5 ms·

It is sort-of like writing an article about the horrors of totalitarian concentration camps, spending a lot of time on Nazi Germany, meanwhile quickly mentionin

It is sort-of like writing an article about the horrors of totalitarian concentration camps, spending a lot of time on Nazi Germany, meanwhile quickly mentioning the Soviet Union as a country next door, but studiously avoiding any mention of the gulags or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In that situation, one does not have to be a Nazi whitewasher to be somewhat suspicious about the author's agenda. Not every story can cover every detail, but some omissions are glaring.

lkrubner 4y ago
By this chain of logic, no article is complete unless it mentions all of the other related topics that it could have mentioned, if it didn't mind being infinitely long. When writing a book about the Holocaust, one could also mention genocide in the USSR, or in Turkey, against the Armenians, or the Italian brutality in Ethiopia, or the mistreatment of Africans under British rule, or the widespread massacres that occurred in the Philippines when it was initially conquered by the USA. One could go on and on, mentioning more and more genocides. Or one could simply stick to the subject that one is writing about.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  The unfortunate souls shipped to the New World as slaves were directly bought from Benin slavers, though, not taken in some kind of hostile pirate-like raid, which is the mental picture that the word "ripped" conjures to mind. When writing, there is always a question of where the related references stop. There is no clear criterion. But the word "ripped" here indicates a certain unwillingness to address the fact that slavery was, until fairly recently, a rather widespread phenomenon in Africa. Ignoring this fact does not make European slavery worse and acknowledging it does not make European slavery better. The only thing it would do would be a certain refinement of currently politically popular stereotypes. History should be told as it was, not as we want it to look like. And slavery existed because it was immensely profitable to all sorts of people, from native kings in Africa to the white (and sometimes Native American) slavers in America. Only by understanding this can you prevent reemergence of slavery in the future. Arguably, sexual slavery works on a similar background.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >The unfortunate souls shipped to the New World as slaves were directly bought from Benin slavers, though, not taken in some kind of hostile pirate-like raid, which is the mental picture that the word "ripped" conjures to mind. Agreed. I estimate that 90% of Americans/Europeans would, if asked "how slaves were caught", would describe some variant of "white people sail to Africa, catch unwary Africans in giant nets, and sail away when the ship is full".
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Ironically, that would be fairly close to the reality of the North African Barbary Pirate raids on European shores as far as Iceland, which resulted in more than a million Europeans being enslaved. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
      - TMWNN 4y ago
        Good point. I am not exaggerating when I say that the average American SJW/Redditor sincerely believes that slavery has existed in only one country in the world's history: in the United States, involving Africans. The etymology of the word "slav"? Brazil? Haiti? Guadeloupe? North Africans (as you note) enslaving Europeans? Vikings taking thralls? Feudalism? Never heard of 'em.
    - lkrubner 4y ago
      I do not know a single person who thinks that, but I know a very large number of people who like emphasize that most slave catching was done by Africans. When I lived in North Carolina and Virginia this fact was offered by someone in the group every time the subject came up. If you had a bit more self awareness you might realize how you look when invent imaginary statistics like “90% of Americans”.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  I see the reasoning you have and I mostly agree. Actually, scratch that, let me say I agree entirely. You are right. If an author decides on a particular subject, he should guard against scope creep least he produces a rambling screed that tries to touch on everything but fails at being meaningful even for one idea. But, to play a bit of devils advocate here. In the case of the USSR, it did paint it’s self as a liberator, claiming left right and centre how they’re freeing the prisoners. But, at the same time, they had their own camps where they were sending their own prisoners. I feel this by it’s self warrants some mention at least in a treatment of the holocaust. We’re not talking about a separate genocide in another time and place. We’re talking about a genocide perpetrated at the same time by a county that was beating it’s chest about stopping a genocide. Just my two cents. But, yeah, I agree with you on the scope creep issue.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Would you then agree that such an article should include Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine of 1943, or the internment of Japanese-Americans, or the Italian Empire’s massacres in conquered Ethiopia, not to mention all of Japan’s policies in Asia at the time?
Spooky23 4y ago
It depends on the context. If you’re looking at the evolution of concentration camps, you’d probably want to also include the evolution from the British camps during the Boer War to the Imperial Germans in Southwest Africa or the Ottoman Turks in Armenia. The Nazis evolved the tactic into a mass killing factory. The Soviets were more about political oppression; they went about the business of mass murder in other ways.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  The Soviets outsourced a lot of the killing to the Siberian nature. A gulag in the taiga didn't even have to have any walls. The snow and the frost in combination with semi-starvation were as reliable killers as a bullet to the head, and cheaper.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Like I said, other ways. The Nazis built a death factory. The Soviets were fans of starvation and Siberia.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Weren’t Soviet gulags a continuation of the tsarist variety?
enkid 4y ago
This article isn't about the horrors of slavery. It's about economic history. It makes reference to slavery in that context without discussing it in detail. A better analogy would be an article about why Israel is an economic success mentioning the concentration camps from Nazi Germany (without much detail) and then not mentioning the gulags of the Soviet Union. Also not mentioned in this article: - the genocide of the native Americans that allowed Haiti to be a thing in the first place - the continuing oppression of women at the time - the oppression of LGBT+ that was a constant reality of society in a Catholic country And yet these comments seem to only care about calling out oppression that happened a continent away. Slavery isn't even really that big of an piece of the article. The majority of the article is about what happened after slavery ended in the 1790s.

lkrubner 4y ago

By this chain of logic, no article is complete unless it mentions all of the other related topics that it could have mentioned, if it didn't mind being infinitely long. When writing a book about the Holocaust, one could also mention genocide in the USSR, or in Turkey, against the Armenians, or the Italian brutality in Ethiopia, or the mistreatment of Africans under British rule, or the widespread massacres that occurred in the Philippines when it was initially conquered by the USA. One could go on and on, mentioning more and more genocides. Or one could simply stick to the subject that one is writing about.

inglor_cz 4y ago
The unfortunate souls shipped to the New World as slaves were directly bought from Benin slavers, though, not taken in some kind of hostile pirate-like raid, which is the mental picture that the word "ripped" conjures to mind. When writing, there is always a question of where the related references stop. There is no clear criterion. But the word "ripped" here indicates a certain unwillingness to address the fact that slavery was, until fairly recently, a rather widespread phenomenon in Africa. Ignoring this fact does not make European slavery worse and acknowledging it does not make European slavery better. The only thing it would do would be a certain refinement of currently politically popular stereotypes. History should be told as it was, not as we want it to look like. And slavery existed because it was immensely profitable to all sorts of people, from native kings in Africa to the white (and sometimes Native American) slavers in America. Only by understanding this can you prevent reemergence of slavery in the future. Arguably, sexual slavery works on a similar background.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >The unfortunate souls shipped to the New World as slaves were directly bought from Benin slavers, though, not taken in some kind of hostile pirate-like raid, which is the mental picture that the word "ripped" conjures to mind. Agreed. I estimate that 90% of Americans/Europeans would, if asked "how slaves were caught", would describe some variant of "white people sail to Africa, catch unwary Africans in giant nets, and sail away when the ship is full".
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Ironically, that would be fairly close to the reality of the North African Barbary Pirate raids on European shores as far as Iceland, which resulted in more than a million Europeans being enslaved. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
    - TMWNN 4y ago
      Good point. I am not exaggerating when I say that the average American SJW/Redditor sincerely believes that slavery has existed in only one country in the world's history: in the United States, involving Africans. The etymology of the word "slav"? Brazil? Haiti? Guadeloupe? North Africans (as you note) enslaving Europeans? Vikings taking thralls? Feudalism? Never heard of 'em.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    I do not know a single person who thinks that, but I know a very large number of people who like emphasize that most slave catching was done by Africans. When I lived in North Carolina and Virginia this fact was offered by someone in the group every time the subject came up. If you had a bit more self awareness you might realize how you look when invent imaginary statistics like “90% of Americans”.
throwawayacc2 4y ago
I see the reasoning you have and I mostly agree. Actually, scratch that, let me say I agree entirely. You are right. If an author decides on a particular subject, he should guard against scope creep least he produces a rambling screed that tries to touch on everything but fails at being meaningful even for one idea. But, to play a bit of devils advocate here. In the case of the USSR, it did paint it’s self as a liberator, claiming left right and centre how they’re freeing the prisoners. But, at the same time, they had their own camps where they were sending their own prisoners. I feel this by it’s self warrants some mention at least in a treatment of the holocaust. We’re not talking about a separate genocide in another time and place. We’re talking about a genocide perpetrated at the same time by a county that was beating it’s chest about stopping a genocide. Just my two cents. But, yeah, I agree with you on the scope creep issue.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Would you then agree that such an article should include Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine of 1943, or the internment of Japanese-Americans, or the Italian Empire’s massacres in conquered Ethiopia, not to mention all of Japan’s policies in Asia at the time?

Spooky23 4y ago

It depends on the context. If you’re looking at the evolution of concentration camps, you’d probably want to also include the evolution from the British camps during the Boer War to the Imperial Germans in Southwest Africa or the Ottoman Turks in Armenia. The Nazis evolved the tactic into a mass killing factory. The Soviets were more about political oppression; they went about the business of mass murder in other ways.

inglor_cz 4y ago
The Soviets outsourced a lot of the killing to the Siberian nature. A gulag in the taiga didn't even have to have any walls. The snow and the frost in combination with semi-starvation were as reliable killers as a bullet to the head, and cheaper.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Like I said, other ways. The Nazis built a death factory. The Soviets were fans of starvation and Siberia.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Weren’t Soviet gulags a continuation of the tsarist variety?

enkid 4y ago

This article isn't about the horrors of slavery. It's about economic history. It makes reference to slavery in that context without discussing it in detail. A better analogy would be an article about why Israel is an economic success mentioning the concentration camps from Nazi Germany (without much detail) and then not mentioning the gulags of the Soviet Union. Also not mentioned in this article: - the genocide of the native Americans that allowed Haiti to be a thing in the first place - the continuing oppression of women at the time - the oppression of LGBT+ that was a constant reality of society in a Catholic country And yet these comments seem to only care about calling out oppression that happened a continent away. Slavery isn't even really that big of an piece of the article. The majority of the article is about what happened after slavery ended in the 1790s.