US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Kuciwalker]

Why not several?

[Japher]

That would just be mean...

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Montesquieu
Here in Brazil slavery was only abolished in 1888. It was the last country to actually free her slaves, and for a good reason: they had a large importance in our economy, since Portugal brought a great number of them to work in the sugar plantations here. The responsability, I think, is more in the hands of the european powers than in our american hands. They made slavery such an important activity for the american continent that we couldn't simply free the slaves or we would go bankrupt. We actually had an entire process of setting people free until we could actually abolish slavery completely.

There are moral implications, I know. But the economy is always a priority in our human minds, although freedom, civil rights and common sense may be not.

The portuguese/brazilians used to go into Spanish territory to enslave the guarani amerindians living in the jesuit missions.

I think you still have a statue in honor of the Bandeirantes

[Seeker]

"Its like little Johnny..."

are we starting with the Little Johnny jokes now??

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Montesquieu
Here in Brazil slavery was only abolished in 1888. It was the last country to actually free her slaves, and for a good reason: they had a large importance in our economy, since Portugal brought a great number of them to work in the sugar plantations here. The responsability, I think, is more in the hands of the european powers than in our american hands. They made slavery such an important activity for the american continent that we couldn't simply free the slaves or we would go bankrupt. We actually had an entire process of setting people free until we could actually abolish slavery completely.

There are moral implications, I know. But the economy is always a priority in our human minds, although freedom, civil rights and common sense may be not.

I agree, human behavoir once civilised in econimic behavoir, under the premise of responsible for slavery as originaly posisted, the supply of slaves is not where responsobility lies but in demand, ie sell/buy.

So what does tell us?, in order for the US Northern states and europe to produce textiles to allow more people to own better and cheapercloths, some section of people have to be used in the cotton industry, or earlier and much more numbers wise in the sugar industry, so the original premise is alson that no one is resaposible, its all just market forces dicatating the optimam use of labour, and hence profit.

i have never read a convincing argument that colonial US would ahve become the economic power house it did without either slavery or indentures.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Solomwi


Wrong direction and backward derivation. As said above, it came from the Latin "sclavus," but that first appeared around the start of the 9th century and derived from Slovenci, the name by which the Slavs being enslaved by the HRE at the time called themselves.

The English word 'slave' originates from 'Slav', as does the French 'esclave' ('Slav' in French is 'slave') and the Latin 'sclavus' they are all descriptors of a function, likweise Viking is a descriptor not a ethnic term Vikings are or rather were Scandinavian, Slav, Finno-Ugric, Hiberno-Norse, Kievan, Russ etc. It's not about ethnicity it's more like occupation.

Slovo is another root of importance, its those who speak the same langauge, but i dont want to bore you...but since you mentioned the slovenci, thats where it comes from.

Lastly your incorrect about the use of sclavus, its ancient latin, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin....submit=Select

heres such as ciecero, Caeser, plato and Aristotle using the term.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Nicki-
I did use the word moral once, you are correct about that.

But I'm surprised you don't see that legal and moral responsibility are both secondary to PHYSICAL responsibility. Causing a thing to exist is neither a legal nor moral issue.

Physical responsoblity?, just what is that?, if i see your children drowning do i have a phsical responsobility to go save them?, i know about by civic responsbility, and moral and legal poistions, but i dont understand my phsical responsoblity.

Slavery exists because of economics, its regulated by laws, laws exist to protect society, in society some are exploited by others for gain and no legislation can prevent this, its the degree of explotation thats regulated.

laws are a reflection of societys econimic demands and moral considerations, sometimes the law is behind the moral norm and sometimes the other way around.

In the history of the USA it started with slavery and ended quicker than almosty every other country in the history of the world, so while it in linear time line is at the end of the use of slavery, its also at the diamtericly opostite of time when slavery was legal in its countries history.

Your arguments lack presicion and logic imo.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
On Jefferson - Nicki, it is simply to convenient to keep holding slaves on the premise that bad things would happen if you set them free. (Wait, I thought he simply couldn't afford it. Now he's actually got their best interests at heart by keeping them enslaved!

Well lets use some more history black share croppers in 1980 worked 10% more hours per annum than a slave in 1860, he lived on 75% of the slaves diet, lived 80% of the slaves average life, spent 200% more time sick, was effected by diseases that slaves did not suffer from because of the dietry imbalnce of what he did eat, and had less disposable income than a slave did in 1860.

So yes Jefferson responsobiltys stretch far and wide, they start with those to his family, if he frees his major source of income, they will suffer financial harm. vclearly if i consider myself resposble for global warming i must sell my car stright away, will yours be in the lot ahead of mine?.


Haiti anyone? as a consequence of unplanned freedom.

he could not and would not free them in his lifetime, first because of the law, second because of econimcs and lastly because of the responsobility of what would happen to the slaves themselves.

Yes responsblity extends to the future of those now free salves, jeferson spnet years and money to educte and cloth and provision them for a future that would allow them to become citizens of the Union and earn a living, a visiting french count remarked that Jefferson was on first name terms with hsi servants and that they were better educated clothed than his own back in France, and we all know how sloppy the Frnch nobility wasd about their house servants.

In 1862 the US Congress passed the laws to govern contraband, is negro property coming into the lines, if the owner asked for them, as per the fugative slave act he was to be arrested, irespective of he was not actually in the rebelion, only because he was a citizen of a state in rebelion, those contraband worked in plantations doing the same work in Union occupied ereas that allowed this, they were shot if found outside the nplantation without a permit, they were contracted to work for a year at a time, recieved $9 and found a month and did not get anything untill a years service was put in. This was the same law, and other Northern slave codes already in existance that the reconstructed states put into place, so who responsible for replacing one form of slavery with another?, while fighting a war many understand to be about making men free?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Lastly, Berz - the "children in the schoolyard". When people mention the US involvement in the slave trade, you often hear "but the slaves own 'countrymen' sold the slaves in the first place" as if this is some sort of defence for US actions.

It's not.

Perhaps your unaware of the level of black ownership of blacks? by US negro/creole citizens, over 1200 owners of negros/creoles in La for instance.

[Ted Striker]

One thing I can't stand is the following talking point that is always repeated word for word by some people. I'm very surprised the people who say it to, who are normally kind and mostly open minded people:

"If the blacks in America weren't sent here, they would be living in grass huts with dirt floors right now."

That statement is wrong on so many damn levels it pisses me off so much.

[Kuciwalker]

Tilting at strawmen AFAIK no one's argued that.

[Ted Striker]

I never said anyone in this thread has argued that.

I'm talking about people out in the world I've spoken with have said that.

I haven't followed all 8 pages of this thread, I'm making a new comment.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that the ancient Romans called their slaves "servili". I seem to recall that the campaign against Sparticus was called the "Third Servile War", there having been two previous major slave uprisings.

Anyway, so we get the word from the medieval Germans, not the Vikings. Big deal. It's not like there's a great deal of difference between the two.

To the slavs the root word meant "famous". What irony.

Sicily and the Latin wars are the others, its intresting about the Latin war, which was make them citizens while the others were just about freedom from Roman rule.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I never said anyone in this thread has argued that.

I'm talking about people out in the world I've spoken with have said that.

I haven't followed all 8 pages of this thread, I'm making a new comment.

Ok ill play DA here.

Yes the argument that slavery in the NW was better than the pagan existance they came from was very common then and still around today.

My oposition to slavery is primarily to do with choice, afaikt vewry few chose to be slaves, not that other cultures did not allow slavery by choice, celtic for instance, but that in that culture mobility between free and salve was very high, even in the quite benign slavery of some sattes that created long life and better conditions of existance, that choice was denied, and mobility between freedom and slave was very, very limited, in some states the existnce of a slave was lietaly short sharp and extremmly harsh, cane fields for instance.

But on economic terms are the slaves in Va better off than had they remained in Africa?, do they live in better conditions and so on, very likly, buts not really the point about slavery at all, its an excellent point regarding slaverys effects and its beifits, but its not what is entriscly wrong with slavery, choice.

Btw, i think a rather lot of Africans do indeed live in mud huts and so on, and that again is because of geography and human economics effects of cuture and societys.

[The Mad Viking]

Cyclotron.

I suspose "dishonest" is closest...

However, the title of a thread is rarely the premise; as I said, it can be more accurately compared to a newspaper headline - something which hints at the contents of the article, often simplyfying things and losing nuance, both by necessity (need for brevity) and by design (to stimulate interest).

Some posters responded to the thread as if I suggested that the US invented slavery. I posted that if they had so much as read the entire thread title they could see that was not the argument.

Here are the first two sentences of the OP.

I remain incredulous that so many people try to mitigate the responsibility for slavery by making assertions like, "Most slaves were captured and sold by their countrymen."

The act of buying and keeping a slave demonstrates a belief in the justification of slavery. The moral responsibility remains, unmitigated, with the people who bought and kept slaves.

Many slaves were captured by slavers or their agents. In the early days of the slave trade, some were sold by tribes who had captured rival tribepeople in raids.

Lets talk about language. If the Africans are 50% responsible for slavery, then my statement has no value, and the opposite arrangement "Africans, not US, responsible for slavery" would be equally desciptive of reality, and equally inaccurate.

If the Africans are 5% responsible for slavery, you can certainly argue that the statement is factually untrue. But that does not make in innaccurate. It is, in fact, a reprsentative statement.

If you disagree, what if the Africans are 0.5% responsible for slavery? Well, from an absolute, mathematical POV, the statement would still be "not true". Yet in language, this would be considered "true". Many legal definitions of purity accept 99.5% as "pure".

[The Mad Viking]

Nicki

Physicaly responsible means "caused something to exist or occur".

Treating your slaves well does not absolve one of the responsibility for owning slaves. The whole Jefferson thing is a crock of ****. Explain why he didn't free his slaves and tell him they were welcome to stay as his servants? Explain the risks faced by leaving, and let them, as free citizens, decide?

Putting forth the notion that some freed blacks held slaves seems awfully like another defence of evil by pointing to someone else doing something wrong.

Funny, many Americans are proud of the New Hampshire state creed, "Live Free or Die". It is quite remarkable that some of the same people will tell you that about the benefits of slavery provided to blacks.
:q

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Nicki

Physicaly responsible means "caused something to exist or occur".

More nonsense your just wriggling still further since it is manifistly clear that the US did not cause slavery to exist or occur.

ill ask again, list the nations of the world in which slavery existed and was removed in law quicker than the US.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Treating your slaves well does not absolve one of the responsibility for owning slaves. The whole Jefferson thing is a crock of ****. Explain why he didn't free his slaves and tell him they were welcome to stay as his servants? Explain the risks faced by leaving, and let them, as free citizens, decide?

Thank you for you educated opinion on Jefferson, what would i do without your input?, so full of well crafted argument rich in historical fact and intpretation.

Heres a thought, why not aquiant yourself with some history and get back to me.

I can go one better than Jefferson, (who i notice you have no understanding of re salvery btw) N B Forrest had 132 slaves in 1863, after chikamauga he saw that mil success was not likely and freed them, 62 of them were with him in his command, not one left him or the units their were with as cooks, wagon drivers, drovers etc, as free negros and citizen they drew pay from the CSA government, the rest of his slaves were back on his land growing food stuff/cotton, only 7 chose to leave and go elswhere, Forrest made all freed slaves equal owners in the plantation and all recieved an equal return on the income it generated, one was the lead pale bearer at his funarel.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Putting forth the notion that some freed blacks held slaves seems awfully like another defence of evil by pointing to someone else doing something wrong.

No, its exactly like saying that ownership of slaves is a matter of legality, not responsobility. It was you who entered the notion that the US was responsible and the africans not responsible, i meerly point out that US negros owned other negros, just as african negros owned other african negros, only in scale was there a difference, more africans were sold by africans to India than to the US, so India is responsible right?.

By your own logical extension everone who employs another for finacial gain is resposible for evil and is wrong to do so, the fact that your contract gives you medi care and dental is just not relavent.

Otoh hand if you actually think a little instead of just wanting to piss of people with badly a crafted premise, you see that slavery has never ended, only that the degree of reward and punishment of those being exploited has changed.


Secondly your use of evil, yet again, impllication that you are argueing on moral grounds while at the same time saying that morality and legaality are irelavent to your argument, its hard not to conclude your premise is based on a faulty posistion that you will change at any time the debate causes your premsise problems. Thirdly you asumption that slavery is wrong is not a given you do not have to demonstrate, you have yet to even closely argue that it is.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Funny, many Americans are proud of the New Hampshire state creed, "Live Free or Die". It is quite remarkable that some of the same people will tell you that about the benefits of slavery provided to blacks.
:q

158 slaves to emancipate in NH compared to 00s of 000s in Va is the simple answer, another would be slaves can die in pursuit of freedom just as easily as free men in pursuit of other forms of freedom.