5 ms·

> The book primarily focuses on the story of the captives, who were freed just five years after they were enslaved, thanks to the end of the Civil War. Just 5

> The book primarily focuses on the story of the captives, who were freed just five years after they were enslaved, thanks to the end of the Civil War. Just 5 years of slavery. I think this person lacks imagination and empathy if they think "just" is a relevant word here.

Hasz 9y ago
It's "just five years" compared to the "lifetime of servitude" connotation of slavery. Is slavery an awful, despicable thing that no one should ever endure? Of course. But 5 years is significantly shorter than a lifetime of enslavement. Just is rightly used here. I would also be skeptical of anyone willing to make a mortality judgment on the basis of a single adverb.
dokem 9y ago
Do you always look for the worst possible interpretation?
sitepodmatt 9y ago
Ah the SJW playbook again. #ClotildaGate.
- dang 9y ago
  This sort of flamebait will get you banned here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
indubitable 9y ago
As an aside, I think something many people don't realize is that slaves were not free Africans who were kidnapped and enslaved by westerners. These individuals were enslaved in Africa, often at birth, and then sold by Africans. These individuals were doomed to enslavement for their entire life, one way or the other. Even the article hints towards this fallacy by implying they had only been enslaved for 5 years total. Slavery to this day still continues in Africa and especially west Africa. Niger was the first West African nation to create a law penalizing slavery [1]. That happened in... 2003. Unsurprisingly there is also still slavery in Niger. So yes, I do think "just" 5 years of slavery, sometime from the 19th century, is an extremely apt phrasing. Conditions for these slaves are illustrated in the 'Mani v. Niger' entry in that wiki entry. A man purchased a '5th wife' (he's allowed 4 under local Islamic law, and then the 5th is a slave) for $400. She was 12 years old and endured a decade of physical and sexual abuse bearing 4 children before he married and then 'freed' her. But since now she was his wife, he had the right to demand she not be able to leave his house. This made it all the way to their supreme court, where they ruled in favor of the 'husband' - though he was charged with bigamy which carries a 6 month sentence. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Niger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Niger
- mainthread 9y ago
  Another thing that many people do not realize is that not all systems of servitude are the same. [1] In the New World, all African slaves were treated as property and dehumanized. Slave masters sought to erase the slave's identity, to destroy the family, and to sow division in order to exert and maintain control. This form of servitude is called "chattel slavery", and was written into law in the United States. There were many different forms of slavery practiced in African societies during the 1500-1800s. Commonly, slaves were given rights and were treated like indentured servants. Slaves could own property. They could marry and start families. Some slaves were treated brutally, but it is a tragic oversimplification of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade to suggest that all Africans sold to European traders were "doomed to enslavement". [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slavery_in_Africa_and_the_New_World_contrasted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slavery_i...
  - indubitable 9y ago
    Even to this day in African slavery is almost entirely heritable, I'm using 'almost' completely as a weasel word - to my knowledge it is 100% heritable and is certainly a major cause of the perpetuation of slavery in Africa today. In your links there you'll find numerous contradictions. The second wiki leads with, "In general, slavery in Africa was not heritable – that is, the children of slaves were free – while in the Americas, children of slave mothers were considered born into slavery.". That is followed near immediately with the quote, "The slaves which are thus brought from the interior may be divided into two distinct classes – first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers; secondly, such as were born free, but who afterwards, by whatever means, became slaves. Those of the first description are by far the most numerous....". Similarly the first link tries to downplay chattel slavery at one claiming that "Precise evidence on slavery or the political and economic institutions of slavery before contact with the Arab or Atlantic slave trade is not available." And almost immediately following, "Chattel slavery had been legal and widespread throughout North Africa when the region was controlled by the Roman Empire (47 BC – ca. 500 AD). ... Chattel slavery persisted after the fall of the Roman empire in the largely Christian communities of the region. After the Islamic expansion into most of the region, the practices continued and eventually, the chattel form of slavery spread to major societies on the southern end of the Sahara (such as Mali, Songhai, and Ghana)." Wiki does not tend to deal with issues that are contemporary, or involve social issues. And I think this is probably an instance of that. I think instinctively some want to demonize our actions so much as possible even if only as a sort of self flagellation. And so appealing a spin on the myth of a noble savage would certainly do as much. In reality we utilized, incentivized, and adopted an inhumane system, but it was not our direct creation in this case. And while we have learned from the past and moved on, these systems of inhumane exploitation which existed before us continue to exist without us.
dang 9y ago
Please don't post this sort of shallow gotcha comment here. I understand the thrill of catching someone out on the internet, but we're going for curiosity on this site, not indignation. It also breaks the HN guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hasz 9y ago

It's "just five years" compared to the "lifetime of servitude" connotation of slavery. Is slavery an awful, despicable thing that no one should ever endure? Of course. But 5 years is significantly shorter than a lifetime of enslavement. Just is rightly used here. I would also be skeptical of anyone willing to make a mortality judgment on the basis of a single adverb.

dokem 9y ago

Do you always look for the worst possible interpretation?

sitepodmatt 9y ago

Ah the SJW playbook again. #ClotildaGate.

dang 9y ago
This sort of flamebait will get you banned here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.

indubitable 9y ago

As an aside, I think something many people don't realize is that slaves were not free Africans who were kidnapped and enslaved by westerners. These individuals were enslaved in Africa, often at birth, and then sold by Africans. These individuals were doomed to enslavement for their entire life, one way or the other. Even the article hints towards this fallacy by implying they had only been enslaved for 5 years total. Slavery to this day still continues in Africa and especially west Africa. Niger was the first West African nation to create a law penalizing slavery [1]. That happened in... 2003. Unsurprisingly there is also still slavery in Niger. So yes, I do think "just" 5 years of slavery, sometime from the 19th century, is an extremely apt phrasing. Conditions for these slaves are illustrated in the 'Mani v. Niger' entry in that wiki entry. A man purchased a '5th wife' (he's allowed 4 under local Islamic law, and then the 5th is a slave) for $400. She was 12 years old and endured a decade of physical and sexual abuse bearing 4 children before he married and then 'freed' her. But since now she was his wife, he had the right to demand she not be able to leave his house. This made it all the way to their supreme court, where they ruled in favor of the 'husband' - though he was charged with bigamy which carries a 6 month sentence. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Niger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Niger

mainthread 9y ago
Another thing that many people do not realize is that not all systems of servitude are the same. [1] In the New World, all African slaves were treated as property and dehumanized. Slave masters sought to erase the slave's identity, to destroy the family, and to sow division in order to exert and maintain control. This form of servitude is called "chattel slavery", and was written into law in the United States. There were many different forms of slavery practiced in African societies during the 1500-1800s. Commonly, slaves were given rights and were treated like indentured servants. Slaves could own property. They could marry and start families. Some slaves were treated brutally, but it is a tragic oversimplification of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade to suggest that all Africans sold to European traders were "doomed to enslavement". [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slavery_in_Africa_and_the_New_World_contrasted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slavery_i...
- indubitable 9y ago
  Even to this day in African slavery is almost entirely heritable, I'm using 'almost' completely as a weasel word - to my knowledge it is 100% heritable and is certainly a major cause of the perpetuation of slavery in Africa today. In your links there you'll find numerous contradictions. The second wiki leads with, "In general, slavery in Africa was not heritable – that is, the children of slaves were free – while in the Americas, children of slave mothers were considered born into slavery.". That is followed near immediately with the quote, "The slaves which are thus brought from the interior may be divided into two distinct classes – first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers; secondly, such as were born free, but who afterwards, by whatever means, became slaves. Those of the first description are by far the most numerous....". Similarly the first link tries to downplay chattel slavery at one claiming that "Precise evidence on slavery or the political and economic institutions of slavery before contact with the Arab or Atlantic slave trade is not available." And almost immediately following, "Chattel slavery had been legal and widespread throughout North Africa when the region was controlled by the Roman Empire (47 BC – ca. 500 AD). ... Chattel slavery persisted after the fall of the Roman empire in the largely Christian communities of the region. After the Islamic expansion into most of the region, the practices continued and eventually, the chattel form of slavery spread to major societies on the southern end of the Sahara (such as Mali, Songhai, and Ghana)." Wiki does not tend to deal with issues that are contemporary, or involve social issues. And I think this is probably an instance of that. I think instinctively some want to demonize our actions so much as possible even if only as a sort of self flagellation. And so appealing a spin on the myth of a noble savage would certainly do as much. In reality we utilized, incentivized, and adopted an inhumane system, but it was not our direct creation in this case. And while we have learned from the past and moved on, these systems of inhumane exploitation which existed before us continue to exist without us.

dang 9y ago

Please don't post this sort of shallow gotcha comment here. I understand the thrill of catching someone out on the internet, but we're going for curiosity on this site, not indignation. It also breaks the HN guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html