Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Discussion of the Rationalization of Slavery
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 1 of 50 (543055)
01-14-2010 11:25 PM


Buzzsaw has decided to go off on the deep-end rationalizing away the enslavement of African slaves in America and the eradication of American natives from there homeland. Since this is a diversion of the ‘Euthypro Dilemma’ topic here: Message 173. I thought it would be better to rebut his ridiculous claims in a new thread as shown below. I also thought that this can easily tie in with the ridiculous tendency for religious fanatics and fundamentalists to rationalize atrocities that are promulgated in the name of there religions:
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
If white people suffered the same plight you would be either dead or living on one of these 300 reservations which occupy less than 2% of the United States. Would you be saying the same thing?
Hi DA. If white people were pagans who boiled one another for dinner, barbariously tortured one another by scalping, disemboweling alive, sacrificicing their children and wives in fire to their gods, sold their enemies as slaves etc as pagan Native Americans and African blacks practiced, perhaps they too would have no true god to deliver them from their opressive govenments as was the case with the pilgrims.
Hmm, Europeans never disemboweled people alive? Do you read history Buzz? You never heard of the Inquisition? Have you ever heard the term "hanged, drawn and quartered" which was not abolished in the UK until 1814? It is not an African invention it is a European one. It was a European invention in which a human was often disembowled or cut into pieces or torn apart. Oh, yes, that is right, all Europeans were "civilized Christians" and this was just a civilized way to keep people in line. Its ok for the European government to sanction and it but not the dumb African savages.
Also, I am sure those boat rides across the Atlantic where 1/4 to 1/2 of slaves onboard died during the passage across the Atlantic, slaves where shackled nearly 24 hours a day, beat and whipped mercilessly and were barely kept alive or fed, and African women were brutally raped by European sailors; were really just pleasure cruises to the Bahamas.
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
What a crock of shit. Where can you show me that slaves in America fared better than there free African relatives?
I said, often this was the case.
And you know this because of what? What evidence shows that they fare better on there slave masters in American than with there families in Africa? What evidence? Prove it.
Buzz writes:
Some chose to stay with their good masters after the emancipation.
Very few CHOSE to. Some had no choice seeing that even after the emancipation they had few if any human rights and very little resources and sustenance to live off of. The whites in the south were very indignant of there newly emancipated black former slaves and many were former slaves were either hunted down and killed or run off to places more hospitable to them.
Buzz writes:
Many others were endeared to their masters and their families.
Endeared as a dog would be to his master you mean.
Btw, DA. perhaps, if you care to be objective and fair, you would put up on the screen artist's rendition of some of the horrors of cannibalism, disemboweling, and scalping etc, as pagans did to themselves before becoming evangelized to become civilized Christians.
Should I also display the inquisition, the witch trials, eradication of the American Indians and other atrocities exhibited by your so-called civilized Christians?
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
So slavery is acceptable as long as white Christians are doing the slaving huh. I guess we Abraham Lincoln was wrong in trying to empancipate the slaves then huh?
This is an obsurd strawman. I'm sure you're aware of that. Nothing I said entertained that position.
No I am not aware of it. You seem to be justifying the enslavement of African Americans and there "kind" treatment by there white masters. I was just extrapolating your position from what you already have told me. Please clarify what exactly your reasoning for justifying the enslavement of African Americans and eradication of American Indians.
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
I guess these attrocities never happened:
These artist renditions are NOT objective of the norm relative to treatment of slaves in the US.
So what was the norm of the treatment of slaves? Are you saying slavery is ok even if slaves were not harshly treated?
They would more accurately depict the ongoing treatment of Christians in totalitarian Islamic nations and secularist communist nations where persecution is ongoing.
And who is justifying the inhumane treatment of anyone in a totalitarian government be they religious or not? Not me? So what is your point?
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
I District Judge Caruthers convened a grand jury in June 1911 to investigate the lynching of the Negro woman and her son. In his instructions to the jury, he said, "The people of the state have said by recently adopted constitutional provision that the race to which the unfortunate victims belonged should in large measure be divorced from participation in our political contests, because of their known racial inferiority and their dependent credulity, which very characteristic made them the mere tool of the designing and cunning. It is well known that I heartily concur in this constitutional provision of the people's will. The more then does the duty devolve upon us of a superior race and of greater intelligence to protect this weaker race from unjustifiable and lawless attacks."
This was just good Christian white folk keeping the ignorant black nigers in check.
Again, this was not the norm.
Than you never lived in the South, I have. Because this was and in some places is still the norm even if people no longer openly vocalize it.
Why don't you put up some stats on how many whites gave their lives during the Civil War to emancipate the blacks.
And how does this justify the enslavement of blacks in the first place? Very few of those in the North went to war with the South just because of the plight of the slaves of the South. Not all Northerners were abolitionists and many held as contemptible attitudes towards blacks as there southern neighbors even if they did not practice slavery. The Civil War was a complex war with many different factors and undertones. It was much about economics if not more so as it was about the human rights of the African slaves.
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
The Republican Party founded shortly before the Civil War is nothing like the Republican Party of today.
LOL. Better do some historical research on this, DA, all the way up to the present. Democrats have consistently been on the wrong side relative to integration and advancement of blacks up to the present.
There have been and still are racist bigots in both parties. My point was that racism is as rampant in the Republican party in the past and the present and is it is and was in the Democratic party. Yes the Democratic Party after the Civil War up to the Civil Rights Act was largely pro-segregation however within the past 30-40 years many of these anti-segregation Southern Dixicrats switched parties and became Republicans resulting in the staunchly conservative Republican Party of today.
I myself am a registered Independent and do not really care for either party or there agendas much less there spotty history.
Buzz writes:
Me writes:
Go read your history books Buzz and stop inventing your own white supremacist racist history.
This personal attack either depicts your ignorance or implicates you as a liar, DA. Either put up or shut up on that account.
ABE: Today I have spent much of the day working with a very black black friend of a number of years under a truck changing a tranny, on my cold driveway. I loaned him over a hundred dollars with no receipt; just his word to pay it back when he can. I also donated to and voted for Allan Keys, a revered very intelligent black when he ran for president of the US a number of years ago. Way back in the early 1950s when in the USAF my a black was my favorite superior officer and another black airman I despised almost as much as I despise the (enemy of the republic) black which we have elected to preside over us. Because of his superiour rank he was very condescending, particularly towards whites under his authority. Over the years I have both helped and befriended many Americans of black descent, some brothers in Christ and some not. I have sent regular donations and clothes via Voice of the Martyrs to African poor for several decades. Yah, DA, ole man buz most certainly must have a history of bigoted racism. NOT!
(I've added the above because I must continually set the record straight on this here at EvC, because of folks like you , DA, who lower yourself to attacking the messenger rather than addressing the pertinent point typed. )
I wonder what your African American friend would say if you told him that that it was justifiable and humane for the whites to have enslaved his ancestors because his ancestors were pagans who boiled one another for dinner, barbariously tortured one another by scalping, disemboweling alive, sacrificicing their children and wives in fire to their gods, sold their enemies as slaves etc as pagan Native Americans and African blacks practiced.
Please, tell him this and then tell me what his reaction is. I dare you. And then let me see how long he will continue to be your friend. No, you are too chicken to do this because you can say this racist stupidity on this board without impunity and then make the ridiculous claim that you are not a racist and have black friends. If they truly knew this is the way you felt than I would venture 99% of them would cease to be your friends much less associate with you.
Furthermore you telling me you have black friends does not discount the fact that you may have a racist view of them. My grandfather, a Southern Christian minister for over 40 years also had several black friends. However, he viewed these friends as ethnically, socially and mentally beneath him. I cannot see your heart of hearts and how you truly view your African American friends but from the skewed view of history and rationalization for slavery that you spew out of your mouth, I and I am sure others on this board cannot but come to the realization that you have a white-centric racist view of history much less your social connections.
If I am wrong please correct me but this is just the way you come across.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 01-15-2010 10:06 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 01-15-2010 10:45 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 01-15-2010 2:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2010 10:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 02-09-2010 1:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 11 of 50 (546159)
02-08-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hyroglyphx
02-08-2010 10:19 PM


Hyrpglphyx writes:
So what's the problem here?
I am not debating that there are plenty of attrocities and bad things to spread around which were caused by other cultures including the African and Native American cultures. In no way am I trying to whitewash and venerate their misdeeds. Furthermore, I am not debating that some Africans sold other Africans into slavery to the European slaver's of the 15th to 18th centuries for financial gain. However many of these attrocities caused by the African or Native American 'race', pale in comparision to the scope of autrocities caused by the caucasion 'race' i.e. the Romans, Spanish, Germans, etc to other cultures. I do agree though, that the human species as a whole is equally culpible for committing the worst attrocities against its own species.
My beef here, really is with Buzz's obvious myopic white supremist perspective that the 'White' Americans were justified in the erradication and enslavement of other cultures no matter what the reasons. That is my beef. That someone still holds this belief is really intollerable and unacceptable in a public forum in the 21st century. If someone wants to believe this privately, I could care less as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. Yes, he has the freedom of speech to say what ever the heck he wants but I also have the freedom of speech to say he is a racist jerk.
The problem is we have revisionist historians who have a role to play and an agenda to defend.
I am not sure if you are accusing me of being a revisionist but if you think that I am please show me how.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-08-2010 10:19 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 9:10 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 17 of 50 (546234)
02-09-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 9:10 AM


Isn't that very mentality racist itself? I am pointing to the cultures, not the races of said culture. There is no genetic predisposition known to science that would cause certain races to be more or less violent.
You did see how I put the term race in single quotes meaning that I put no reliance in using race as a factor for having a predisposition to being violence.
Regardless, my focus was that not all of history regarding slavery, manifest destiny, or the like can be summarized so neatly in absolute terms of good and bad.
I am sorry I disagree. Slavery, ethnicide, etc as defined by history are morally reprehensable and unacceptable by our current human society. Whether you want to call these acts 'bad', 'evil' or any other loaded term I could care less. No matter how you swing it, these are not morally acceptable behaviors.
That being said the real history doesn't exactly make monsters out of the settlers either. Like anything else it should be viewed case by case.
Agreed. I never said nor insinuated that all the American settlers were monsters. If you think I did please point this out.
My point to Buzz was it is illogical and insane to try to place blame of slavery and ethnicide on the victims of these autrocities instead of their perpretators. In no way am I saying that every European/Colonialist is guilty of these attrocities. However, when a government sanctions said attrocities than the people that are part of that government do have some amount of shared blame in how that government acted.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 9:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 1:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 23 of 50 (546279)
02-09-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 3:53 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
It's not a matter of "revisionist history." It's a matter of making unilatleral judgments ("slavery is bad") regardless of the context.
Hydroglpyhix writes:
In most cases, absolutely and especially in reference of the slave trade to the America's. But before that time, things were vastly different back then.
And this it ok because? Just because we understand the historical reasons why certain events occurred does not mean we have to morally justify why they occured. One has to objectively research history while at the same time learn from our past mistakes.
Edmund Burke writes:
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
. No one went to Africa and said, "Hey look, these people are black. Because they're black lets enslave them."
Bullshit. Who is being revisionist? There were people who did say and enacted that very sentament.
Racism and many other prejudiced beliefs were not only deeply engrained but were whole-heartedly sanctioned by entire governments. Were there people who objected to racism? Yes, by the were the minority as opposed to the majority of those in today's modern socieities.
Many Europeans did look at black people (and other 'foreign' cultures) as inferior because they were spured by superstition, social norms and religious belief. It wasn't that long ago (and some still do) that many fundamental Christians believed that Africans were inferior because of the Curse of Ham as depicted in Genesis 9:20-27.
Slaves were always viewed as victims of opportunity.
But why were they seen as being slave material in the first place? You are missing the elephant in the room.
Slave traders were opportunistic in the sense that if they could exploit people for selfish ends, they would.
And race, religion and other discrimenating factors gave them the 'justification' for there practing there attrocious behavior. Even the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned slavery because of these discriminating factors.
The English enslaved the Irish and Scottish for centuries, which obviously has nothing to do with race.
You are projecting your modern definition of the term 'race' onto people who had no biological definition of this term. Back then anyone who was of a different culture, ethnicity, language, religion, etc were considered 'foreign', 'barbarian', 'different' and therefore justifiable in being taken advantage of. This is a direct survival technique going all the way back to our animal intinctive behavior. Again does this make it 'right'? Of course not.
The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
And the Romans were like the Germanic and Norwegian Pics, Brits, Anglo-Saxons, Normans how?
The issue of race came long after the slave trade.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Again who is doing the revisionist history? I believe it is you Hyro.
Slavery has long been used as a justification for slavery going back to antinquity, and I suspect all the way back to prehistory. Here are just a few examples:
Hippocrates (460-370 BCE) writes:
The idea that dark people are cowards and light people courageous fighters is found already in Airs, Waters, Places...
Posidonius (135-35 BCE) writes:
Those races nearest to the southern half of the axis are of lower stature, with swarthy complexions, curly hair, black eyes and little blood on account of the sun. This poverty of blood makes them over-timid to stand up against the sword...On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed ready to meet the shock of arms with great courage and without timidity
or how about from the Bible itself:
Leviticus 25:44-46 writes:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
St. Augustine writes:
Slavery is not penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.
The 'Great' Protestant Reformer Martin Luther writes:
We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them...The blind Jews are truly stupid fools...such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews...we are at fault for not slaying them...burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them
To think these people were speaking in a vacuum is idiotic and ludicrous. Racism and other forms of hate speach and thought was not just common but rampant and was the driving factor of slavery and many other attrocities. Those who objected to this form of thinking and behavior until recently (the 21st century) were the minority not the majority. It has only been within the past several decades that this has reversed, and then only in some regions of the world. Racism and other forms of discrimination are still common in many parts of the world and regions of the United States.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 3:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 9:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 4:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 27 of 50 (546300)
02-09-2010 8:10 PM


Hyro writes:
The Romans also conquered and enslaved all of what is the UK today.
Wrong and simplistic history. Have you ever heard of Hadrian's Wall? They could not push further North because of pressure from the Northern Brits, Pics, Scots, etc. The Roman's didn't enslave all the native British south of Hadrian's wall either. In fact most of the lands the occupied became allegianed with Rome rather than being in forced bondage/slavery (though they did take slaves and soldiers from some of these 'occupied' territories). Again you need to take a history class and stop being so simplistic.

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 34 of 50 (546334)
02-10-2010 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 9:29 PM


Re: There are no innocents, only degrees of guilt.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happened. I also am saying that early slavery and the social mores that drove them were of such a different time that to compare them by today's standards and ethos of today's times won't explain their reasoning.
I am not trying to compare these behaviors to today, just the justification for there being enacted in the first place. We should always strive to learn from the past so we don't repeat it.
You don't honestly believe they enslaved Africans because they were black do you? Please tell me advantage their "blackness" made?
I think we are talking around each other. They justified their abhorrant behavior by using there blackness i.e. there racial/cultural differences. They didn't blink about treating these people badly BECAUSE they thought they were inferior and sub-human.
They enslaved them because they were easy targets of opportunity.
So why didn't they enslave other people from there own cultures or those near-by? Why travel clear around the world to enslave people from a foreign culture that they litteraly knew nothing about?
Race/cultural/religious differences were a motivational factor whether you choose to accept that or not.
"Racism" as we know it today is a later invention as a result of different cultures clashing
No, racism, whether they called it that or not existed since prehistory.
Websters writes:
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Are you saying that until modern history people did not believe that some races/cultures/ethnicities (usually there own) were superior to other races/cultures/ethnicities?
Yes, of course. Of this mindset there is little doubt and ample evidence to support it. This is, however, vastly different than enslaving people because of racism.
The choose to enslave these people because
a. They believed other races/ethnicities/cultures were inferior to theirs
b. And because they believed this they felt justified in taking advantage of these other cultures
In other words we are both right. Racism did play a part as well as the act of taking advantage of weaker cultures.
Why did the English have it out for the Scots and Irish? Was it because of racism?
Like I said before the term 'race' had different conotations then the scientific term we use today. Racism really encompassed discrimination against people of other races/cultures/ethnicities (there are such things as sub-races too). The Scots and Irish at that time were definately different in culture/ethnicity/religion/etc then the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans and thus yes this could be construed as racist/cultural-centric behavior.
They're all caucasian, bearing in mind that modern Italians and ancient Romans are very dissimilar due to a later influx of cultures like the Moors.
The term caucasian did not come about until the mid to later 1800s to describe people of European ancestry. Even the term 'race' did not originate until the 15th and 16th centuries. Europeans sqwabbled amongst themselves as to which ethnicity/culture/nation-state were the most superior. If they did this amongst there own 'race' what do you think they thought of people of vastly different hues of skin/ethnicities/cultures?
BTW, the Romans and Greeks very much were considered different 'races' even other 'caucasian' ethnicities at the time as inferior and considered them 'barbarians'. Even the Romans considered the Greeks as inferior and subservient even though they borrowed much of there culture from them.
No one is denying that racism has existed in one form or another since the whole thing began, but it certainly was not a lasting motivation for slavery
You are fooling yourself. It was the DRIVING FORCE for slavery during colonial times. It gave them the moral imperative to commit this attrocity.
As it is, MOST slavery has occurred within their own races for the simple fact of proximity.
Again then why did the English, Dutch, and other colonial powers sail halfway around the world to commit this deed. Why didn't they enslave each other?
Of those that took to the sea in search of slaves certainly developed biases based on cultural differences which were recognized because of physical differences. That much is bloody obvious, but that is a later invention not a primal motivation for slavery.
This is a complex subject however again the "us vs them" and "kill or be killed" survival mentality is really what drove slavery to begin in the first place. Racism practices and thoughts were part and parcel with this process and evolved as cultures/ethnicities/races evolved.
The exploitation of people as means of cheap labor is obviously the prime reason, but historians often draw a false parallel from slavery to racism.
How is this a false parallel? In fact they are one in the same whether people realized it or not or called it racism or not. Slavery in fact is an active form of racism. In other words slavery is racism in action. Again look at the definition of racism.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 9:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 36 of 50 (546769)
02-13-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 1:33 PM


Right, but you have identified the problem; by today's standards. Social mores evolve over time so that what is reprehensible to us today was normal in the past.
I am not disputing this in anyway. What I am disputing is Buzz's justification that slavery was ok because the inflicted party:
a. inflicted slavery on other members of the same cultures (which is true of just about every race/ethnicity/culture on earth at one or more points in there history, but still does not make it justifiable)
b. they were endeared to there masters (yes Buzz actually said this)
c. benefited from slavery (???)
None of these excuses are justifiable much less credible. That is my only point here.
I am not sure why you keep belabaring the point that our mores/standards have changed through history. I have taken a good deal of history, humanities, psychology and sociology classes and believe me, I understand what you are getting at and whole heartedly agree.
Well, I would agree that it is not right, but at the same time we do have to look at history in its context. Like it or not, that was just the way things were.
I am not stupid. I understand that is the way things were.
The problem I have is with people, who live at a time in which they are granted the most individual freedoms to date, can justify people in history who removed the individual freedoms of others and exhibited some of the most attrocious and inhumane acts on other human aka slavery/torture/rape/etc. This is what I cannot and will not accept no matter what the justification. Understanding history and justifying/nullifying/condoning past behavior are two different things.
But there were a few who recognized the sheer hypocrisy of freedom and yet having slaves. People like Thomas Jefferson advocated the owning of slaves, while John Adams never once owned a slave and spoke out against it.
Why is it so hard to accept that people like Thomas Jefferson and every other larger-than-life person in history were not saints? Why do we either deify everyone we like and demonize everyone we don't like in history? Thomas Jefferson was a great politician and humitarian. But just like everyone else, he had his vises as well as his virtues. He was wrong about owning slaves. He was a man with a conflicted conscience I am sure. It is hard to break out of a pattern/life style even if you know it to be wrong.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 1:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 7:11 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 39 of 50 (547007)
02-15-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by onifre
02-15-2010 4:19 PM


Re: The Crick opinon...
Onifre writes:
Silly superstitions aside, the opinion of genetic inferiority actually has (one very famous) scientific supporter.
A Noble Laureate and famous molecular biologist does not a moral and decent person make.
However, realize that he is the product of his times. My grandfather espoused many of the same views and he was a Christian minister of over 50 years and rather decent human being.
I am sure if we could jump into a time machine and listen to conversations from citizens of the 22nd century and beyond they would say how barbaric and inhumane even the most progressive and liberal of us in the 21st century were. At least I would hope this would be the case as we continue to advocate and progress the personal freedoms and equality of all people irregardless of race, culture, religion, gender or creed.
I can only defer to Martin Luther King's famous speach:
Martin Luther King, Jr. writes:
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.
And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 4:19 PM onifre has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 40 of 50 (547010)
02-15-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by onifre
02-15-2010 4:19 PM


Re: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
My only opinion on slavery, which I must admit that slavery is one of those topic that I could care less about, is that its human nature to control those who can't fight back - for whatever reason.
We are all slaves to something or someone, blacks were slaves to whites at a point in history, and?
Is it justified? Sure. I'm stronger and better armed, you do as I say. Period. Is it right or wrong? Who knows, who cares?
Who cares? That is the same mindset many Europeans and Americans had when Jews were being erradicated by the Nazi Germans.
Who cares? I fucking care and so should everyone who espouses to be an advocate for international human rights.
Who cares? Slavery is not just a relic of the past. It exists and is a thriving industry in today's modern world in the forms of sexual exploitation, prostitution, child pornography and human trafficing of tens of millions of men, women and children and a world market in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Really Oni? Do you really think slavery is an archaic event in history? No, it is still alive and kicking.
Fight back or submit to the will of the strong, or, more intelligent. But my opinion is of no relevance to this thread so please ignore it.
Actually it is very relavent, because if we don't stand up for this attrocious and abhorant behavior. Who will?
Edmund Burke writes:
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 4:19 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 10:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 46 of 50 (547159)
02-16-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by onifre
02-15-2010 10:45 PM


Re: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Easy DA, get off the soup box. I didn't mean 'who cares' as in if it were happening now who cares.
Slavery is horrible, all forms of it, whether aggressive or under the radar. I hate, despise, find it abhorent to enslave any thing, so I fully agree with you. But again, in many cases I like to call out certain hypocrisies and note that we humans advocate many forms of slavery, all be it under other labels.
Agreed.
Like a circus for instance. But we look the other way, and even enjoy the entertainment aspect of it.
Some do. Not everyone.
And I'm not saying that some circus' don't take good proper care of the animals, but it would be the same as saying some slave owners took good proper care of their slaves. But here again I don't care because it's human nature to do this;
Human nature? Or do you mean animal instincts. Human nature is whatever we chose our nature to be. With intelligence comes greater responsibility and accountability. At the top of the intelligence chain we actually have the collective intellect to make meaningful changes. If we chose to. That is my point. But first we must acknowledge the shit that we have cause other human beings and organisms on this planet and then correct ourselves.
like I said before: to control and use those who are weaker or less intelligent.
We don't have to. We just choose to. Yes, it is in our nature to survive and adapt but we can temper this with balanced altruism as well. There is a balance between the two extremes (pure unadulterated altruism can be damaging to our survival as a species as well). There is a place for altruism, self-preservation and self-serving ambition. It is a balance that we need to strive for in order to survive as a species and not blow each other up to smitherines (reference October 1962).
We do it with animals in labs as well.
True, and I am hoping one day we can put this behind us as well.
I agree, we should fight back, but for all species, not just one particular organism. What's the sense of calling it moral if it's selective?
Baby steps. We have yet to have equality for all humans much less for all intelligent and sentient organisms on this planet (i.e. primates, dolphins, elephants, etc). Hopefully one day we will get there. One step at a time.
Also, it's great to fight against slavery but there are many forms of it that we take part in every day. The alternative to slavery was another form of manipulation, just not by way of force.
Agreed. First we must fight the root of the problem and that is intollerance. Slavery and inequality can take many forms whether it be physical or psychological.
Freedom from slavery is not being able to consume as you please, and that's what we have defined it as. Remember, its not "freedom" that one gets, it "the same freedom awareded to everyone else" - whatever those may be. Its freedom because someone called it freedom, but in my opinion it's not true freedom.
Freedom as defined by many humanists is the freedom to make choices without undue and harmful influence by others. Caveat to this is that one's freedom should not impede the freedom of others i.e. you are not free to harm or take the life of another human being.
I know where you are going with this Oni. It is true that in all sense of the word we are still animals subject to our basic instincts and psychological/social influences, even when we consider ourselves the most free (except of course married men ). I am not sure if this is really an issue though because as long as we feel we are free than isn't that all that matters whether we truely are cognitively free or not (whatever that may mean)?
But that's why I said ignore my opinion, because it will drag the thread off-topic.
Since Buz is not going to back up his ridiculous racist comments, I don't see the harm in straying a little off-topic here on the subject of freedom.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 10:45 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 2:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 48 of 50 (547309)
02-18-2010 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2010 2:48 PM


Re: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Bwah? How d'you figure that one?
Seems more of a greed thing to me.
Agreed, self-centered and uncontrolled greed seems to be a better word to use here.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 10:12 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 50 of 50 (547342)
02-18-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2010 10:12 AM


Re: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Yes, and I think it goes even further in that you're wrong about slavery being driven by racism.
People were looking for cheap labor and free is about as cheap as you can get.
The Africans were inferior, by education, technology, resources, etc., and they got exploited because they were an easy target.
What I am saying is that racism (a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others) gave these people the moral justification to do what they did. Racism was and is still rampant and common.
I wasn't like a bunch of white guys figured they hated the black guys so they decided to enslave them.
This is a little bit too simplistic. I would agree though and say it was more of disdain and contempt than pure unadulterated hate. However, racism was and is part and parcel with the "greedy" attitudes of many of these people. It gave them justification for what they did. By seeing these people as sub-human and animal like it gave them more insentive to treat these people as such.
To ignore this fact is to marginalize the psychology behind why they acted the way they did. I agree that slavery is a complex subject and there are various reasons why people enslaved other people, even people of the same ethnicity/cultures. However, there is usually always an attitude of bias and discrimination of one person or group of people over another. This can take many forms of discrimination and inequality including sexism, ageism, racism, ethnisim, classism, nationalism, ableism (discrimination against the handicaped) etc.
Essentially it is a survival instinct of "us vs them" that permeates all living organisms from bacteria to human beings both as individuals and in social groupings.
The difference with human beings is that we have the greatest capacity to overcome these survival instincts. We also have the capacity to do the greatest damage, not just with our own species but with all life on this planet.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024