The bright side of slavery

What?

What?

aidan:-

Think through your Baez quote.

I crack me up sometimes. Don't hear any of that as a superior 'I know more than you know.' kind of thing. The boards are impossible to show any sort of emotion (even with the emoticons).

I was merely trying to state what many others had stated before and point out a few things I saw in this thread that seemed non sequitur.

Also understand some of my resignation in my tone is from the fact that I taught Race and Gender issues for quite a few years and had to hear white people explain how reverse discrimination is a greater problem than 'normal' discrimination - that gender realtions are 'fixed' and that slavery wasn't that bad and black people 'always' play the race card.

So, if there was a tone in my posts above it was simply 'Here is what see - I have studied it for some time - and I have heard this tune before.' type of resignation / biased response (biased by me).

I certainly know very little when it comes to a LOT of the stuff on this board - this, however, I happened to study. I read a LOT of threads where I have to assume the people know what they are talking about - because I certainly don't.

So, I am sorry if I offended - it was not my intent.
TTF

i guess i'll add to that lack of reason by disagreeing with your first point. Discreet's statement is incoherent only if his society has rules governing right & wrong thoughts in general, or concerning the basis of moral rules in particular. i doubt anyone thinks society controls all thoughts; it doesn't even control all observable behavior: fashions, tastes, opinions, and ad infinitum are beyond societal control.

Spendius - Gotch - I'm a little slow off the mark sometimes but I usually eventually get there.
(Sorry for the triple post - two would have been funny - but the third was a mistake)

Very good point Yitwal. From the quote I took - I assumed that right and wrong meant not only ethical right and wrong but logical right and wrong.

But I think, that would assume that logic cannot be used in ethical situations with the same effect as others. This would toss out all forms of ethical systems. Certainly the teleological calculation of Mill and Bentham required logical controls - as well as the assesment of agency in Deontological arguments - and the point of moderation in virtue ethics (among other examples).

I, however, disagree that many people think that all things are not culterally controlled and thus relative. I see strong relativity as a very strong following, particularly among American youth. I think this is a response to the uncertainty of our times (post 60's) but that does not stop it's prevelence. I thought this is what the thread starter was originally saying.

TTF

I wasn't offended, and do excuse any tone of mine which would offend. I suggest, however, that human evolution does not require millions of years, and the process of selecting for traits (in this case quite unconsciously) can have noticeable effects within a few centuries. The prevelance of sickle cell in West African negroes made them less susceptible to the dibilitating effects of malaria. There is as a result, a concentration of blacks with a pre-disposition to sickle cell anemia in the western hemisphere. Which leads to the second point, which is that once it was noticed (and it was rather quickly noticed) that west African negroes survived better in the sugar monoculture of the Windward Islands, the slave trade concentrated on that population; that means that a statement that the male population of Africa was decimated (technically, to decimate is to kill one in ten, but i knew what you meant) is not entirely accurate. Very large regions of Africa saw no slave trade, slavery only being occassionally imposed on captives of clan warfare. As well, women were sold along side the men, so that it wasn't all the male population which was targeted.

I have also studied this era and phenomenon in detail, although i have never taught history. The monocultures of the Windward Islands and the Atlantic coast colonies of North America--sugar, tobacco, and later, cotton--lead to a string of vested interests for Dutch and English merchants, who thereafter promoted the slave trade. In another thread, the thesis was advanced that slavery endured because it was economically efficient. There is no point of comparison for such a statement--no one attempted these monocultures on a large scale with free labor. But i took the time to lay out in detail the vested interests of those who traded rum and cheap trade goods for slaves, who were sold for molasses, which was made into rum, in order to purchase more slaves. The entire trade route and economic equation was more complex, to be sure, and i went into more detail in that thread. One problem is that history is not taught in this country, historical "stories" are retailed, and there is no detailed presentation of how such institutions came into being and were maintained.

Again, my apologies for the tenor of my response to your post.

Setenta -

It is my understanding that major traits take many thousand years. Such as making better athletes or stronger muscles in a batch of slaves over 400 years with debateable eugenics programs in the south.

Not only this - but what counts as stronger - stronger mentally or stronger bodily in terms of survival? It seems that those who willed to survive the beatings and work may have fared better that the bodily stronger.

I think Setenta - that my tone was too flippant because I saw this as a Jimmy the Greek style statement. "Blacks have an extra muscle in thier leg."

I can see that you have studied this in depth (perhaps more in depth regionally than I have) and can see why you you said what you said. I should have taken more time.

Also, even as I typed "decimated" I thought about the roman conception and wondered if that was going to hold. It did not - and rightfully so.

The point I was trying to make is that you can't argue the means by arguing the conclusion. You can't wack someone over the head to get them to take thier medication and tell them (ethically) that is was for thier own good.

This is taken a step further when whole populations are wiped out (certain islands and costal regions of Africa - as you mentioned) and then we argue that Africa is desolate and America is so much better (after it was built on slave labor).

You assume the conclusion within the premises and the argument looks something like.

If we enslave a nation and transport them to another nation and then let that nation prosper on thier blood and sweat - the nation that we moved them to will be better off and thus the newly released slaved will be better off.

As my logic instructor said when he saw something that begged the question " No **** Sherlock."

I should have explained what I meant better above - but my experience is that people want to clear thier white guilt by making all sorts of outlandish claims.

Thanks fo your clarifications and patience.

TTF

Yitwall - I also want to clarify that I really think your posts have helped me clarify over the time. I was not speaking to you when I said the posts were illogical.

These types of arguments get my goat - and they got it above.

I need a nap.

TTF

get my goat too, actually, but i try & maintain my coolness.

& i appreciate your comment about my posts. heck, i even appreciate it when they encounter objections, unlikely as that might seem; it beats having them ignored.

go catch some z's.

Discreet wrote:
"I dont want to sound apathetic but does anyone else seem that african americans have taken the slavery thing too far. Most white americans are afraid to say anything relating to race around blacks or even touch on the issue. When i say "blacks" i mean nothing derogative by it and i hope no one finds it offensive but saying african americans just doesn't seem right its like saying Caucasian vs saying white. If someone talks about the "white" race i don't find that offensive am i alone? I think blacks should let by gones be by gones and put the past behind them. If somone in my family was punished by a black man a couple hundred years ago i don't think id hold that black race accountable. Just because we had some southern racist farmers doesn't mean you should take it out on all the whities, plus black people need to loosen up when i ride metro in dc through bad parts im actually afraid to look a black man in the eye for fear of doing something wrong. That isn't how i should go through life. I don't want to be racist i just want to talk with him eye to eye....hes making it uncomfortable by acting tough cause bet tells him too"

Discreet - I went back and read over some of your questions. I think they are really good ones. I'm really interested in talking about your perceptions moreso than historical facts because in my job as a highschool teacher - I noticed that there seems to be a huge divide between black and white young people. Most of it, I believe, is due to misperceptions that are spread by the media, and simple unfamiliarity. It makes me sad to watch it. Partly because the happiness of my family depends on blacks and whites living in peace - but also because I know how enriched my life has been by loving and living with people of another race and culture. Though everyone told me it would be hard and difficult - I really believe it is the best choice I ever made, and I would encourage you to be open to having friends of all races. But to do this, you need to try to understand that life has been very different for their families than for yours in the US. The hard times didn't end with slavery and a few racist farmers. You need to consider Discreet that, unlike other immigrant populations in the United States, African Americans were forced to "immigrate" and then enslaved in their new "home" for 250 years or so. After they were "freed" they faced another hundred years of government sanctioned segregation and legalized social and economic disenfranchisement. Let's forget about what life in Africa might have been like for them, as we've pretty much come to the conclusion that that can't be determined - but how might their lives have been different if they had been assimilated into the general population of the US as other immigrant groups had- foregoing the period of enslavement and Jim Crowe legislation? Far from thinking that African-Americans take things too personally - I'm constantly amazed at how forgiving and accepting I find most who I know to be. I think if I were black and had been mistreated and discriminated against - I'd be angry - and might hold it against all those who looked like my discriminator. I've never had that happen to me. I find that utterly amazing.

There is a lot of distrust from both sides between blacks and whites. Some black people have had bad experiences with some whites and that has made them wary of trusting the reactions they will get from all whites, and vice versa. That might be where you are getting that "tough" behavior from. It is a defense mechanism - we all use them - to protect ourselves from rejection, etc. But I have found if you are open and friendly and non-judgmental, that distrust and suspiciousness will disappear. You need to be yourself. I would also ask questions before I made any statements. You need to be open to learning - you might have your own ideas - but you should try to learn from the people you are interested in - instead of assuming that you already know it all.
I hope you didn't find this too long and boring. But I wanted you to know that your questions and perceptions are meaningful. Asking the question is the first step in learning. Let me know what you think.