89 replies to this topic

[Vortigern]

JFK wasn't shot, he was abducted by Elvis from behind a grassy knoll on orders from the CIA. The two of them were later responsible for 9/11 after going back in time and adding the second amendment to the constitution so JFK could 'get shot' more easily.

Interesting take on slavery, Pasi. Nice to see something intelligent from you again. Have you got any details as to the kind of life immigrants in the north had and why slaves in the south were actually better off than them?

[Allathar]

I fully agree with Duke, to re-write history is silly and we should instead add stuff that for some reason was left out.

Adding stuff that for some reason was left out = rewriting history. History is written by the victor, of course they'll leave out the details that put them in a bad light. Reinserting those details will grant people a whole new look on the events, effectively rewriting history.

[Ash]

JFK wasn't shot, he was abducted by Elvis from behind a grassy knoll on orders from the CIA. The two of them were later responsible for 9/11 after going back in time and adding the second amendment to the constitution so JFK could 'get shot' more easily.

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that 9/11 was a conflab between Pascal Ramy, Jeffery A Simisek and Donald Rumsfeld to pull a three-way insurance job.

[Vortigern]

Oh, maybe I misunderstood. Maybe Elvis and JFK were just the hijackers. Yeah, they're both dead now, all you wacko conspiracy theorists!

[Pasidon]

I fully agree with Duke, to re-write history is silly and we should instead add stuff that for some reason was left out.

And if history was wrong to begin with? The history of the bow and arrow development for Native Americans changed only in the last decade and we don't have a problem with that because, one, we have evidence of Norse interactions now and their introduction of new weapons, and two, it isn't controversial to change. The history of American slavery has been slurred for the past couple decades because it is too controversial to change. When you get the bow and arrow history changed, no one makes a big deal. But when something as controversial as getting rid of a planet or this... people feel the need to argue. And slavery was a process written after a war... It's more than true that the winner of a war always writes history in their favor, and most of the history books at the time were being written by sympathizers for the Northern Union who put their negative opinion of the south and of slavery in their histories. Archaeology has been done on countless slave sites and we know that many things said about slavery weren't true to begin with. We didn't know that slaves were given days off and often invited into their owner's houses. And that slave's religious traditions were always honored, as they were always invited into their owner's houses for the burning of the yule log. They were paid, given food, and even in some cases given freedom for their services near the last few years of slavery. There was a mutual respect for slaves that we didn't know 100 years ago, and history should acknowledge this. To say blacks were abused during their enslavement is not a true statement... it was the equivalent of Americans domesticating buffalo. They believed they were enslaving animals and eventually our mindsets were changing to making them more human. The hatred for the black community came after slavery, when they were no better than immigrants taking jobs for hardly a cent a day from pure blooded Americans. Heck, we still have that mind-set today about Mexicans.

[Ash]

You'll be denying the holocaust next. I won't even get to the "pure-blooded Americans" bit. I'll leave someone else to pull your arms off for that.

[Mathijs]

To say blacks were abused during their enslavement is not a true statement...

Alrighty then.

[Ash]

Know what? Fuck it. I will cut you apart on the "pure-blooded Americans" bit. Let's have a look at a couple of pure-blooded Americans shall we?



Yeah, you have no more claim to being 'pure-blooded American' than a black guy. And look what happened to these poor bastards above. If you're asserting that black people aren't/can't be American, might be worth thinking about that.

[Pasidon]

Delicious... you know your verbal opponent has lost when he nit-pics on details that don't matter. If I haven't reached the quota for negative votes today, I would have disagreed with your statement using the power of New Revora. Might not want use that info at a National Forest conference...

And Mati, by that statement, I mean black slaves as a whole. I'm attacking the 'master with a whip and cane' stereotype most people have in their minds when slavery is a topic.

[duke_Qa]

Hmm, new text editor works with Firefox, and that's excellent.

You only know that you are running on a different track than your opponent when he focuses on something else. Using the words "pure blooded american" should get you that picture. Whenever i hear someone using the wording pure blooded american, I think "angry white boy with little competence or willpower to do a dirty job, but angry nonetheless that someone "else" might do it and get money that they could have gotten."

Capitalism has been a fan of different sorts of slavery through the ages. America has seen most of them. we have the miner strikes/wars back around 1900-1910. I would say that before socialism and proper care for the laborer became more standard, all capitalism based itself off the "eat or be eaten" way of running things, nothing better than slavery.


also, a small quote about the reasons of the civil war as per wikipedia:

The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.^[1] Other important factors were party politics, Abolitionism, Southern nationalism, Northern nationalism, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.
[...]

Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to influence the national government. By the time of the 1860 election, the heavily agricultural southern states as a group had fewer Electoral College votes than the rapidly industrializing northern states. Lincoln was able to win the Presidential Election of 1860 without even being on the ballot in Southern states. Southerners felt a loss of federal concern for Southern pro-slavery political demands, and continued domination of the Federal government by "Slaveocracy" was on the wane.

So there we have the crux of it. The north managed with European immigration and more effective industrial modernization to gain more citizens than the south. The south had a lot of physical and primitive agricultural jobs that slaves were pretty much the only ones who would do. The north did not want to see slavery expand any more than it already had, most likely a combination of experience with modern industrial equipment and prejudice against black slave labour one way or the other.

According to the historian James M. McPherson, exceptionalism applied not to the South but to the North after the North phased out slavery and launched an industrial revolution that led to urbanization, which in turn led to increased education, which in its own turn gave ever-increasing strength to various reform movements but especially abolitionism. The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North (and the fact that most immigrants viewed slavery with disfavor), compounded by the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior. The Charleston Mercury read that on the issue of slavery the North and South "are not only two Peoples, but they are rival, hostile Peoples."^[33] As De Bow's Review said, "We are resisting revolution.... We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man.... We are conservative."

So basically, the south was being stubborn and stuck in a conservative medieval attitude, while the north was more liberal and open-minded towards the average white man, gave him opportunity and education and better job quality. This pissed off the southerners as they didn't get as many immigrants to help them out and they got stuck in a downward spiral: Because the rich earned cash on slavery, and when the grassroot moved north the southerners were stuck making a living on slavery. Taking it away from them would have taken everything away from the fat cats so to speak.

Also, one of the core beliefs of the pro-slavery people were the superiority of the white race. from Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens:

(Thomas Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.

I'd like to see how you can explain that such an attitude would improve upon the lives of black people.

Edited by duke_Qa, 24 January 2011 - 10:05 AM.

[Ash]

Delicious... you know your verbal opponent has lost when he nit-pics on details that don't matter. If I haven't reached the quota for negative votes today, I would have disagreed with your statement using the power of New Revora. Might not want use that info at a National Forest conference...

And Mati, by that statement, I mean black slaves as a whole. I'm attacking the 'master with a whip and cane' stereotype most people have in their minds when slavery is a topic.

Oh dears. You want to negative-vote my post. I am so unbelievably horrified by that.
That really is the forum equivalent of the e-petition. Nobody gives a shit, period.

In truth, I find the fact you're classifying blacks as un-American quite pertinent to the debate. Especially as you have the gall to find the Anglo-Dutch and Spanish invaders to be "pure-blooded American". How can you even justify a standpoint that misinformed? I think the red indians had far more claim to the American land than white people ever did. And the white folk treated them arguably worse than the black folk. Because, yknow, at least the black folk that survived the journey in the cattle-boats across the Atlantic actually lived. But never mind that, eh, fuckpig - of course it was a lovely and character-building experience in your rose-tinted world.

In any case, this link basically calls bullshit on your assertion that slaves were well-treated. No they weren't. Of course they weren't.

Although I suppose you're going to "dislike" this comment, too, which will, naturally, matter not one iota to me.

[duke_Qa]

Have to say i prefer systems that just have the like-button. Reduces chances for griefing.

Yeah, that entire thing there is pretty much a basic setting of why slavery wasn't a very good thing.

In the codes for the District of Columbia, a slave is defined as “a human being, who is by law deprived of his or her liberty for life, and is the property of another.”

love that one, really blends well with USA's motto of "liberty and freedom"

[Puppeteer]

Delicious... you know your verbal opponent has lost when he nit-pics on details that don't matter. If I haven't reached the quota for negative votes today, I would have disagreed with your statement using the power of New Revora. Might not want use that info at a National Forest conference...

And Mati, by that statement, I mean black slaves as a whole. I'm attacking the 'master with a whip and cane' stereotype most people have in their minds when slavery is a topic.

Oh dears. You want to negative-vote my post. I am so unbelievably horrified by that.
That really is the forum equivalent of the e-petition. Nobody gives a shit, period.

In truth, I find the fact you're classifying blacks as un-American quite pertinent to the debate. Especially as you have the gall to find the Anglo-Dutch and Spanish invaders to be "pure-blooded American". How can you even justify a standpoint that misinformed? I think the red indians had far more claim to the American land than white people ever did. And the white folk treated them arguably worse than the black folk. Because, yknow, at least the black folk that survived the journey in the cattle-boats across the Atlantic actually lived. But never mind that, eh, fuckpig - of course it was a lovely and character-building experience in your rose-tinted world.

In any case, this link basically calls bullshit on your assertion that slaves were well-treated. No they weren't. Of course they weren't.

Although I suppose you're going to "dislike" this comment, too, which will, naturally, matter not one iota to me.

Just to add to this: Pasidon, aren't you missing the bigger picture of slavery, alongside the details? Regardless of treatment, slavery is fundamentally an institution of iniquity. But I wouldn't expect you to realise that, with your blithe assertions.
Next you'll be claiming that Russian serfs had it good, too. They only had to work a couple of days a week, and if they wanted they could pay their benevolent lord and master to go work in the city to earn a living.

[Mathijs]

Seriously guys, stop being so politically correct.

[duke_Qa]

Then to be politically incorrect, we accept slavery and the free market. Nothing really changes because most modern slavery methods are pretty common in China and the likes. But when the Chinese rules the world economically we all will get bought up and turned into slaves ourselves

[Pasidon]

Multi-quote feature = +1 IPB awesome points

I'd like to see how you can explain that such an attitude would improve upon the lives of black people.

Ok, so let me get into what would improve a black man's life. I can agree the black community would have been better off left in Africa. Heck, I'd rather be there. But the reality is that they were seen as animals who could be domesticated and forced to work without issue. God gave us dominion over animals... so no harm done. But that mind-set started slipping away, and slavery was a big issue with the Northern territories and it was one of the many issues that triggered the Civil War. The south knew that their original thoughts on slavery were also wrong, but would never put down slavery because the north told them too. So the war starts and north guys wins. They drop slavery instantly... without consideration. This forced every black man and woman out of work and made them a hated factor in American life. This was because they knew they would never get a job over a white man for the same pay. White usually = educated. So they worked for less, and the white community became hostile. Even the sympathetic northerners began to despise the blacks for it. The only thing that would have improved the lives of the black community is if Lincoln would have planned the path blacks could take rather than throwing them out on their butts with nothing. I do blame the rash end of slavery for the downfall of the American Negro.

In truth, I find the fact you're classifying blacks as un-American quite pertinent to the debate.

Until I say, "Blacks aren't true Americans", I, haven't said a thing like it. I was referring to the original mind-set of the white colonial American for the whole argument, so I don't see how any word I said would be taken as my own opinion. Stop making Matias complain about political correctness.

Have to say i prefer systems that just have the like-button. Reduces chances for griefing.

I was joking when I considered using the 'like' / 'dislike' buttons for solving a debate. Would save time though...

Just to add to this: Pasidon, aren't you missing the bigger picture of slavery, alongside the details? Regardless of treatment, slavery is fundamentally an institution of iniquity. But I wouldn't expect you to realise that, with your blithe assertions.
Next you'll be claiming that Russian serfs had it good, too. They only had to work a couple of days a week, and if they wanted they could pay their benevolent lord and master to go work in the city to earn a living.

Details means more text. More text = more effort... no one would like that.

Then to be politically incorrect, we accept slavery and the free market. Nothing really changes because most modern slavery methods are pretty common in China and the likes. But when the Chinese rules the world economically we all will get bought up and turned into slaves ourselves

Sorry, but you reached your quota for political incorrectness today.

Actually, that's not half-bad to say. People around the globe are working end-less labor cycles for pieces of paper. Now that's insanity.

[Mathijs]

[quote name='Pasidon]Actually' date=' that's not half-bad to say. People around the globe are working end-less labor cycles for pieces of paper. Now that's insanity. [/quote']

I didn't read anything besides this, but I must say you phrased my own feelings pretty well here. Which is why I do as little non-emotionally or spiritually gratifying work as I can get by on.

I can feel Allathar turning in his bed from here.

[Vortigern]

Pasidon, from what you've just said it seems that you've been misleading us and yourself this whole time. You're not saying there were any benefits to slavery, you're saying that the abrupt, unplanned cessation of slave labour suddenly dramatically increased the labour pool with no opportunities for paid work. You're saying that it was the manner in which slavery ended which was the problem, not slavery or the end of it per se.

[Pasidon]

Well... just because I say the unemployed black Americans caused issues doesn't mean the other part of the debate ceases to exist. It's an odd situation: slavery never had benefits to the black workers, yet then again... slavery turned into a benefit after it ended. You have a civilization forced to work in a foreign land for foreign people for little money, the bare minimum food and drink and limited freedoms. All not seeming like a benefit until slavery ends. At the end of slavery: You have a population forced to find work for the same amount or less they would make while enslaved, have no food or drink, but lots of freedom in certain respects. But with their freedom, half the black population died from starvation and illness. I better wait for another detail complaint before I go on.

[quote name='Matias' timestamp='1295913204' post='838691']
[quote name='Pasidon]Actually' date=' that's not half-bad to say. People around the globe are working end-less labor cycles for pieces of paper. Now that's insanity. [/quote']

I didn't read anything besides this
[/quote]
It's the only statement I wrote that I cared for, really.

[duke_Qa]

Now we are moving into more rational territories. I can somewhat agree that abruptly ending slavery like that could have caused displacement trauma for an entire ethnic group. But I somehow doubt that they were cast out of the deep south the instant slavery was abolished, and I guess they did stick around and did the same jobs in more humane conditions for a few years before they learned a different trade or found a different job. Maybe they didn't work for the same guy that whipped them all the time as slaves, but they probably didn't go too far away to find a new unknown plantation owner to work for.

I was joking when I considered using the 'like' / 'dislike' buttons for solving a debate. Would save time though...

Yeah I wasn't aiming that at you but generally at the new system. It wouldn't really affect anything either if people started pushing the buttons on it.

Actually, that's not half-bad to say. People around the globe are working end-less labor cycles for pieces of paper. Now that's insanity.

That's the global organism of human civilization for you. We work boring jobs that are vital for society and get a slice of the cake of our labour. It is the way civilization works, and if we don't accept it we will fall like great civilizations have fallen before us. Not everyone can be an rock star, but that seems to be what most people think.