Who Were America’s Enslaved? New Database Humanizes the Names Behind the Numbers • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Were America’s Enslaved? New Database Humanizes the Names Behind the Numbers

#191

Post by frEdmbx » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 5:17 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #187

frEdmbx wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine taxation, or inflation of a fiat currency with legal tender laws forcing acceptance.

It is extremely offensive to compare chattel slavery with living in a society that requires you to pay taxes.

"Offensive" means nothing today, and I'd suggest you stop allowing yourself and others to waste your time with it.

Have you actually compared the two? You'll notice one is far more insidious if you do.

Also, don't conveniently leave out the inflation of the world reserve fiat global enslavement system.

I know we can always opt to live in the woods, and barter, but you've got to take both into consideration to honestly consider what it is I said.

Re: Who Were America’s Enslaved? New Database Humanizes the Names Behind the Numbers

#192

Post by ptr2voidStar » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:53 AM UTC

jpster wrote: post #175

TT3351 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically slavery was more varied than "American slavery as we understand it today." The passage I quoted is different, in that it departs from the traditional model of plantation based, field labor slavery. It is still reprehensible exploitation, of course. It's just important to remember/question how diverse people's experiences actually were.

I’m trying to see something: “Not all suffered the same Holocaust we know today. It’s just important to remember/question how diverse people’s Holocaust experiences actually were.” Maybe it’s just me but these type of statements seem to miss the point. Given the deplorable state of American understanding of slavery, Reconstruction, the state-sanctioned apartheid that only ended a few decades ago, and all its effects…

Thank you! You summed up my feelings (about the comment you responded to), perfectly!

Re: Who Were America’s Enslaved? New Database Humanizes the Names Behind the Numbers

#193

Post by pushECX » Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

jpster wrote: post #175

TT3351 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically slavery was more varied than "American slavery as we understand it today." The passage I quoted is different, in that it departs from the traditional model of plantation based, field labor slavery. It is still reprehensible exploitation, of course. It's just important to remember/question how diverse people's experiences actually were.

I’m trying to see something: “Not all suffered the same Holocaust we know today. It’s just important to remember/question how diverse people’s Holocaust experiences actually were.” Maybe it’s just me but these type of statements seem to miss the point. Given the deplorable state of American understanding of slavery, Reconstruction, the state-sanctioned apartheid that only ended a few decades ago, and all its effects…

The parent comment you're responding to didn't downplay slavery in any way, nor did they say that this person had it better or worse. Just that this person's experience was different. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that slavery didn't always look the same as we may imagine. There were varying experiences. It's history.

Re: Who Were America’s Enslaved? New Database Humanizes the Names Behind the Numbers

#194

Post by tunesmith » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #80

tunesmith wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engaging with those who don't like the idea is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith. And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different s…

> One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with. On the contrary; if I represent the status quo and you represent a new idea, the onus is on you to defend it. It's your responsibility. Put it out there. Say exactly what your thesis is, and…

The onus is not necessarily on me to convince you. Reasoned arguments exist to convince people, but there isn't any sense in expecting to convince 100% of people, including my racist drunk Uncle Harry. The bar you're setting with "Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea," is essentially saying that change should not happen at all unless there is unanimous acceptance.