Home & Garden0 min 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
Slavery was manifestly about racial superiority, though, so I simply don't understand why you think that is solely a feature of genocide. Besides, the motivation I am thinking about beyond that is the reckless and shocking disregard and devaluing of human life. Yes, economics leaks into slavery more than it does to genocide, but the moral distinctions, and the consequences for the victims, are essentially non-existent. In both cases, many suffer and die; in both cases, a culture's existence and integrity are irreparably damaged. Why, therefore, be so dogmatic about the distinction?
Besides, it is also far from clear that the two can or should be kept separate. Historians are, unsurprisingly, divided on the subject. Especially in the case of the indigenous American tribes, many of those were effectively wiped out either directly or indirectly because of their enslavement. If the end result is the destruction of a culture, how can this not be called a genocide?
No, I simply do not understand either the reason for or the logic behind this argument. I would still tend myself not to call slavery a genocide, but I don't see the point in defending the idea that it was not. It merely trades one utter and abject stain on human history for another.
Besides, it is also far from clear that the two can or should be kept separate. Historians are, unsurprisingly, divided on the subject. Especially in the case of the indigenous American tribes, many of those were effectively wiped out either directly or indirectly because of their enslavement. If the end result is the destruction of a culture, how can this not be called a genocide?
No, I simply do not understand either the reason for or the logic behind this argument. I would still tend myself not to call slavery a genocide, but I don't see the point in defending the idea that it was not. It merely trades one utter and abject stain on human history for another.
jim - // Slavery was manifestly about racial superiority, though, so I simply don't understand why you think that is solely a feature of genocide. //
For reasons that I have already explained.
I am not arguing by-products, as you are, I am arguing motivation, and the motivation behind slavery has absolutely zero to do with racial superiority.
You could, if you stretched your vision, argue that racial superiority emerged as a result of the ethics of slavery, but my point is that it is not the reason why slavery started, and continued. The motivation was free labour in abundance, which is a very easy way to make a lot of money. Commercialism, not dreams, is the basis of slavery, it really is that simple.
Besides, the motivation I am thinking about beyond that is the reckless and shocking disregard and devaluing of human life. Yes, economics leaks into slavery more than it does to genocide, but the moral distinctions, and the consequences for the victims, are essentially non-existent. //
Once again you are trying to link two separate concepts which do not actually link at all, as I have pointed out, and will do so again.
Economics does not 'leak into' slavery, economics is its creation and its driving force - you want to see the basic motivation for slavery as a means to create mass loss of life, when clearly it actually the complete opposite. Living slaves generate money, dead slaves do not, so although slavers may have been irredeemably careless in terms of keeping slaves alive, the simple fact of an inexhaustible supply meant that they didn't need to worry to much about keeping all but the majority alive for the duration of their journey.
// In both cases, many suffer and die; in both cases, a culture's existence and integrity are irreparably damaged. Why, therefore, be so dogmatic about the distinction? //
For reasons I have already outlined.
The distinction is not minor, as you seem to be pressing, it is major, to the point where the two concepts simply do not match up, except in terms of the large loss of life which, as I have pointed out, is caused by entirely different approaches, one through lack of care, and one through deliberate action.
// Besides, it is also far from clear that the two can or should be kept separate. Historians are, unsurprisingly, divided on the subject. Especially in the case of the indigenous American tribes, many of those were effectively wiped out either directly or indirectly because of their enslavement. If the end result is the destruction of a culture, how can this not be called a genocide? //
Now you are moving the goal posts. We started out discussing the slave trade per se, which thrived in Africa, and shipped slaves abroad. Now you want to bring in native Americans, which is a different argument altogether. But the point remains the same - the eradication of tribes was a by-product of enslavement, it was not the reason for it. Had the white settlers started out to eradicate native tribes, and succeeded, that would be genocide. But they didn't, like their travelling associates, they enslaved the tribes because they represented free labour, and the loss of life was once again merely a by-product.
The dodo is extinct because as a species, it didn't recognize the danger from humans. But the humans hunted the dodo to extinction for food, not because they sought to eradicate it from the earth.
The point I am hammering home is that a by-product of one concept does not link it directly to the entire reason for another concept.
// No, I simply do not understand either the reason for or the logic behind this argument. //
Clearly not, I hope I have explained it sufficiently.
// I would still tend myself not to call slavery a genocide, but I don't see the point in defending the idea that it was not. It merely trades one utter and abject stain on human history for another. //
No it does not. Calling something something else does not make it something else.
For reasons that I have already explained.
I am not arguing by-products, as you are, I am arguing motivation, and the motivation behind slavery has absolutely zero to do with racial superiority.
You could, if you stretched your vision, argue that racial superiority emerged as a result of the ethics of slavery, but my point is that it is not the reason why slavery started, and continued. The motivation was free labour in abundance, which is a very easy way to make a lot of money. Commercialism, not dreams, is the basis of slavery, it really is that simple.
Besides, the motivation I am thinking about beyond that is the reckless and shocking disregard and devaluing of human life. Yes, economics leaks into slavery more than it does to genocide, but the moral distinctions, and the consequences for the victims, are essentially non-existent. //
Once again you are trying to link two separate concepts which do not actually link at all, as I have pointed out, and will do so again.
Economics does not 'leak into' slavery, economics is its creation and its driving force - you want to see the basic motivation for slavery as a means to create mass loss of life, when clearly it actually the complete opposite. Living slaves generate money, dead slaves do not, so although slavers may have been irredeemably careless in terms of keeping slaves alive, the simple fact of an inexhaustible supply meant that they didn't need to worry to much about keeping all but the majority alive for the duration of their journey.
// In both cases, many suffer and die; in both cases, a culture's existence and integrity are irreparably damaged. Why, therefore, be so dogmatic about the distinction? //
For reasons I have already outlined.
The distinction is not minor, as you seem to be pressing, it is major, to the point where the two concepts simply do not match up, except in terms of the large loss of life which, as I have pointed out, is caused by entirely different approaches, one through lack of care, and one through deliberate action.
// Besides, it is also far from clear that the two can or should be kept separate. Historians are, unsurprisingly, divided on the subject. Especially in the case of the indigenous American tribes, many of those were effectively wiped out either directly or indirectly because of their enslavement. If the end result is the destruction of a culture, how can this not be called a genocide? //
Now you are moving the goal posts. We started out discussing the slave trade per se, which thrived in Africa, and shipped slaves abroad. Now you want to bring in native Americans, which is a different argument altogether. But the point remains the same - the eradication of tribes was a by-product of enslavement, it was not the reason for it. Had the white settlers started out to eradicate native tribes, and succeeded, that would be genocide. But they didn't, like their travelling associates, they enslaved the tribes because they represented free labour, and the loss of life was once again merely a by-product.
The dodo is extinct because as a species, it didn't recognize the danger from humans. But the humans hunted the dodo to extinction for food, not because they sought to eradicate it from the earth.
The point I am hammering home is that a by-product of one concept does not link it directly to the entire reason for another concept.
// No, I simply do not understand either the reason for or the logic behind this argument. //
Clearly not, I hope I have explained it sufficiently.
// I would still tend myself not to call slavery a genocide, but I don't see the point in defending the idea that it was not. It merely trades one utter and abject stain on human history for another. //
No it does not. Calling something something else does not make it something else.
jim - // And, of course, BA goes to something that contains what is manifestly utter nonsense. Even if you were correct in the end conclusion, the distinction of slavery as economic and genocide as racial is utterly false. //
It is clear that you either do not wish to understand the reasons I haver set out as to why slavery is economic and genocide is racial, or you do understand them and simply think I am wrong.
Either way, there is no point in me posting further
It is clear that you either do not wish to understand the reasons I haver set out as to why slavery is economic and genocide is racial, or you do understand them and simply think I am wrong.
Either way, there is no point in me posting further
jim: "Slavery was manifestly about racial superiority, though, so I simply don't understand why you think that is solely a feature of genocide. " - It's a feature of neither, slavery is an economic choice alone, some would enslave their own granny if it was legal, related only to the permission of doing it not the protagonists perceived superiority over the subject. Genocide is wanting to exterminate a group based on whatever criteria is determined as the reason for the extermination.
"And, of course, BA goes to something that contains what is manifestly utter nonsense. " - I allocated the BA because I don't agree with that assessment.
"And, of course, BA goes to something that contains what is manifestly utter nonsense. " - I allocated the BA because I don't agree with that assessment.
// jim360
Slavery was manifestly about racial superiority
So (cue andy) you think whites enslaved only blacks and black only enslaved whites? //
No, I don't, obviously. I would be easily proven wrong if I did. But it doesn't undermine at all the notion that Slavery is born of a superiority complex, and that the Slave Trade in the Americas was born of a racial superiority complex. It takes no time at all to establish this, either: more or less everybody at the time literally admitted as much, and often with not a hint of shame. Yes, slavery is a sin that has been practised by more or less everybody, but at its heart, on this scale, is the clear idea that the slaves are of no worth as humans, and that the slave owners are. Economic convenience then motivates putting them to work rather than exterminating them, but since there are also many examples from history where the perpetrators mixed the two up shows how closely related genocide and slavery can be. It remains, therefore, entirely unclear to me why people would be so determined to so definitively separate them. This is why I think it's at least flirting with pedantry: not because the distinction doesn't exist but because it simply doesn't strike me as important.
I haven't really read andy's post yet, but I wanted to reply to roy's shorter one first.
Slavery was manifestly about racial superiority
So (cue andy) you think whites enslaved only blacks and black only enslaved whites? //
No, I don't, obviously. I would be easily proven wrong if I did. But it doesn't undermine at all the notion that Slavery is born of a superiority complex, and that the Slave Trade in the Americas was born of a racial superiority complex. It takes no time at all to establish this, either: more or less everybody at the time literally admitted as much, and often with not a hint of shame. Yes, slavery is a sin that has been practised by more or less everybody, but at its heart, on this scale, is the clear idea that the slaves are of no worth as humans, and that the slave owners are. Economic convenience then motivates putting them to work rather than exterminating them, but since there are also many examples from history where the perpetrators mixed the two up shows how closely related genocide and slavery can be. It remains, therefore, entirely unclear to me why people would be so determined to so definitively separate them. This is why I think it's at least flirting with pedantry: not because the distinction doesn't exist but because it simply doesn't strike me as important.
I haven't really read andy's post yet, but I wanted to reply to roy's shorter one first.
To andy. First, I may as well engage in pedantry of my own: // Had the white settlers started out to eradicate native tribes, *and succeeded*, that would be genocide.//
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.
Secondly:
// [H]umans hunted the dodo to extinction for food, not because they sought to eradicate it from the earth. //
Maybe in the dodo's case, although I think its extinction was ultimately brought about because of the introduction of cats, etc. However, I'd urge you to read the account of the fate of the last known great auk, or perhaps read into passenger pigeons, as a counterpoint, as otherwise this would just be a selection bias. The example of the dodo as an accidental extinction may be valid, but plenty of human-caused extinctions are sadly not.
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.
Secondly:
// [H]umans hunted the dodo to extinction for food, not because they sought to eradicate it from the earth. //
Maybe in the dodo's case, although I think its extinction was ultimately brought about because of the introduction of cats, etc. However, I'd urge you to read the account of the fate of the last known great auk, or perhaps read into passenger pigeons, as a counterpoint, as otherwise this would just be a selection bias. The example of the dodo as an accidental extinction may be valid, but plenty of human-caused extinctions are sadly not.
// ... the motivation behind slavery has absolutely zero to do with racial superiority. You could, if you stretched your vision, argue that racial superiority emerged as a result of the ethics of slavery, but my point is that it is not the reason why slavery started, and continued. //
This doesn't seem right either. It may simply be my own naivety, but at the heart of my point is the idea that a society doesn't enslave its equals. Slaves have always been seen, by nature, as a lower class of humanity. Even in ancient times, this still played somewhat into "race", although formally the concept didn't really exist back then in the same way that it does today. But societies still made slaves, not of their friends and family, but of their conquered rival societies. There is a clear and obvious power dynamic at play, because of course there is. There is a clear an obvious "we are the superior, they are the inferior" dynamic at play, because of course there is. How can there possibly not be? As I said slightly earlier, economic concerns then suggest that instead of killing the defeated, you put them to work, but still, the point is that they come second in this chain of reasoning. When Columbus arrived in the New World, he more or less immediately hit on the idea of turning its people into slaves, and it is also clear that this is because he looked down on some of those tribes:
"They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion...these people are very simple in war-like matters … I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased." (Columbus's journal, October 1492 -- the same entry also makes clear that he wasn't the first in the area to have this idea, but slavery is no less evil because more societies practised it.)
If Columbus had looked on them as equals, would he have been so quick to turn his mind to slavery? Clearly not.
Again, the point remains: you do not enslave a society if you have no respect for it , and no desire for its continued existence as an equal part of humanity. The economics comes second. Slavery and genocide both start from the same place, an utter disregard for the life and well-being of the victim(s), and merely express that in two different ways.
This doesn't seem right either. It may simply be my own naivety, but at the heart of my point is the idea that a society doesn't enslave its equals. Slaves have always been seen, by nature, as a lower class of humanity. Even in ancient times, this still played somewhat into "race", although formally the concept didn't really exist back then in the same way that it does today. But societies still made slaves, not of their friends and family, but of their conquered rival societies. There is a clear and obvious power dynamic at play, because of course there is. There is a clear an obvious "we are the superior, they are the inferior" dynamic at play, because of course there is. How can there possibly not be? As I said slightly earlier, economic concerns then suggest that instead of killing the defeated, you put them to work, but still, the point is that they come second in this chain of reasoning. When Columbus arrived in the New World, he more or less immediately hit on the idea of turning its people into slaves, and it is also clear that this is because he looked down on some of those tribes:
"They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion...these people are very simple in war-like matters … I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased." (Columbus's journal, October 1492 -- the same entry also makes clear that he wasn't the first in the area to have this idea, but slavery is no less evil because more societies practised it.)
If Columbus had looked on them as equals, would he have been so quick to turn his mind to slavery? Clearly not.
Again, the point remains: you do not enslave a society if you have no respect for it , and no desire for its continued existence as an equal part of humanity. The economics comes second. Slavery and genocide both start from the same place, an utter disregard for the life and well-being of the victim(s), and merely express that in two different ways.
// What gets me here is that people are almost justifying slavery by saying "it isn't a genocide". //
"Almost justifying" is perhaps too strong, but, yes, there is a question to be asked here: what is actually achieved by not describing slavery as a genocide? Is it to suggest that one, presumably genocide, is worse than the other? Because, if not, doesn't this cycle back to my point? The distinction is a purely technical one. Both are, and were, utterly evil, and are stains on the history of any society that tolerated or promoted it.
"Almost justifying" is perhaps too strong, but, yes, there is a question to be asked here: what is actually achieved by not describing slavery as a genocide? Is it to suggest that one, presumably genocide, is worse than the other? Because, if not, doesn't this cycle back to my point? The distinction is a purely technical one. Both are, and were, utterly evil, and are stains on the history of any society that tolerated or promoted it.
Genocide is the wrong word. Far to polite and clinical.
2 million African negros were killed by European slave traders. It wasn’t genocide because they only killed a few million, and there were many millions more stock to replace them if your slave died of exhaustion, murder or neglect.
So we can have statues of them because they were mass killers but did not intend genocide.
2 million African negros were killed by European slave traders. It wasn’t genocide because they only killed a few million, and there were many millions more stock to replace them if your slave died of exhaustion, murder or neglect.
So we can have statues of them because they were mass killers but did not intend genocide.
"2 million African negros were killed by European slave traders."
And the Black Africans that gathered them up and sold them on to those shipping them out?
Or does not not fit into your agenda?
This is of course where jims argument fails. Why would Black Africans want ethnic superiority over other blacks? Well they woudnt would they - it was commercial pure and simple.
Genocide was not committed in any shape or form, to twist it to such shows desperation in some to deamonise the white race they so despise. Slavery was very wrong, no one in their right mind would disagree, but it was seen as 'free' labour an simply an asset as it has been seen by many others over the years - Romans, Germans, Japanese and even today with so called modern slavery.
And the Black Africans that gathered them up and sold them on to those shipping them out?
Or does not not fit into your agenda?
This is of course where jims argument fails. Why would Black Africans want ethnic superiority over other blacks? Well they woudnt would they - it was commercial pure and simple.
Genocide was not committed in any shape or form, to twist it to such shows desperation in some to deamonise the white race they so despise. Slavery was very wrong, no one in their right mind would disagree, but it was seen as 'free' labour an simply an asset as it has been seen by many others over the years - Romans, Germans, Japanese and even today with so called modern slavery.
jim: "Slavery is born of a superiority complex" - no it isn't, it's purely an economic pursuit. Many slave traders were the same race as those they enslaved, they just enslaved the next village for profit. Profit was the basis for the whole industry. No one cared what race they were, they where simply a commodity.
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.