28 ms·

> The really real American slavery was also retionalized as "cant decide for themselves or cant be trusted to make the right decision or are taught civilization

> The really real American slavery was also retionalized as "cant decide for themselves or cant be trusted to make the right decision or are taught civilization and made better". No, it wasn't. Actual slavery was always very obvious in the property, trading and exploitation system. You bought slaves, you sold them, your children inherited them, and you financially profited from owning them because they worked for you. Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. > The male female relationship in saudi also do not ressemble parental relationships. It is really softening what is going on. That's not what I said. The legal relationship is close to that of custody/guardianship, not the emotional one. I don't get why you're so set on re-framing them as slaves. They have slaves. Slaves don't have slaves. You can find the Saudi system despicable without grossly misrepresenting it.

082349872349872 6y ago
NB. I also believe we should be careful with our terms, but on the specific claim that: > Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. here's a counterexample (prolix, but presumably it's easier to get slaves to do one's fieldwork than to edit one's rants): https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund284 https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund2... > "For, although we might compare the present condition of the Southern slaves with the condition of other laborers elsewhere, we yet fancy such would hardly be the proper method by which to arrive at any just knowledge of the benefits or evils resulting from African servitude. Certainly we believe the comparison, if made, would show that the negroes of the South are happier as a class than the peasants of other countries. We know from actual observation that they fare better than the poor of any of our cities--are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented. We know, too, that they are infinitely better off than the peons of Mexico, who are bought by the year for any nominal sum which they are presumed to owe the purchaser, and are liable in their old age to be turned adrift without a home, and with not a living soul to take an interest in their welfare. We also believe, and so must every thoughtful honest man, that their lot is even enviable compared to that of the poor Coolies and other free apprentices, those new-fangled slaves whom Cant and Hypocrisy are engaged in selling for a term of years to our tropical neighbors. But we repeat, there is no necessity to make the comparison. To arrive at any rational conclusion as to what has been the result of African slavery in the United States, we must consider what was the character of the negroes when first landed on our shores, and what is their character now. Have they improved in speech, in morals, in personal appearance, and in usefulness; or have the "degrading effects" of a century of slavery rendered them more savage than they were when they wandered about in the jungles of Congo and Guinea, feasting on human flesh, and worshipping dogs and monkeys, stocks and stones? or have they cursed the soil by their presence, rendering it as barren and unfruitful as their original desert wastes, whereon their kindred still roam, rejoicing in the rude comforts of an untutored barbarism, and in all the wealth and simplicity of Adam's fig-leaf? This is the question, and the only question."
watwut 6y ago
> Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. They really did, I literally learned that from history books. I just googled "civilizing aspects of slavery" and found this https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27530631.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27530631.pdf But really, any detailed book on American slavery will have those arguments in it. I think that one massive thing to learn from history is that it is not really new to frame oppression as guardianship. > That's not what I said. The legal relationship is close to that of custody/guardianship, not the emotional one. It is really not. As I told, the jail and torture if she crosses the line makes the difference. It is even less guardianship then slavery - the guardianship framing makes it sound nicer and more palatable then what it really is. The protection thing is not going on, the ownership thing is going on. > Saudi Arabia does have slaves, actual real slaves. But they're not Saudi women (they're often women, but they're from e.g. Malaysia or the Philippines and are forced to serve these Saudi women you call slaves). If you call the Saudi women slaves, what word would you use for their slaves? You do here exactly the slavery as metaphor thing too. They actually dont have actual slaves per law, that was abolished long time ago. The abused domestic workers are formally not slaves and are not traded in slave market either. Their children are not sold as slaves either. Btw, slaves did oversees other slaves. Roman slaves could become valued friends of household owner - while still being at his mercy. That would not be possible in American chattel slavery.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Retroactive "slavery wasn't all bad, look" explanations aren't changing the idea and intent of slavery. > The abused domestic workers are formally not slaves and are not traded in slave market either. They literally are, and when they bring them outside of Saudi Arabia, it's not rare for Saudis to be convicted of human trafficking and enslavement - if it becomes known to authorities. The Saudi state regularly posts bail in these cases. > Btw, slaves did oversees other slaves. Yes, but they didn't have slaves. It's the difference between being the shift foreman in a factory and owning the factory.

082349872349872 6y ago

NB. I also believe we should be careful with our terms, but on the specific claim that: > Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. here's a counterexample (prolix, but presumably it's easier to get slaves to do one's fieldwork than to edit one's rants): https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund284 https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/hundley/hundley.html#hund2... > "For, although we might compare the present condition of the Southern slaves with the condition of other laborers elsewhere, we yet fancy such would hardly be the proper method by which to arrive at any just knowledge of the benefits or evils resulting from African servitude. Certainly we believe the comparison, if made, would show that the negroes of the South are happier as a class than the peasants of other countries. We know from actual observation that they fare better than the poor of any of our cities--are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented. We know, too, that they are infinitely better off than the peons of Mexico, who are bought by the year for any nominal sum which they are presumed to owe the purchaser, and are liable in their old age to be turned adrift without a home, and with not a living soul to take an interest in their welfare. We also believe, and so must every thoughtful honest man, that their lot is even enviable compared to that of the poor Coolies and other free apprentices, those new-fangled slaves whom Cant and Hypocrisy are engaged in selling for a term of years to our tropical neighbors. But we repeat, there is no necessity to make the comparison. To arrive at any rational conclusion as to what has been the result of African slavery in the United States, we must consider what was the character of the negroes when first landed on our shores, and what is their character now. Have they improved in speech, in morals, in personal appearance, and in usefulness; or have the "degrading effects" of a century of slavery rendered them more savage than they were when they wandered about in the jungles of Congo and Guinea, feasting on human flesh, and worshipping dogs and monkeys, stocks and stones? or have they cursed the soil by their presence, rendering it as barren and unfruitful as their original desert wastes, whereon their kindred still roam, rejoicing in the rude comforts of an untutored barbarism, and in all the wealth and simplicity of Adam's fig-leaf? This is the question, and the only question."

watwut 6y ago

> Nobody claimed that they'd buy slaves and made them do hard labor in the plantations for the slaves' benefits. They really did, I literally learned that from history books. I just googled "civilizing aspects of slavery" and found this https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27530631.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27530631.pdf But really, any detailed book on American slavery will have those arguments in it. I think that one massive thing to learn from history is that it is not really new to frame oppression as guardianship. > That's not what I said. The legal relationship is close to that of custody/guardianship, not the emotional one. It is really not. As I told, the jail and torture if she crosses the line makes the difference. It is even less guardianship then slavery - the guardianship framing makes it sound nicer and more palatable then what it really is. The protection thing is not going on, the ownership thing is going on. > Saudi Arabia does have slaves, actual real slaves. But they're not Saudi women (they're often women, but they're from e.g. Malaysia or the Philippines and are forced to serve these Saudi women you call slaves). If you call the Saudi women slaves, what word would you use for their slaves? You do here exactly the slavery as metaphor thing too. They actually dont have actual slaves per law, that was abolished long time ago. The abused domestic workers are formally not slaves and are not traded in slave market either. Their children are not sold as slaves either. Btw, slaves did oversees other slaves. Roman slaves could become valued friends of household owner - while still being at his mercy. That would not be possible in American chattel slavery.

luckylion 6y ago
Retroactive "slavery wasn't all bad, look" explanations aren't changing the idea and intent of slavery. > The abused domestic workers are formally not slaves and are not traded in slave market either. They literally are, and when they bring them outside of Saudi Arabia, it's not rare for Saudis to be convicted of human trafficking and enslavement - if it becomes known to authorities. The Saudi state regularly posts bail in these cases. > Btw, slaves did oversees other slaves. Yes, but they didn't have slaves. It's the difference between being the shift foreman in a factory and owning the factory.