171–180 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also points out that the Spartans fought primarily against much weaker opponents, making their military prowess not so impressive. If I constantly pick fights against children, my win rate would be quite high as well.
But isn't "all their opponents were weaker" just another way of saying "Sparta was unusually strong"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations What?
OP speaks the truth. At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) In the Roman empire, selling oneself as a slave was even seen as a last resort when capital was urgently needed (like when a debt repayment was ordered by a magistrate and a per…
So, you launch a massive generalization, and attempt to walk it back by opting out most of the world (Asia, the middle east/Arab World, but making no mention of Africa, or Oceania). While we broadly view slavery as a despicable practice, please don't practice selective historical revisionism to minimize the barbaric suffering experienced to this day in some countries, and the astronomical death rates in the sugar plantations.
Examples from Historical Context: American Slavery in Comparative Perspective [1]
"Death rates among slaves in the Caribbean were one-third higher than in the South, and suicide appears to have been much more common. Unlike slaves in the South, West Indian slaves were expected to produce their own food in their "free time," and care for the elderly and the infirm."(
"The largest difference between slavery in the South and in Latin America was demographic. The slave population in Brazil and the West Indies had a lower proportion of female slaves, a much lower birthrate, and a higher proportion of recent arrivals from Africa. In striking contrast, southern slaves had an equal sex ratio, a high birthrate, and a predominantly American-born population".
"Slavery in the United States was especially distinctive in the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction. In the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana, and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birthrate so low that slaves could not sustain their population without imports from Africa. The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2—twice as many as in the West Indies."
Additionally, you have ignored that slavery is still active in a number of countries [2], [3], [4], [5]
Slavery is a practice worthy of contempt, still practiced, and modern.
[1] Historical Context: American Slavery in Comparative Perspective https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-res...
[2] https://www.mic.com/articles/82347/the-world-s-worst-countri...
[3] https://face2faceafrica.com/article/slavery-africa-today/3
[4] https://www.theclever.com/15-countries-where-slavery-is-stil...
[5] https://www.latimes.com/world/la-xpm-2013-oct-17-la-fg-wn-sl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP speaks the truth. At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) In the Roman empire, selling oneself as a slave was even seen as a last resort when capital was urgently needed (like when a debt repayment was ordered by a magistrate and a per…
> ...At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) So, you launch a massive generalization, and attempt to walk it back by opting out most of the world (Asia, the middle east/Arab World, but making no mention of Africa, or Oceania). While we br…
My knowledge of world history outside the West is scant. That's why I restricted my statements to the Western world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible. This is also true of American slaves. > Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved?
> This is also true of American slaves. Bullshit. By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year). Even when possible it was essentially never done. > So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved? In many of the US slav…
Believe it or not, most slaves were owned by fairly wealthy people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) So, you launch a massive generalization, and attempt to walk it back by opting out most of the world (Asia, the middle east/Arab World, but making no mention of Africa, or Oceania). While we br…
I have no disagreement with any of your points, though I don't think our statements otherwise conflict. My knowledge of world history outside the West is scant. That's why I restricted my statements to the Western world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen seems like an overstep
Schopenhauer is one of history's biggest assholes, it's like his whole thing. No one liked him even when he was alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also points out that the Spartans fought primarily against much weaker opponents, making their military prowess not so impressive. If I constantly pick fights against children, my win rate would be quite high as well.
But isn't "all their opponents were weaker" just another way of saying "Sparta was unusually strong"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations What?
Roman slaves at least had a path to freedom. Or a good portion of them did. Many (not majority) became citizens eventually (or their children did) and many in fact became quite prosperous. Their slavery wasn't based on racial status, but on class, and slavery wasn't considered genetically predetermined, but a product of status and conquest. "Graduation" out of slavery was actually possible. American slavery being bui…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is also true of American slaves. Bullshit. By the 19th century (which is the century everybody talks about) it was almost legally impossible to free a slave in the American south (things like, say, a $200 tax in Florida... which was more money than most people saw in a year). Even when possible it was essentially never done. > So is this. You think the child of a free black was enslaved? In many of the US slav…
enslaved to whom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that American-owned slaves were treated much crueler on average than Ancient slave populations What?
OP speaks the truth. At least since the Roman empire, there has been no form of slavery in the Western world anywhere near as brutal as American slavery. (not to exclude the East or the Arab world, I just don't know enough to comment on them) In the Roman empire, selling oneself as a slave was even seen as a last resort when capital was urgently needed (like when a debt repayment was ordered by a magistrate and a per…
People seem obsessed with declaring the US south as having some sort of so-much-worse slavery, but they view the past with pretty rose-coloured glasses. 'But it's not racism!' is a meaningless moral alteration to the act of raiding other lands, dragging people back to your lands, and working them to death in under a decade.
As for Roman opinions on racism, no, they weren't racists in the sense of the modern term, but they were still intensely bigoted and committed more than a few genocides. Our friend Jules came home bragging of killing a million Gauls and enslaving a million more and got social cachet for that. They didn't see Gauls as a difference 'race' (that's a modern construct) but they definitely saw them as an outgroup that needed to be dominated.