Slavery

[??????????]

Well whatever. Just reverse black for white and that is my response.

So your basically saying your feelings toward slavery would be the same if it was the blacks that owned your white ancestors.  That your white ancestors were treated as mere property, with absolutley no rights what so ever.  That while some of those white ancestors may have been treated respectfully by their black masters some of your other white ancestors may have been beaten and totured by the black slave owners  And that your white ancestors were forced into a life of slavery for no other reason that they were white??/  Your saying your views on slavery would be the same if that was the case??

Obviously you totally ignored my previous post. It would depend on education/monetary status, etc.

[J. J.]

J.J.,

I agree with you a lot on this. I have used the analogy often of a horse. If you owned a horse and it kicked down your fence or tried to run away you wouldn't beat the snot out of it because it's your property. People today don't understand how very expensive slaves were. The average field hand ran 500-800 dollars for a 22-25 year old male. Younger males 15-20ish would often go up well over 1000 dollars which in 21st century money is about 10 times that amount.

Also, I must add that in this period the economic class structures were very very  distinct. Poor whites (Po'white trash, as they were called) were often treated with as much respect or often much less then slaves. They were considered a lower form of human and were often run off their land by the wealthy.

States,

What I object to in your argument is the equating the treatment of slaves with the holding.  I have little doubt that, as property, slaves were usually maintained in an adequate manner for survival.  There was obviously an incentive for slave holders to maintain their slaves, a financial incentive.  The complaint is not about treatment.

Since most of us don't own horses, let me give you an example.  Suppose that the police show up at your door.  They will use force only if your resist.  That take you to one of Florida's state prisons.  You have been convicted of nothing, have never had a trial, nor will one be permitted.  You will be well clothed, fed and sheltered (certainly by slave standards), but will be there from life.  They will put you to some type of work that you can physically; they will pay you a small amount of money for your work.  If you prove reliable enough in a few years, you get a few privileges.

Oh, it just won't be you; it will be everybody in your wife's family, related both by blood and marriage.  The conditions will be the same for them.

Should I praise the state of Florida for not whipping you?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Smash wtf is your comparison with Irish immagrants have to do with anything?

States its obvious that by his irish comment mom and dad trained him well to be the lib he is today

Smash, cut it out with your irish opression nonsense, that attitude of self pity and unfounded anger has led the blacks into the welfare slums they are in, breeding hatred and stupid ideaology into children only makes things worse

[Smash255]

Evil is not a buzzword, it is a term that describes great injustice against humanity.  There is no point in a historian debating the merits of evil.

Yes, and the Cro Magnons were "evil" for wiping out the neanderthals.  Pizarro was "evil" for butchering 80,000 at Cajamarca.  BUT, they were different times and things were done differently.  I'm not making an attempt to defend slavery at all, but a person even 100 years ago would hardly understand our preoccupation with political correctness and multiculturalism and diversity.  It's out of context when people try to apply today's political correctness to historical events.  Slavery may be a great evil in today's society, but it was normal 150 years ago and has a legacy that stretches back thousands of years and affects people of all colors.

Just because something such as slavery was considered normal or was accepted 150 years ago doesn't make the practice any less disgusting or wrong.

[J-Mann]

Evil is not a buzzword, it is a term that describes great injustice against humanity.  There is no point in a historian debating the merits of evil.

Yes, and the Cro Magnons were "evil" for wiping out the neanderthals.  Pizarro was "evil" for butchering 80,000 at Cajamarca.  BUT, they were different times and things were done differently.  I'm not making an attempt to defend slavery at all, but a person even 100 years ago would hardly understand our preoccupation with political correctness and multiculturalism and diversity.  It's out of context when people try to apply today's political correctness to historical events.  Slavery may be a great evil in today's society, but it was normal 150 years ago and has a legacy that stretches back thousands of years and affects people of all colors.

Just because something such as slavery was considered normal or was accepted 150 years ago doesn't make the practice any less disgusting or wrong.

I really don't think you get my point.  It's not worth trying to explain anymore.

[Smash255]

Well whatever. Just reverse black for white and that is my response.

So your basically saying your feelings toward slavery would be the same if it was the blacks that owned your white ancestors.  That your white ancestors were treated as mere property, with absolutley no rights what so ever.  That while some of those white ancestors may have been treated respectfully by their black masters some of your other white ancestors may have been beaten and totured by the black slave owners  And that your white ancestors were forced into a life of slavery for no other reason that they were white??/  Your saying your views on slavery would be the same if that was the case??

Obviously you totally ignored my previous post. It would depend on education/monetary status, etc.

So your education/monetary status now would impact your decision on how you would feel about your ancestors forced into a life of slavery soley based in their race???  Where some of them may have been treated decently but other ancestors of yours could have been beaten & totured??  Your feelings on the hardships your ancestors had, having no rights being treated as mere property, dehumanized, etc would soley be based on your current economic standing?

[J. J.]

So your education/monetary status now would impact your decision on how you would feel about your ancestors forced into a life of slavery soley based in their race???  Where some of them may have been treated decently but other ancestors of yours could have been beaten & totured??  Your feelings on the hardships your ancestors had, having no rights being treated as mere property, dehumanized, etc would soley be based on your current economic standing?

I'm going to bet that most of the people posting had ancestors that were serfs or indentured servants.  In my case, my ancestors lost a series of wars, 250 years ago.  What happened to them isn't relevent to how I interact with society today.

What is relevent is how the events impact society today.  I am suggesting that the views needed to justify slavery were perpetuated well into the 20th (and 21st Century).  That is what cannot be divorced from the discussion of slavery.

[dazzleman]

Some of the posters here, like J.J. and J-Mann, have made some very good points outside the bounds of today's relatively mindless political correctness.

Past slavery need not affect anybody's life today, so long as we eliminate the attitudes that justified slavery.

We should stop talking about slavery as if it happened only to people of African descent in the US.  Slavery was a common institution for thousands of years, and all racial and ethnic groups participated in it, as both slaves and slavemasters.

We do a disservice to the descendants of slaves to put so much backwards toward the past.  Yes, slavery was an abomination, and I'll make no apology or offer no justification for it.

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

[J. J.]

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

Here, here!

My complain is that even if slavery was as "bad" as it was portayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin, the mindset that created it in the way that it was is the problem.  That mindset was not outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

[Richard]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

I don't believe it is the government's job to tell me that I'm not allowed to become someone's slave by signing an agreement of ownership in turn of accomodation, clothing, and food.  In the agreement I can stipulate that I will be serving that individual for say, 50 years, and I can opt to cancel the contract say, the anniversary every 10 years.

Going about kidnapping people to work for you is wrong.

[Gabu]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

If you willingly go into it and don't have to otherwise, and your owners are required to treat you fairly during your time there, I wouldn't call that "slavery"; I would call it "volunteer employment".

[Richard]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

If you willingly go into it and don't have to otherwise, and your owners are required to treat you fairly during your time there, I wouldn't call that "slavery"; I would call it "volunteer employment".

It is slavery if they get your vote and are can restrict you to their property.

[Gabu]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

If you willingly go into it and don't have to otherwise, and your owners are required to treat you fairly during your time there, I wouldn't call that "slavery"; I would call it "volunteer employment".

It is slavery if they get your vote and are can restrict you to their property.

I suppose, but it's not really slavery in the sense that most people are talking about in this topic.  I think the "abomination" we're talking about, as some people have called it, is the idea of forcing people into involuntary servitude.

[Richard]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

If you willingly go into it and don't have to otherwise, and your owners are required to treat you fairly during your time there, I wouldn't call that "slavery"; I would call it "volunteer employment".

It is slavery if they get your vote and are can restrict you to their property.

I suppose, but it's not really slavery in the sense that most people are talking about in this topic.  I think the "abomination" we're talking about, as some people have called it, is the idea of forcing people into involuntary servitude.

I don't think I have a problem with that either, if the people are convicted criminals.

[Alcon]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

If you willingly go into it and don't have to otherwise, and your owners are required to treat you fairly during your time there, I wouldn't call that "slavery"; I would call it "volunteer employment".

It is slavery if they get your vote and are can restrict you to their property.

I suppose, but it's not really slavery in the sense that most people are talking about in this topic.  I think the "abomination" we're talking about, as some people have called it, is the idea of forcing people into involuntary servitude.

I don't think I have a problem with that either, if the people are convicted criminals.

You're really going into semantics here. You know very well what we're talking about.

[J-Mann]

There is nothing really wrong with slavery, provided: People are not born into it, they can opt-out as per agreement, and are treated fairly.

I don't believe it is the government's job to tell me that I'm not allowed to become someone's slave by signing an agreement of ownership in turn of accomodation, clothing, and food.  In the agreement I can stipulate that I will be serving that individual for say, 50 years, and I can opt to cancel the contract say, the anniversary every 10 years.

Quite different from the slavery of old that this topic is discussing, but even so: would you be interested in doing this?  I could probably work on getting you US citizenship if you'd sign a slavery contract with me.  I could use a strong back around this place...

[phk]

I want a slave!

[Richard]

Quite different from the slavery of old that this topic is discussing, but even so: would you be interested in doing this?  I could probably work on getting you US citizenship if you'd sign a slavery contract with me.  I could use a strong back around this place...

Slavery is slavery.  There is just different ways of going about to get slaves.  I don't oppose slavery: I oppose the morally wrong methods used to obtain slaves.

And it is not your place to question why I may or may not want to do something.  I really don't have any desires to own slaves, nor do I want to be one.  But, there are others out there that may be different from me, and I will respect their rights.

[J-Mann]

Quite different from the slavery of old that this topic is discussing, but even so: would you be interested in doing this?  I could probably work on getting you US citizenship if you'd sign a slavery contract with me.  I could use a strong back around this place...

Slavery is slavery.  There is just different ways of going about to get slaves.  I don't oppose slavery: I oppose the morally wrong methods used to obtain slaves.

And it is not your place to question why I may or may not want to do something.  I really don't have any desires to own slaves, nor do I want to be one.  But, there are others out there that may be different from me, and I will respect their rights.

I didn't question why...I questioned if.  And I guess the answer is no

[Richard]

I didn't question why...I questioned if.  And I guess the answer is no

Nah, I'm not going to be your slave.  Sorry old boy.

[Smash255]

Smash wtf is your comparison with Irish immagrants have to do with anything?

States its obvious that by his irish comment mom and dad trained him well to be the lib he is today

Smash, cut it out with your irish opression nonsense, that attitude of self pity and unfounded anger has led the blacks into the welfare slums they are in, breeding hatred and stupid ideaology into children only makes things worse

I'm not the one that brought up the Irish immigrant issue.  States is the one that did.  States is the one that made the comparison, and actually tired to make the point that irish immigrants lives were harder than slaves lives.  i simply responded to it

[Hitchabrut]

No.

[dazzleman]

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

Here, here!

My complain is that even if slavery was as "bad" as it was portayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin, the mindset that created it in the way that it was is the problem.  That mindset was not outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Good point.  The mindset continued, and nothing could change it.  But I think it's terribly tragic that it took another 100 years before we even tried to start treating blacks like regular citizens.

The ironic thing is that the south's treatment of its black population has a lot to do with why it was such an economic backwater for so long after the civil war.  When you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, it is bound to hold down the economic prospects of the whole society. 

It's too bad that we sometimes fail to see that citizens are at least potential assets to society.  To label them as liabilities when they have something to contribute ensures that their contribution will never be what it could be.  A society that helps its citizens to maximize their potential (without giving the type of "help" that simply reinforces negative behavior patterns) will maximize its potential for wealth and minimize social dislocation.  The treatment of blacks after the civil war did just the opposite.  It was not only wrong, but incredibly stupid.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

Here, here!

My complain is that even if slavery was as "bad" as it was portayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin, the mindset that created it in the way that it was is the problem.  That mindset was not outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Good point.  The mindset continued, and nothing could change it.  But I think it's terribly tragic that it took another 100 years before we even tried to start treating blacks like regular citizens.

The ironic thing is that the south's treatment of its black population has a lot to do with why it was such an economic backwater for so long after the civil war.  When you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, it is bound to hold down the economic prospects of the whole society. 

It's too bad that we sometimes fail to see that citizens are at least potential assets to society.  To label them as liabilities when they have something to contribute ensures that their contribution will never be what it could be.  A society that helps its citizens to maximize their potential (without giving the type of "help" that simply reinforces negative behavior patterns) will maximize its potential for wealth and minimize social dislocation.  The treatment of blacks after the civil war did just the opposite.  It was not only wrong, but incredibly stupid.

What do you suppose we do with them now dazzleman???

[J. J.]

Personally, I think we would long be past our unhealthy obsession with past slavery if blacks had been treated better in the south after they were freed from slavery.  In recent terms, the treatment of blacks in the post-Civil War south is much more of a problem today than slavery, in my opinion.

Here, here!

My complain is that even if slavery was as "bad" as it was portayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin, the mindset that created it in the way that it was is the problem.  That mindset was not outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Good point.  The mindset continued, and nothing could change it.  But I think it's terribly tragic that it took another 100 years before we even tried to start treating blacks like regular citizens.

The ironic thing is that the south's treatment of its black population has a lot to do with why it was such an economic backwater for so long after the civil war.  When you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, it is bound to hold down the economic prospects of the whole society. 

It's too bad that we sometimes fail to see that citizens are at least potential assets to society.  To label them as liabilities when they have something to contribute ensures that their contribution will never be what it could be.  A society that helps its citizens to maximize their potential (without giving the type of "help" that simply reinforces negative behavior patterns) will maximize its potential for wealth and minimize social dislocation.  The treatment of blacks after the civil war did just the opposite.  It was not only wrong, but incredibly stupid.

What do you suppose we do with them now dazzleman???

Something radical, like treating them as people, citizens, and individuals.