3 ms·

I note that the examples that you cite above are all nations that were relatively wealthy to begin with. They did not suddenly lift themselves out of poverty in

I note that the examples that you cite above are all nations that were relatively wealthy to begin with. They did not suddenly lift themselves out of poverty in the 17th century by enslaving Africans. Rather, their advanced technology and capital resources enabled them to dominate and exploit other populations, either through slave trading or colonisation. In doing this, they did further enrich themselves, true, but to state that this shameful period is actually the wellspring from which these nations' wealth derives in the 21st century is dramatic overreach.

eesmith 9y ago
My objection is to your statement that it's absurd. I agree that it's an exaggeration, and even that it's wrong, but it's not absurd. The further back in time you go, the more the framework changes. How did those nations become relatively wealthy in the first place? How much was due to serfdom? Combined, of course, with the new political philosophy which centralized absolute power for the sovereign. (As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_the_Abolition_of_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_th... helpfully points out, the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery also prohibits serfdom.) But by doing that, the problem is that most areas in Europe had serfs. I think in Europe only some of the Nordic countries did not. (On the original topic, Sweden's era as a great power was funded by its copper export, and not from slaves or serfs.) And many cultures had slaves or participated in the slave trade, including those that weren't great powers, so slavery, serfdom, and other forms of forced labor are not really diagnostic. Do you have an idea of how much of the those nations' wealth derives from slavery? I don't think it's an easy thing to answer. It's clearly not "zero".

eesmith 9y ago

My objection is to your statement that it's absurd. I agree that it's an exaggeration, and even that it's wrong, but it's not absurd. The further back in time you go, the more the framework changes. How did those nations become relatively wealthy in the first place? How much was due to serfdom? Combined, of course, with the new political philosophy which centralized absolute power for the sovereign. (As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_the_Abolition_of_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_th... helpfully points out, the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery also prohibits serfdom.) But by doing that, the problem is that most areas in Europe had serfs. I think in Europe only some of the Nordic countries did not. (On the original topic, Sweden's era as a great power was funded by its copper export, and not from slaves or serfs.) And many cultures had slaves or participated in the slave trade, including those that weren't great powers, so slavery, serfdom, and other forms of forced labor are not really diagnostic. Do you have an idea of how much of the those nations' wealth derives from slavery? I don't think it's an easy thing to answer. It's clearly not "zero".