Moral outrage and the U.S. Civil War

[giblets]

Income inequality among whites in South Africa isn't that high.

[Aeson]

Income inequality among whites in South Africa isn't that high.

Irrelevant. Outside of being another reason why your choice of analogs to the South is not applicable or useful.

[giblets]

How is that irrelevant? My point is that Apartheid didn't hurt white South Africans very much. And they're only a minority of South Africa's population. If the CSA existed the it would be entirely possible for the white majority to maintain a high standard of living while keeping the black minority in bondage. Why would you insist on comparing the English-speaking southern US to Latin America instead of comparing it to South Africa?

[Aeson]

How is that irrelevant?

Because even at the time of the Civil War there was huge discrepancy in wealth distribution within the white segment of the population.

My point is that Apartheid didn't hurt white South Africans very much.

It hurt everyone in South Africa, and South Africa as a whole, and it will continue to harm everyone there for generations. Also to a lesser extent, everyone in the world is worse off for it.) Also, it would have hurt the white South Africans far more if they had gotten the average leader of the opposition rather than one of the most admirable people who have ever lived. We could easily be looking at another Zimbabwe eventually, with other leaders.

What type of rebellions the South would have faced from it's slave population isn't known, but on average it would have been very bloody.

And they're only a minority of South Africa's population.

And not slavers, and not in power anymore.

If the CSA existed the it would be entirely possible for the white majority to maintain a high standard of living while keeping the black minority in bondage.

Demonstrably they couldn't even exist to do so. Their chances would have gotten worse over time even if you magically remove the Civil War from the equation.

Why would you insist on comparing the English-speaking southern US to Latin America instead of comparing it to South Africa?

I'm also comparing them to other developing countries around the world. You seem to think race is the pivotal factor, but it's not. White people aren't just always going to be rich like you seem to think they are. English speaking people aren't guaranteed to be rich either. Pretending these are the only applicable factors makes you a stupid racist.

The CSA was an agrarian slave economy with a highly stratified class system even within the white population, without the capital to invest in new technology or industry, and with a neighbor that was demonstrably able to conquer it and had a growing (and valid) moral reason to do so. It was a much different situation than in South Africa. (And even if it wasn't, you keep seeming to forget that Apartheid in South Africa demonstrably failed and was discarded after hamstringing South Africa as a nation for generations to come.)

Even if you spot the CSA the Civil War (and all subsequent military actions that would have occurred otherwise ... Manifest Destiny and all that jazz), they were dinosaurs and the basis for their economy was soon to be defunct. The CSA couldn't just switch over to having slaves in factories, because they couldn't afford to build factories, and slaves aren't competitive in factories anyway. All the poor in the South would have ended up trying to migrate to the North to get better jobs, leaving the Southern aristocracy to fend for themselves against millions of slaves being armed by moral Northerners. Slavery might function (at a very low level) when there's a free worker class that can be used to physically oppress the slaves who have no outside support, but it's going to fail spectacularly when it's down to owners and slaves with everyone else having left for greener pastures.

Slavery was stupid and inefficient. Just accept that and move on. Or at least wait for Ben to come back so you two can have a circle jerk about how great Apartheid was.

[jsorense]

I would like to remind all of us readers of this thread that slavery is abhorrent and has no place in a politically/economically/ethically modern world.
The fact that real or putative slavery still exists is a moral crime which the international community, as well as local polities, must identify and abolish. IMHO
j

[NICE MOBIUS]

Indeed, and it shouldn't be trivialised, like I think it has been in this thread.

[grumbler]

Apartheid did harm white South Africans; GDP per capita went from 27,000 rand to 47,000 rand in the 46 years Apratheid lasted. That's an average of about 1.6% (non-compounded) per year. In the US in that period, per capita GDP rose from $1338 to $24231, or an average of 3.9% (all figures use then-dollars or rand). After Apartheid ended, per capita GDP shot up from 47,000 rand to 79,000 rand in the 16 years to 2010, an average of 10 percent per year.

In other words, Apartheid hurt the whites of South Africa exactly as noted by Aeson, myself, and others, and exactly contrary to giblet's assertion.

Of course, Aeson and I were just lucky, because we need to "maybe go learn about basic economics."


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...elas-lifetime/

https://books.google.com/books?id=OP...8-1996&f=false

[giblets]

Apartheid did harm white South Africans; GDP per capita went from 27,000 rand to 47,000 rand in the 46 years Apratheid lasted. That's an average of about 1.6% (non-compounded) per year. In the US in that period, per capita GDP rose from $1338 to $24231, or an average of 3.9% (all figures use then-dollars or rand). After Apartheid ended, per capita GDP shot up from 47,000 rand to 79,000 rand in the 16 years to 2010, an average of 10 percent per year.

In other words, Apartheid hurt the whites of South Africa exactly as noted by Aeson, myself, and others, and exactly contrary to giblet's assertion.

Of course, Aeson and I were just lucky, because we need to "maybe go learn about basic economics."


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...elas-lifetime/

https://books.google.com/books?id=OP...8-1996&f=false

1. I didn't claim that Apartheid didn't harm white South Africans at all
2. Commodities like gold are a significant part of South Africa's economy and the price of gold surged in the 00's after a gradual decline in the 80's and 90's
3. Your South African numbers use constant 2000 prices while your US number are nominal.
4. (79000/47000)^(1/16) = 1.033 That's not even remotely 10% a year

[giblets]

Aeson, I'm not claiming Apartheid or slavery were great (I have no idea why people jumping to that conclusion) I'm only pointing out that the white part of South Africa was able to function as a developed country and you can't rule out the possibility that the CSA could have done so while keeping black people enslaved (obviously this would be a very bad outcome for black people and a somewhat bad outcome for most white people although not bad enough to necessarily overcome their racist attitudes).

[Aeson]

Aeson, I'm not claiming Apartheid or slavery were great (I have no idea why people jumping to that conclusion) I'm only pointing out that the white part of South Africa was able to function as a developed country and you can't rule out the possibility that the CSA could have done so while keeping black people enslaved (obviously this would be a very bad outcome for black people and a somewhat bad outcome for most white people although not bad enough to necessarily overcome their racist attitudes).

The reason you come across as a racist is because in response to my statement that the CSA would have been backwards, you chose to focus only on the "white part" of South Africa to argue that the CSA wouldn't have been backwards. By doing so you were arguing that only the "white part" of a country matters in determining whether a nation is backwards or not.

CSA was already backwards at the time of the Civil War. Maintaining that system would have lead to them being a 3rd world country. There was nowhere it could go but down. The value of slaves was decreasing. Competition for their products from other poor countries was on the rise. Competition for their products from industrialized countries was only a matter of time. The consumers of their product were becoming less willing to buy it for moral reasons. They were militarily unable to defend themselves. They didn't have the money to invest in industrializing. If the CSA survived (a huge if) maybe there would be some rich white masters ... but it would still a backwards, poor country where all but a select few would want to move to the North to get a decent job.

[giblets]

"CSA was already backwards at the time of the Civil War." only makes sense if you believe that having a more agrarian economy is the same as being backwards, but there's an alternative explanation for the south having a more agrarian economy than the north (the south had a comparative advantage in agriculture and would have been more agrarian than the north even if slavery had never existed). Also, the value of their slaves wasn't decreasing before the war. You're directly contradicting historical evidence that shows slave prices rising.

[Aeson]

The CSA was already backwards. It has nothing to do with agrarian or not. They were going to be backwards technologically in regards to agriculture if they held onto slavery. They were backwards morally, socially and economically, and holding onto slavery would have only meant they became moreso over time.

You're conflating price with value, and presuming a trend was going to continue indefinitely even in the face of dramatic social and technological change. Both of your assumptions are just flat out wrong. The value of slaves was declining because:

a) the marketing price of using slaves to produce was soon to become prohibitive
b) the competitiveness of slaves in industrialized economies is poor
c) the reduced cost of transporting goods and increased competition that was bringing from areas of the world with other forms of cheap labor (and cheaper land)

Idiots with money can always pay more for useless or even detrimental stuff, up until the point they run out of money to be stupid with ... doesn't mean it's worth what they are paying. Slaves were demonstrably the wrong investment to be making around the time of the Civil War.

[NICE MOBIUS]

Also, everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that South Africa was under a world trade embargo - which is usually bad for business...

[giblets]

Aeson: Slaves were declining in value before the civil war
Me: Actually their value was increasing
Aeson: Just because their value was increasing doesn't mean it would have continued forever and also the people buying slaves were stupid and wasting their money and I know better than them blah blah blah

Okay then.

[giblets]

Also, everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that South Africa was under a world trade embargo - which is usually bad for business...

Yes... fortunately the CSA didn't exist and couldn't trade with them