Did the Sahara cause Black-white racism and affect how we view race?

[Al B. Sure!]

The thing about Othello is it really isn't about the race of Othello. It's about jilted Iago (angry for not being promoted) and Rodrigo (who loved Desdemona). The only references to Othello being different is in the beginning when Rodrigo called to Desdemona's father Brabantio telling him of a black ram mounting his fair lamb or something like that.

For all the notability of Othello, had Othello been Venetian, the story would be unchanged. For some reason, people assume it's about an inter-racial marriage. There is (depending on if Othello is a Black Moor or not) an inter-racial marriage but it's hardly ancillary to the story.

[giblets]

I think that's the point. But I'm guessing you knew that.

[Al B. Sure!]

But there is virtually no racism in Othello and it's not even an important part of the story. People erroneously think Othello is a story about race relations.

[giblets]

But there is virtually no racism in Othello and it's not even an important part of the story. People erroneously think Othello is a story about race relations.

Yes. A black guy is just another guy in that story. I think that was JM's point

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm inclined to agree with Alby here. I didn't get the impression that race was particularly important when I read othello.

[Jon Miller]

That's the point.

Other than a few descriptions of him being black, and maybe a slight message of 'keep to your own kind'.

It wouldn't even have been created in the 80s.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

The Jeffersons had a white man/black woman couple, but that was always more historically acceptable than the inverse.

The actress actually was married to a white man in real life. She's the mother of Lenny Kravitz, funnily enough.

[Kidlicious]

What are you quoting? It claims that the slave trade prevented industrialization without explaining how it did that. Why would selling laborers stop industrialization? Lots of workers left Europe for America by choice and Europe still developed.

Now we know exactly what you know about economics. Thanks.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah not gribbler's best moment.

Slave-based societies, which are also heavily agricultural, do not give much incentive for technological change leading to industrialization. Also, the fact that slaves became virtually the basis of West African economy (their biggest export by far) meant there was no incentive to do anything else beyond the subsistence level but raid for slaves. They exchanged these slaves for imported European goods which had more prestige than locally-manufactured equivalents, which further diminished the potential for local production.

There is criticism today about the economies of many developing countries being simple export-based; that is, cash crops are exported in exchange for manufactured goods from developed countries and that this causes an inbalance that retards cash crop-based economies from developing.

The slave trade was like this but more extreme since the slave trade was accompanied by big demographic changes and significant political instability. Kingdoms actually went to war to acquire slaves. It is also theorized that the slave trade retarded the formation of larger ethnic (national) identities in Africa, keeping African areas fragmented ethnically.

[giblets]

Slave-based societies, which are also heavily agricultural, do not give much incentive for technological change leading to industrialization.

Why not? People obviously did have an incentive to adopt labor-saving inventions if they owned slaves, just look at the cotton gin.

Also, the fact that slaves became virtually the basis of West African economy (their biggest export by far) meant there was no incentive to do anything else beyond the subsistence level but raid for slaves. They exchanged these slaves for imported European goods which had more prestige than locally-manufactured equivalents, which further diminished the potential for local production.

Don't be silly, there would be an incentive to do anything beyond subsistence level so long as the product was worth the amount of labor it would take to produce it. If they found it profitable to sell slaves instead of keeping them for domestic production, then the marginal product of labor must have been much higher overseas. If the ruling class thought European manufactures were of superior quality then how is it the slave trade's fault that they didn't prefer domestic goods? Did Africa switch to domestic manufacturing after the slave trade ended?

There is criticism today about the economies of many developing countries being simple export-based; that is, cash crops are exported in exchange for manufactured goods from developed countries and that this causes an inbalance that retards cash crop-based economies from developing.

They don't develop because they export the things they have an advantage in producing? That seems silly. Why would their incomes improve if they used more of their resources to make things they can't produce cheaply? And even if protecting domestic industries is successful in enhancing productivity, I don't think there's any evidence that African kingdoms would have protected domestic manufacturing in the absence of a slave trade.

The slave trade was like this but more extreme since the slave trade was accompanied by big demographic changes and significant political instability. Kingdoms actually went to war to acquire slaves.

So? If laborers weren't valuable then they would probably go to war to acquire land. Kingdoms always have an incentive to try and steal things from other kingdoms.

[Whoha]

Why not? People obviously did have an incentive to adopt labor-saving inventions if they owned slaves, just look at the cotton gin.

Meanwhile in the north... factories, railroads, shipyards, etc. Southern wealth was eclipsed precisely because they did not invest as heavily in capital.

I think black-white racism was caused by the European need for cheap, disease-resistant labor from a location convenient to their New World interests.

Disease/temperature resistant more than cheap, once plantation owners got a monopoly they did their best to limit the importation of new slaves, atleast in America.

[Hauldren Collider]

The north had geographic reasons for factories. At the time, the primary source of power was from rivers.

[giblets]

The north had geographic reasons for factories. At the time, the primary source of power was from rivers.

Steam power was already available and the South has rivers so that isn't very convincing.

[giblets]

Meanwhile in the north... factories, railroads, shipyards, etc. Southern wealth was eclipsed precisely because they did not invest as heavily in capital.

This does not, as a matter of fact, prove that slavery prevented investment in capital. The gap between the south and north grew a lot after the civil war.

[Al B. Sure!]

Steam power was already available and the South has rivers so that isn't very convincing.

So you agree that geography doesn't explain the difference in industrialization between the South and the North? What explains it then? Perchance slavery?

I can turn your tactics back on you, punk.