa to the Americas held with those who remained enslaved in Africa. These children were born enslaved; and, the option for those who kept them enslaved was simply: keep them enslaved or set them free (no argument for "betterment" because we are buying them and taking them away from remaining enslaved in Africa).
Click to expand...

Again, apples to apples. A slave born in America was luckier than slaves born in other parts of the world (in my opinion). Their distant decedents (today) are obviously luckier; as are all of us who happened to be born in America.

therealUT said:
Of course Africans were enslaving each other. It was an abominable practice. Actively taking part in and supporting that practice is abominable.
Click to expand...

I would argue not as egregious as the actual enslavers. Still egregious, just to a slightly less degree.
 
#89
#89
therealUT said:
Do you think that the institution of slavery is/was an abomination?

The question is that simple. The State Representative from Arkansas is questioning that notion because of the "blessings that blacks in America have today".
Click to expand...

Of course I do. Come on man.

Just because some good came out of it does not mean it was justified. If he is actually making that point he is wrong to do so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top