First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Was Slavery all that bad?
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/26/08 , edited 11/26/08
Depends really.

The initial slave masters who captured innocent women/men and crammed them into ships to either meet certain death or to work for unknown people is ultimately evil. It's pretty much "one human taking advantage of another" because they have the power to do so. This power obviously came from technology.

On the other hand, slave masters who have had slaves handed to them through inheritance can be considered evil or moderately noble. Readers might say to this, "how can it be moderately noble?". Well we have to first consider the fact that not all slave masters necessarily directly engaged in the exploitation of humans. Once we have this established, the second question arises - What can the slaves do if they're freed by their masters? In most cases, they were re-captured by neighboring slave masters regardless of the rights to freedom given to them by their owners or the state. In other words, the "Freeman" title is moot. Living in an era where people take slavery and human exploitation for granted, your best choice is to stay with a master who understands this concept and treats you with the most amount of respect as possible. Statistics would probably show that there were not many of these kinds of slave masters.

Slavery was a means of profit for the masters. In other words, the less money they invest in the slaves the more income they would receive. The logical thought process for most slave holders were to treat these slaves like shit not entirely for the sake of hurting them, but for the sake of profit. With this said, there were obviously sadists who enjoyed hurting their slaves.



Let's look at slavery from a contemporary view. Not many people pay attention to the events which occur after slavery abolishment. Most history textbooks, being the shit they are, don't analyze the sudden and incomplete abolishment of slavery. Being the capitalist state, there are two type of people: People who own the means of production, and people who provide the labor. Obviously the slave masters are the former while the slaves are the latter. After the sudden abolishment, there was a crisis among the former slaves since they could not necessarily find a job or own a piece of land to farm. What other choice did they have? They had to go back to these slave masters not as "slaves", but as "laborers". Ironic ain't it?

What happens after this is pretty obvious: The slave masters still treated the laborers like shit but didn't have to provide them housing or board. In other words, they could pay them almost nothing and receive an even larger profit. What happens if slaves died? They simply hire new ones. Slaves were no longer "bought" and were no longer a personal liability, so there was no initial investment required for the cheap labor. Former slaves, being desperate for money, couldn't complain or do anything.

My point here is that in a very broad perspective, slavery itself was wrong, but simply going around stating "SLAVERY WAS WRONG! PERIOD" is a very naive comment. The abolishment of slavery was poorly done and much of today's problems in the African American population is related to this. We can see this more clearly with hindsight, but I still believe that the government during this era didn't think this one through properly.


EDIT: If you're going to respond to my post with shit information you obtained from your school textbooks, don't bother. I'll simply destroy you and make you look like the idiot you are.
FZTime 
26337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / We've been here s...
Offline
Posted 11/26/08
well slaves... if u're talking about those that are not paid....well...they are a property of someone...how does that feel? where's the freedom? thats why i feel that slavery is 'bad'...
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 11/26/08

LemonyPanda wrote:
I was studying slavery in history right now and i've noticed that slavery wasn't all that bad. I mean of course its bad but its not as bad as people thought. MOST masters treated their slaves pretty well (they didn't let them do dangerous work because slaves are property and don't want to lose value in their property) and a lot of them were eventually freed by saving up their own money. Some white people in the free states were actually worse because as the industrial revolution came to be, there were thousands of workers working for 14 hours a day with only a 30 minute lunch break and only sunday off. There were no safety requirements so people were gettting their hands chopped off and were forced to live in crowded small rooms with 20 other strangers they haven't met before. A lot of people got sick because of the sanitary conditions and once you were sick/had your hand chopped off, you were no longer needed and therefore were kicked out onto the streets crippled and without a home. At least if you were a slave, you were fed, got to work in the open air, and were taken care of until you got old. Its only because of books like uncle tom's cabin and such that made slavery seem like torture


Congrats, you have learnt to look at things objectively rather than simplifying everything.
Posted 11/26/08
1. Forcing someone to do something against their will is never good no matter how you look at it. It's a violation of human rights.
2. Even if the slaves were never whipped, beaten, or raped, which they were frequently, it doesn't mean that it was good. Slavery would have a deep psychological impact on the individual. Slaves were not just hurt physically, but emotionally and psychologically. We can still see the "slave mentality" in people today, even though people are not subjected to the lifestyle
3.


LemonyPanda wrote:

MOST masters treated their slaves pretty well (they didn't let them do dangerous work because slaves are property and don't want to lose value in their property)


Naturally they could only hurt their slaves to a degree so they wouldn't kill them. That shouldn't make you assume that they lived in well either. To say so is rediculous. Masters left their slaves looking like this regularly. Is this treating them well.

4. You are racist for even trying to justify this barbaric act. Read Incidents in a Life of a Slaver Girl, and tell me that slavery's not so bad.
3491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Belgium
Offline
Posted 11/26/08 , edited 11/26/08

serealj wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:


serealj wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:
Why don't you learn UNBIASED history first and THEN come debate


Okay, gonna stop you there. Clearly you don't realise that history by definition is bias. There exists no non biased history. Come back when you at least have taken a university level history course.


you want to see unbiased history? statistics...


Statistics are hardly history. They are numbers. The format you read statistics in and how the historian interprets the facts is what history is. Even if you were physically at a historical event, the way you write or tell people about history is bias.

Lets not also forget how the statistics were collected, what year was it? Who collected them, why were they collected?





I think your point is: slaves were expensive back in the days of the Romans, so most Romans took good care of them, since they were an investment that costed quite a lot. So when a slave would go criple, it meant the loss of a lot of money. Of course if there were far too many slaves, prices would drop ...

I agree if that's your point, BUT ...

Slavery is bad, whatever the historical period might be. As some idiot mentioned here ("gotta love sexslaves" that moron said) slaves were often abused sexually. They were not considered as humans, or persons, they were just "things".
102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 11/26/08

willby wrote:

I think your point is: slaves were expensive back in the days of the Romans, so most Romans took good care of them, since they were an investment that costed quite a lot. So when a slave would go criple, it meant the loss of a lot of money. Of course if there were far too many slaves, prices would drop ...

I agree if that's your point, BUT ...

Slavery is bad, whatever the historical period might be. As some idiot mentioned here ("gotta love sexslaves" that moron said) slaves were often abused sexually. They were not considered as humans, or persons, they were just "things".


uh, not my point, don't want to be confused with the original poster. I'm just saying this guy doesn't understand what history is. It's pretty much just trolling.


3491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Belgium
Offline
Posted 11/26/08 , edited 11/26/08

serealj wrote:


willby wrote:

I think your point is: slaves were expensive back in the days of the Romans, so most Romans took good care of them, since they were an investment that costed quite a lot. So when a slave would go criple, it meant the loss of a lot of money. Of course if there were far too many slaves, prices would drop ...

I agree if that's your point, BUT ...

Slavery is bad, whatever the historical period might be. As some idiot mentioned here ("gotta love sexslaves" that moron said) slaves were often abused sexually. They were not considered as humans, or persons, they were just "things".


uh, not my point, don't want to be confused with the original poster. I'm just saying this guy doesn't understand what history is. It's pretty much just trolling.




yeah sry, quoted the wrong person. my apologies, it was for the original poster
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 11/26/08

serealj wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:


serealj wrote:


LemonyPanda wrote:
Why don't you learn UNBIASED history first and THEN come debate


Okay, gonna stop you there. Clearly you don't realise that history by definition is bias. There exists no non biased history. Come back when you at least have taken a university level history course.


you want to see unbiased history? statistics...


Statistics are hardly history. They are numbers. The format you read statistics in and how the historian interprets the facts is what history is. Even if you were physically at a historical event, the way you write or tell people about history is bias.

Lets not also forget how the statistics were collected, what year was it? Who collected them, why were they collected?





statistics CAN be history, you can interpret them yourself. and i doubt anyone would mess up original documents especially if they are legal documents
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 11/26/08

IrisChan7 wrote:

1. Forcing someone to do something against their will is never good no matter how you look at it. It's a violation of human rights.
2. Even if the slaves were never whipped, beaten, or raped, which they were frequently, it doesn't mean that it was good. Slavery would have a deep psychological impact on the individual. Slaves were not just hurt physically, but emotionally and psychologically. We can still see the "slave mentality" in people today, even though people are not subjected to the lifestyle
3.


LemonyPanda wrote:

MOST masters treated their slaves pretty well (they didn't let them do dangerous work because slaves are property and don't want to lose value in their property)


Naturally they could only hurt their slaves to a degree so they wouldn't kill them. That shouldn't make you assume that they lived in well either. To say so is rediculous. Masters left their slaves looking like this regularly. Is this treating them well.

4. You are racist for even trying to justify this barbaric act. Read Incidents in a Life of a Slaver Girl, and tell me that slavery's not so bad.


child labor working in the mines getting all kinds of diseases
2724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / big UK chinatown
Offline
Posted 11/26/08
dont forget that black africans often sold there own black people children and daughters so on and so forth to white people . so lets not think it was all the white mans fault as certain people would have u think. though they do take some of the blame.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.