8 ms·

Why limit it to the (relatively) small collection of American stories? Why not open it up to slavery stories from the hundreds of thousands of people around the

Why limit it to the (relatively) small collection of American stories? Why not open it up to slavery stories from the hundreds of thousands of people around the world?

pessimizer 13y ago
Why should a site about American slavery cover something other than American slavery? Would you go onto a website about the New England Patriots and ask why there wasn't any coverage of the New York Giants, or onto a site about mountaintop removal mining asking why there wasn't more coverage about clearcutting? Do you go onto Kurdish sites and ask why they aren't covering the Armenian genocide? Why should the African-American experience be minimized so as to not be considered a distinct experience from other differing experiences that have been labeled as "slavery"? edit: This is not a rhetorical question.
- Xeoncross 13y ago
  The domain is broad: "slaverystories" not "americanslaverystories". Hence my recommendation since american slavery is such a small part of the vast history of slavery.
  - jfc 13y ago
    This seems pedantic. There are plenty of reasons the site owner may have chosen the domain name. Not every discussion of a subject must be comprehensive--you noted in your comment that the history of slavery is vast. Why is this site owner expected to address all the different instances on his/her site? There are plenty of sites that discuss the broader history of slavery, or specific instances of it. This one fits in with the mosaic of other sites out there.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >american slavery is such a small part of the vast history of slavery. This, of course, was the unspoken thought behind your suggestion. You just don't think that the subject is important. American chattel slavery is both unbelievably important and unique in the history of the world. To minimize its importance in the establishment and rise of the US, the history of Africa and Europe, or its importance in world culture is willful ignorance.
    - Crake 13y ago
      >unique in the history of the world. Hardly. People have been enslaving each other throughout the entirety of human history. To suggest that America is somehow exceptional in this regard reeks of ethnocentrism. The Arab slave trade is arguably just as important, but somehow I doubt you condemn residents of the Middle East as harshly as you do whites...
    - jacobtracey 13y ago
      No one is talking about minimizing it's importance. If anything, you're trying to 'minimize the importance' of the enslavement of people in practically every civilization on earth, for generations before the US was founded and still continuing today. At the end of the day though, that's what the site owner wants, I just don't understand your vitriolic responses to people questioning it.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' and feel more comfortable about the legacy of slavery in this country. Same principle with 'well, African kingdoms sold us the slaves in the first place', it shifts the focus away from them and their ancestors.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' My ancestors first set foot in America in 1930. I do happen to be white though, so I'm curious as to whether you think I'm included in the people responsible for slavery. Or do you think it's only white people whose ancestors were in America more than 149 years ago? I'm just curious if you truly believe people are guilty by racial association or only by ancestral association.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      If your ancestors had owned every slave and had been in the US since 1650, you still wouldn't be personally responsible for slavery. What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. Just as if you had migrated to apartheid South Africa from Ireland in the 80s.
      - 300bps 13y ago
        What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. How am I a beneficiary of something that was outlawed in this country 149 years ago when I have only been alive a small fraction of that time and my ancestors have only been in this country for 84 years?
        pessimizer 13y ago
        If your ancestors had only been here for five minutes, during those five minutes you would enjoy advantages based on your race that black people would not.
Mikeb85 13y ago
It could be that it's not as well documented? Or if it is, that the authors access to the information?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Why limit it to the (relatively) small collection of American stories? Why not open it up to slavery stories from the hundreds of thousands of people around the world?

pessimizer 13y ago

Why should a site about American slavery cover something other than American slavery? Would you go onto a website about the New England Patriots and ask why there wasn't any coverage of the New York Giants, or onto a site about mountaintop removal mining asking why there wasn't more coverage about clearcutting? Do you go onto Kurdish sites and ask why they aren't covering the Armenian genocide? Why should the African-American experience be minimized so as to not be considered a distinct experience from other differing experiences that have been labeled as "slavery"? edit: This is not a rhetorical question.

Xeoncross 13y ago
The domain is broad: "slaverystories" not "americanslaverystories". Hence my recommendation since american slavery is such a small part of the vast history of slavery.
- jfc 13y ago
  This seems pedantic. There are plenty of reasons the site owner may have chosen the domain name. Not every discussion of a subject must be comprehensive--you noted in your comment that the history of slavery is vast. Why is this site owner expected to address all the different instances on his/her site? There are plenty of sites that discuss the broader history of slavery, or specific instances of it. This one fits in with the mosaic of other sites out there.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >american slavery is such a small part of the vast history of slavery. This, of course, was the unspoken thought behind your suggestion. You just don't think that the subject is important. American chattel slavery is both unbelievably important and unique in the history of the world. To minimize its importance in the establishment and rise of the US, the history of Africa and Europe, or its importance in world culture is willful ignorance.
  - Crake 13y ago
    >unique in the history of the world. Hardly. People have been enslaving each other throughout the entirety of human history. To suggest that America is somehow exceptional in this regard reeks of ethnocentrism. The Arab slave trade is arguably just as important, but somehow I doubt you condemn residents of the Middle East as harshly as you do whites...
  - jacobtracey 13y ago
    No one is talking about minimizing it's importance. If anything, you're trying to 'minimize the importance' of the enslavement of people in practically every civilization on earth, for generations before the US was founded and still continuing today. At the end of the day though, that's what the site owner wants, I just don't understand your vitriolic responses to people questioning it.
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' and feel more comfortable about the legacy of slavery in this country. Same principle with 'well, African kingdoms sold us the slaves in the first place', it shifts the focus away from them and their ancestors.
- 300bps 13y ago
  Because it lets white Americans say 'see! other people owned slaves too!' My ancestors first set foot in America in 1930. I do happen to be white though, so I'm curious as to whether you think I'm included in the people responsible for slavery. Or do you think it's only white people whose ancestors were in America more than 149 years ago? I'm just curious if you truly believe people are guilty by racial association or only by ancestral association.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    If your ancestors had owned every slave and had been in the US since 1650, you still wouldn't be personally responsible for slavery. What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. Just as if you had migrated to apartheid South Africa from Ireland in the 80s.
    - 300bps 13y ago
      What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. How am I a beneficiary of something that was outlawed in this country 149 years ago when I have only been alive a small fraction of that time and my ancestors have only been in this country for 84 years?
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        If your ancestors had only been here for five minutes, during those five minutes you would enjoy advantages based on your race that black people would not.

Mikeb85 13y ago

It could be that it's not as well documented? Or if it is, that the authors access to the information?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]