5 ms·
Amusing (or not) historical note, that sounds almost exactly like the Cavaliers (Virginia aristocrats) when they arrived in America. > The Cavaliers – the nobl
by simonsarris 9y ago
Amusing (or not) historical note, that sounds almost exactly like the Cavaliers (Virginia aristocrats) when they arrived in America.
> The Cavaliers – the nobles who had fought and lost the English Civil War – fled to Virginia. Historians who cross-checking Virginian immigrant lists against English records find that of Virginians whose opinions on the War were known, 98% were royalists.
> These aristocrats didn’t want to do their own work, so they brought with them tens of thousands of indentured servants; more than 75% of all Virginian immigrants arrived in this position. Some of these people came willingly on a system where their master paid their passage over and they would be free after a certain number of years; others were sent by the courts as punishments; still others were just plain kidnapped. The gender ratio was 4:1 in favor of men, and there were entire English gangs dedicated to kidnapping women and sending them to Virginia, where they fetched a high price.
> The Virginians tried their best to oppress white people. Really, they did. The depths to which they sank in trying to oppress white people almost boggle the imagination. There was a rule that if a female indentured servant became pregnant, a few extra years were added on to their indenture, supposedly because they would be working less hard during their pregnancy and child-rearing so it wasn’t fair to the master. Virginian aristocrats would rape their own female servants, then add a penalty term on to their indenture for becoming pregnant. That is an impressive level of chutzpah. But despite these efforts, eventually all the white people either died, or became too sluggish to be useful, or worst of all just finished up their indentures and became legally free. The aristocrats started importing black slaves as per the model that had sprung up in the Caribbean, and so the stage was set for the antebellum South we read about in history classes.
> The Virginian Cavaliers had an obsession with liberty, but needless to say it was not exactly a sort of liberty of which the ACLU would approve. [...] No, they said, we wouldn’t be free if we had to work, therefore we insist upon not working. No, we wouldn’t be free if we were limited by poverty, therefore we insist upon being extremely rich. Needless to say, this conception of freedom required first indentured servitude and later slavery to make it work, but the Virginians never claimed that the servants or slaves were free. That wasn’t the point. Freedom, like wealth, was properly distributed according to rank; nobles had as much as they wanted, the middle-class enough to get by on, and everyone else none at all. And a Virginian noble would have gone to his grave insisting that a civilization without slavery could never have citizens who were truly free.
From: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-see...
- vkou 9y agoI didn't exactly invent a feudal power structure from whole-cloth, here. It's also important to remember that this society operated upon a consistent legal framework - a framework of property rights and contracts. Incidentally, the fact that we can't enter indentured servitude anymore is much maligned in some libertarian circles. (Mostly among people who think that they will be the masters, rather then the other way around.)
- narrowrail 9y ago>I didn't exactly invent a feudal power structure from whole-cloth, here. No doubt. You did posit it as the alternative, however. Mentioning the idea that some people are ok with indentured servitude (freedom to relinquish your freedom) and try to claim that liberty is the ultimate virtue of these same people seems quite odd.
- gnaritas 9y ago> You did posit it as the alternative No, he posted it as a snarky example of why you simply can't always find compatible beliefs. His point had nothing to do with feudalism or indentured servitude. He was simply making the point that when one group wants to oppress another, there are no compatible compromises to make when the oppressed don't want to be oppressed. Live and let live only works when you don't try and control others but most of our conflict comes from those trying to control others and those others resisting. Abortion would not be an issue if those who didn't like them didn't get them and left everyone else alone. Religion wouldn't be a problem if the religious didn't continually try and impose their morals on the non-religious; don't like gays, don't be gay, but trying to cure other people from gayness is trying to control others. This could go on and on, trying to control others leads to conflict and that's mostly what politics is about, resolving those conflicts.
- cjsthompson 9y agoThey have to impose it, it's "impose or be imposed" since there is only one law and one culture for everyone in a centralized nation-state.