4 ms·

Regarding 3, it seems that 70%+ of the African slave trade went to the Middle East, not across the Atlantic. Also regarding 3, I wonder if, comparatively, the

Regarding 3, it seems that 70%+ of the African slave trade went to the Middle East, not across the Atlantic. Also regarding 3, I wonder if, comparatively, the Soviet Union forcefully moved a lot more people (even percentage-wise) through its network of concentration camps. African slaves going over the Atlantic were what.. 2-3M deaths over 300 years, whereas the USSR easily disposed of 10-30M between 1917 and the 50s and later in its various GULAGs. Much better organized, more ruthless, exterminating its own lawful citizens, thanks to the wonders of ideology. All for the greater good of society and the working class. No ethnic difference necessary to justify unprecedented genocide. Neighbors reporting neighbors to the authorities with almost total certainty of execution, for many decades.

Cyph0n 8y ago
> 2-3M deaths over 300 years It's not just about the deaths, but also about the suffering and degradation spanning generations, for the sole purpose of making "superior people" more money. I have no clue whatsoever about how much Africans suffered under slavery, but I would think that some would prefer death to watching their offspring born into slavery and ultimately die as slaves.
- BadassFractal 8y ago
  > It's not just about the deaths, but also about the suffering and degradation spanning generations, for the sole purpose of making "superior people" more money. Absolutely, I don't see anybody making the claim that slavery is wonderful, and devoid of suffering and degradation for generations to come. Maybe the folks walking around with tiki torches, but, let's be real. You and I, and most of Hacker News interlocutors are not spending much time around that crowd day-in and day-out, so we can all safely assume nobody is advocating for that here. The fact however is that slavery has been with us, as a species, for the entirety of our recorded history, and is still alive and well as of today, in one form or another. As horrible as the Atlantic slave trade has been for centuries, we can learn more history, transcend a US-centric, exceptionalist world view, and realize that what we're talking about was not an isolated, special and rare phenomenon, never seen before, or that never happened again since.
  - pvg 8y ago
    what we're talking about was not an isolated, special and rare phenomenon, never seen before, or that never happened again since. We pretty much are. And a lot of this weird ahistorical 'contrarian' message board stuff about slavery might not seem like marching with torches but it tends to originate from the same places - as a way to rationalize and recruit for the ideology of the marchers. It's a sell job, not some clear-eyed, unflinching take on history as the people who tend to repeat this stuff often appear to think.
    - jlawson 8y ago
      Simply trying to tar a certain set of factual claims with a moralistic evil tribal association falls below the standard of good-faith discussion. It would be good if you made a factual argument to oppose a factual point. No sarcasm: I'd be happy to hear your data/reasoning behind the claim that slavery in America was somehow a one-off exceptional evil historical event, in the context where Native Americans, Egyptians, Chinese, Africans, Muslims, Romans, Akkadians, and nearly every other society who could also engaged in slavery to the tune of millions of victims. Notable is that in many cases they even performed in brutal human sacrifices (Incas) or castrated their slaves (Persians vs African slaves, or Romans). I don't think you'll argue that fact, though, since you're not arguing from facts but from morality. You seem to believe it's good to distort facts about history if those facts (in your opinion) support arguments of groups that are (in your opinion) immoral. It's a sort of reversal of priorities where the factual world is understood on the basis of pre-decided moral conclusions, instead of the moral landscape being understood on the basis of our best knowledge of the physical facts. I hate to go off topic but I find myself in opposition to your "moralism filters reality" stance. I think it's anti-intellectual, irresponsible, and dangerous, given that such moralistically-motivated suppressing of facts has caused such massive suffering before. The word "memory hole" comes to mind. And it's amazing you'll do it so casually and openly.
      - pvg 8y ago
        They aren't factual claims. I'm not expressing some controversial opinion, it's the consensus view. Whereas you've written me a giant wall of condescending, name-calling text. So I think we're good.
willvarfar 8y ago
One interesting historical tidbit it that Caucasians were also enslaved in the Middle East. Fishing towns along the south coast of England lived in fear of slavers raiding and the book Robinson Crusoe begins with the protagonist being enslaved. I don't want to join in some pissing fight about who suffered most - all slavery is aborrent and causes generations of pain. But I think it an interesting and often overlooked dimension that the Europeans who started using slaves in the new world were from a society used to being preyed upon and enslaved by others.
- sorokod 8y ago
  You may be interested in looking up the etymology for "slave".
  - paganel 8y ago
    The Italian town of Genoa built most of its wealth in the 13th-14th centuries by buying Slavs captured by the Tartars on the north shores of the Black Sea and shipping them south to Pera (now part of modern Istanbul) where they would be re-sold with an added profit.
    - sorokod 8y ago
      Ah, interesting. More here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
  - Ygg2 8y ago
    Root of "slave" is "Slavonic" or captive. On the other hand, root of Slavic or Slavonic people is captive.
    - inawarminister 8y ago
      Isn't it glory, e.g. Slava Ukraina?
    - sorokod 8y ago

Cyph0n 8y ago

> 2-3M deaths over 300 years It's not just about the deaths, but also about the suffering and degradation spanning generations, for the sole purpose of making "superior people" more money. I have no clue whatsoever about how much Africans suffered under slavery, but I would think that some would prefer death to watching their offspring born into slavery and ultimately die as slaves.

BadassFractal 8y ago
> It's not just about the deaths, but also about the suffering and degradation spanning generations, for the sole purpose of making "superior people" more money. Absolutely, I don't see anybody making the claim that slavery is wonderful, and devoid of suffering and degradation for generations to come. Maybe the folks walking around with tiki torches, but, let's be real. You and I, and most of Hacker News interlocutors are not spending much time around that crowd day-in and day-out, so we can all safely assume nobody is advocating for that here. The fact however is that slavery has been with us, as a species, for the entirety of our recorded history, and is still alive and well as of today, in one form or another. As horrible as the Atlantic slave trade has been for centuries, we can learn more history, transcend a US-centric, exceptionalist world view, and realize that what we're talking about was not an isolated, special and rare phenomenon, never seen before, or that never happened again since.
- pvg 8y ago
  what we're talking about was not an isolated, special and rare phenomenon, never seen before, or that never happened again since. We pretty much are. And a lot of this weird ahistorical 'contrarian' message board stuff about slavery might not seem like marching with torches but it tends to originate from the same places - as a way to rationalize and recruit for the ideology of the marchers. It's a sell job, not some clear-eyed, unflinching take on history as the people who tend to repeat this stuff often appear to think.
  - jlawson 8y ago
    Simply trying to tar a certain set of factual claims with a moralistic evil tribal association falls below the standard of good-faith discussion. It would be good if you made a factual argument to oppose a factual point. No sarcasm: I'd be happy to hear your data/reasoning behind the claim that slavery in America was somehow a one-off exceptional evil historical event, in the context where Native Americans, Egyptians, Chinese, Africans, Muslims, Romans, Akkadians, and nearly every other society who could also engaged in slavery to the tune of millions of victims. Notable is that in many cases they even performed in brutal human sacrifices (Incas) or castrated their slaves (Persians vs African slaves, or Romans). I don't think you'll argue that fact, though, since you're not arguing from facts but from morality. You seem to believe it's good to distort facts about history if those facts (in your opinion) support arguments of groups that are (in your opinion) immoral. It's a sort of reversal of priorities where the factual world is understood on the basis of pre-decided moral conclusions, instead of the moral landscape being understood on the basis of our best knowledge of the physical facts. I hate to go off topic but I find myself in opposition to your "moralism filters reality" stance. I think it's anti-intellectual, irresponsible, and dangerous, given that such moralistically-motivated suppressing of facts has caused such massive suffering before. The word "memory hole" comes to mind. And it's amazing you'll do it so casually and openly.
    - pvg 8y ago
      They aren't factual claims. I'm not expressing some controversial opinion, it's the consensus view. Whereas you've written me a giant wall of condescending, name-calling text. So I think we're good.

willvarfar 8y ago

One interesting historical tidbit it that Caucasians were also enslaved in the Middle East. Fishing towns along the south coast of England lived in fear of slavers raiding and the book Robinson Crusoe begins with the protagonist being enslaved. I don't want to join in some pissing fight about who suffered most - all slavery is aborrent and causes generations of pain. But I think it an interesting and often overlooked dimension that the Europeans who started using slaves in the new world were from a society used to being preyed upon and enslaved by others.

sorokod 8y ago
You may be interested in looking up the etymology for "slave".
- paganel 8y ago
  The Italian town of Genoa built most of its wealth in the 13th-14th centuries by buying Slavs captured by the Tartars on the north shores of the Black Sea and shipping them south to Pera (now part of modern Istanbul) where they would be re-sold with an added profit.
  - sorokod 8y ago
    Ah, interesting. More here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
- Ygg2 8y ago
  Root of "slave" is "Slavonic" or captive. On the other hand, root of Slavic or Slavonic people is captive.
  - inawarminister 8y ago
    Isn't it glory, e.g. Slava Ukraina?
  - sorokod 8y ago