"Slavery wasn't racist, it was economic!" says GOP lawmaker

[Iridencia]

When Europeans sailed to Africa to buy and/or capture black people for slaves and then continued to forcibly breed them with each other in America for the sake of having more black people to make into more slaves, ain't none of them were holding their wrist to their forehead and going, "Oh, woe is me! How unfortunate that I have been forced into this troublesome situation!"

That's literally the background for Amazing Grace....

The literal background was an uninvolved person who looked at slavery and disliked it, not the slave-traders throwing themselves a pity-party about how hard and sad it is to have to kidnap and brutalize people. People who enslave others don't get all teary-eyed about it, because they are not the fucking victims here, they're the ones actively making the choice to be shitty to other people for their own profit. You're painting this image unironically:

"Ohh, I wish I didn't get into my boat and bring these people to forcibly work for me under threat of death! I feel so bad!"

[Purgatio]

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

The classic 'It wasn't so bad because other people contributed to it as well' argument. I was wondering when it would pop in.

Still just as stupid as it was the first time someone said it.

He isn't citing African Kingdoms to argue slavery wasn't that bad. Of course it was bad. But it shows that the reason Europeans chose to trade in African slaves was not because they hated Africans but because there was an available 'supplier' of the 'product'.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that slavery is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but there is an alternative explanation for the African slave trade that isn't racial prejudice against black people.

[Vetalia]

Horn is, to put it bluntly, an idiot. The Romans might have had that excuse. His plantation running ancestors (because who really wants to bet they weren't?) almost certainly do not.

Nutcase.

To be fair, if the dude's from New Hampshire his ancestors probably didn't own any slaves, let alone a plantation. While it's true slavery existed in all of the American colonies at various points it was much, much less prevalent in the north as the economics simply didn't make sense.

EDIT: Turns out he was born in Germany to presumably German parents. He definitely didn't have ancestors who owned slaves although they might have done some things in WWII...

[Russoslava]

Except Slavery has nothing to do with Racism. Both are horrible don't misunderstand me but you have to remember Africa Kingdoms sold their POWs as slaves.

The classic 'It wasn't so bad because other people contributed to it as well' argument. I was wondering when it would pop in.

Still just as stupid as it was the first time someone said it.

I think you misunderstand my point. Slavery and Racism are horrible and should not exist. However, my point was that they're not connected across the board. Was American Slavery racist fueled? Yes, Maybe but is Slavery in general racist? No, but you're a horrible piece of sub-human garbage if you own slaves.

[Cedoria]

The classic 'It wasn't so bad because other people contributed to it as well' argument. I was wondering when it would pop in.

Still just as stupid as it was the first time someone said it.

He isn't citing African Kingdoms to argue slavery wasn't that bad. Of course it was bad. But it shows that the reason Europeans chose to trade in African slaves was not because they hated Africans but because there was an available 'supplier' of the 'product'.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that slavery is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but there is an alternative explanation for the African slave trade that isn't racial prejudice against black people.

I'd be very suspicious of someone reaching for this 'alternative explanation' with no evidence.

If you truly didn't care about the race of the person you enslaved, you'd enslave your white neighbour in the US. Cuts down on the costs of transport as well. Many slave societies in the Ancient World did precisely this,

There was a reason why they didn't in the US. It wasn't just a great big coincidence that all slaves in the US happened to be of a specific skin-colour, nor was the reason for it economic. To claim otherwise is just a plain falsification of history, and, more reprehensible by people who intend to use that fabrication to excuse present day bigotry and stupidity. Fuck them.

[Iridencia]

The classic 'It wasn't so bad because other people contributed to it as well' argument. I was wondering when it would pop in.

Still just as stupid as it was the first time someone said it.

He isn't citing African Kingdoms to argue slavery wasn't that bad. Of course it was bad. But it shows that the reason Europeans chose to trade in African slaves was not because they hated Africans but because there was an available 'supplier' of the 'product'.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that slavery is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but there is an alternative explanation for the African slave trade that isn't racial prejudice against black people.

Once again, no one made them buy slaves. They didn't bite their nails in guilt while they were strapping on the chains and taking their purchase away. They did it for the sake of colonial vanity projects (which were a shitty atrocity in it of themselves), and they did it without an ounce of guilt because, once again, they were racist.

Yes, the slaves happened to be available. Yes, they were being sold by other Africans. No, that doesn't mean they weren't racist when they decided to buy them. If you fail to have qualms about buying another person because they're another color — regardless of whether or not it's your fault that person was up for sale in the first place — that makes you fucking racist.

[Cedoria]

The classic 'It wasn't so bad because other people contributed to it as well' argument. I was wondering when it would pop in.

Still just as stupid as it was the first time someone said it.

I think you misunderstand my point. Slavery and Racism are horrible and should not exist. However, my point was that they're not connected across the board. Was American Slavery racist fueled? Yes, Maybe but is Slavery in general racist? No, but you're a horrible piece of sub-human garbage if you own slaves.

No. I understand your point perfectly. It's just that your point is garbage.

I didn't dispute it because I didn't understand it. I dispute it because it's bullshit.

[Cedoria]

He isn't citing African Kingdoms to argue slavery wasn't that bad. Of course it was bad. But it shows that the reason Europeans chose to trade in African slaves was not because they hated Africans but because there was an available 'supplier' of the 'product'.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that slavery is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but there is an alternative explanation for the African slave trade that isn't racial prejudice against black people.

Once again, no one made them buy slaves. They didn't bite their nails in guilt while they were strapping on the chains and taking their purchase away. They did it for the sake of colonial vanity projects (which were a shitty atrocity in it of themselves), and they did it without an ounce of guilt because, once again, they were racist.

Yes, the slaves happened to be available. Yes, they were being sold by other Africans. No, that doesn't mean they weren't racist when they decided to buy them. If you fail to have qualms about buying another person because they're another color — regardless of whether or not it's your fault that person was up for sale in the first place — that makes you fucking racist.

Finally someone with sense. This^

[Purgatio]

He isn't citing African Kingdoms to argue slavery wasn't that bad. Of course it was bad. But it shows that the reason Europeans chose to trade in African slaves was not because they hated Africans but because there was an available 'supplier' of the 'product'.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that slavery is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but there is an alternative explanation for the African slave trade that isn't racial prejudice against black people.

Once again, no one made them buy slaves. They didn't bite their nails in guilt while they were strapping on the chains and taking their purchase away. They did it for the sake of colonial vanity projects (which were a shitty atrocity in it of themselves), and they did it without an ounce of guilt because, once again, they were racist.

Yes, the slaves happened to be available. Yes, they were being sold by other Africans. No, that doesn't mean they weren't racist when they decided to buy them. If you fail to have qualms about buying another person because they're another color — regardless of whether or not it's your fault that person was up for sale in the first place — that makes you fucking racist.

Racism means you believe that someone is inferior to you because of their race. Now, there were people in the South who openly believed that Black people deserved to be slaves because they were Black, in fact the Cornerstone speech for the Confederacy literally preached that slavery was a Black person's "natural and normal condition". That's racist as shit, no question there.

But not everyone who bought an African slave believed that all Africans were morally unworthy of freedom or worth less than white people just because of their race and skin colour. If someone buys a slave for economic reasons, and African slaves just happened to be the ones available, whilst apathetic to the race of the slaves in question, how can such a person be sensibly described as racist when racial animus or prejudice played no role in the decision to buy the slave? Again, if you participate in slavery, you are a terrible person whatever the motivation, racial or economic. But the mentality I just described cannot be accurately described as racist.

[Russoslava]

I think you misunderstand my point. Slavery and Racism are horrible and should not exist. However, my point was that they're not connected across the board. Was American Slavery racist fueled? Yes, Maybe but is Slavery in general racist? No, but you're a horrible piece of sub-human garbage if you own slaves.

No. I understand your point perfectly. It's just that your point is garbage.

I didn't dispute it because I didn't understand it. I dispute it because it's bullshit.

And I am done arguing with someone who has no brain to think with. God Bless you, F*ck Slavery, F*ck Racism Goodnight.

[Purgatio]

He isn't citing African Kingdoms to argue slavery wasn't that bad. Of course it was bad. But it shows that the reason Europeans chose to trade in African slaves was not because they hated Africans but because there was an available 'supplier' of the 'product'.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that slavery is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable, but there is an alternative explanation for the African slave trade that isn't racial prejudice against black people.

I'd be very suspicious of someone reaching for this 'alternative explanation' with no evidence.

If you truly didn't care about the race of the person you enslaved, you'd enslave your white neighbour in the US. Cuts down on the costs of transport as well. Many slave societies in the Ancient World did precisely this,

There was a reason why they didn't in the US. It wasn't just a great big coincidence that all slaves in the US happened to be of a specific skin-colour, nor was the reason for it economic. To claim otherwise is just a plain falsification of history, and, more reprehensible by people who intend to use that fabrication to excuse present day bigotry and stupidity. Fuck them.

Or maybe to start any new civilisation you generally need law and order, and one of the most rudimentary laws is you can't go around violently kidnapping people? I mean, if the white settlers were allowed, legally, to just break into each others' homes and enslave each other at random, the American colonies wouldn't have lasted for very long that's for sure, it would collapse into anarchy pretty quickly.

Again, African slaves were simply the slaves that were available at the time because there was a willing 'supplier' in the African coastal kingdoms. They were purchased on grounds of availability, not because of race. I don't understand why this is such an inflammatory conclusion since regardless of whether the motivation for African slavery was racial or economic, it remains morally reprehensible either way. It has no bearing on the question of whether slavery is good or bad.

[Galiantus III]

But racism and slavery aren't inherently connected: a white person can subjugate another white person to slavery. Anyone could enslave someone else. Racism and slavery are separate, terrible ideas. The only reason they are connected in the American mind is that American philosophical thought realized slavery was wrong and needed a way to justify it. The nature of the slave trade meant racism was a natural answer, and here we are.

In the US though, those two things WERE inherently connected. That's not true of every slaveholder society in history, but it does happen to be true about that one in particular, as slavery in the Americas was explicitly race-based.

They weren't INHERENTLY connected. Read my comment. Geez. I understand in the US they were connected, I am just trying to clarify why they were.

[Chestaan]

Would the scumbag elites have enslaved white people if they could have? Probably, but they would never get away with it. Much easier to other some group and enslave them instead.

Hit the nail on the mark. If all you really want it just free labor and don't care what the labor looks like, then the people you captured are not going to be coincedentaly all-brown. If anything, the more economic solution would be to enslave people closer to you, since it cuts down on the expense and hassle of travel and transport.

It's really quite simple: "I don't want to do this work, and I don't want to pay someone to do it. Should I force my neighbor to do it? No, that would be wrong, he's a person after all. I know! I'll just get some non-human people to do it! Easy-peasy!" I don't know how someone can look at that mentality and be like, "But where is the racism?!"

Yeah but let's say a landowner in England wanted to enslave some of their countrymen. If the government allowed it there would be mass revolts. If they can enslave my neighbor then who is to say I won't be next? However, if you enslave someone that is in some way different, skin colour works quite well, then there won't be revolts because it is made clear that only certain people, who propaganda efforts will other, can be enslaved.

Same was done to the Irish under the British Empire. Not enslaved at all, but a conscious effort was made to pain Irish as inferior, meaning all manner of atrocity could be carried out.

[Rojava Free State]

Allow me to offer nuance that this debate won't include otherwise

Slavery in america began as an economic system in which rich planters didn't need to pay their laborers wages and therefore could maximize profit. It took on a racial overtone as slave owners attempted to justify their right to own slaves. While slavery didn't start out due to racism, American racism was started by slavery and slavery was and still is the cornerstone of the divide between black and white people in america. I don't know what this senator was trying to do but it isn't even offensive to me as much as it is confusing. What's the point of his argument? The evil of slavery still happened and hurt race relations in the United States for centuries to come

[Galiantus III]

Allow me to offer nuance that this debate won't include otherwise

Slavery in america began as an economic system in which rich planters didn't need to pay their laborers wages and therefore could maximize profit. It took on a racial overtone as slave owners attempted to justify their right to own slaves. While slavery didn't start out due to racism, American racism was started by slavery and slavery was and still is the cornerstone of the divide between black and white people in america. I don't know what this senator was trying to do but it isn't even offensive to me as much as it is confusing. What's the point of his argument? The evil of slavery still happened and hurt race relations in the United States for centuries to come

And with that, the thread fell silent.

[Iridencia]

Racism means you believe that someone is inferior to you because of their race.

Often, but not necessarily. General beliefs that members of different races or ethnicities should be treated differently are also typically included, especially as overt hostility towards other races becomes less socially acceptable and racists need new justifications for their behavior and attitudes. The guy who says, "I have nothing personal against black people, I just think they should stay in their own place with their own kind" is still considered racist by most of society and most anti-discrimination organizations, even if his attitude doesn't include an inferior/superior dichotomy — that excuse doesn't fly with any HR.

But not everyone who bought an African slave believed that all Africans were morally unworthy of freedom or worth less than white people just because of their race and skin colour. If someone buys a slave for economic reasons, and African slaves just happened to be the ones available, whilst apathetic to the race of the slaves in question, how can such a person be sensibly described as racist when racial animus or prejudice played no role in the decision to buy the slave? Again, if you participate in slavery, you are a terrible person whatever the motivation, racial or economic. But the mentality I just described cannot be accurately described as racist.

Perhaps not — if people back then actually thought that way, which they didn't. The fact that racism was viciously abundant in that era is self-evident common knowledge. The fact that someone could theoretically buy a slave while not being personally racist is not relevant to the fact that, in the real world, people were in fact very racist back then. There was no abundance of reluctant, tolerant white people biting their nails with guilt over buying slaves. Once again, you are trying to shift the conversation into a look at the wider theoretical practice of slavery as opposed to how slavery actually was practiced, and it's not cute.

Oh, and for the record, white slaves actually were available during the same time period. They were a bit further away, but by no means outside the reach of European and American trade. It would have been easy to get yourself a nice captured Norwegian to do your farm work for you if you really wanted or just didn't care, slave traders don't tend to be picky about who they sell their products to — and yet, mysteriously enough, there doesn't seem to have been as much a demand for them as there was for the brown guys. White slaves tended to be bought primarily by non-whites — almost as if human slavery has an element of prejudice.

[Great Minarchistan]

Slavery was generally economically driven yes, you can even evidence that with the fact that regions which placed a priority on human capital as their growth engine (cf. Northeastern US with manufacturing) phased out slavery much quicker than those who didn't (cf. Southern US with agriculture as a whole).

[Vetalia]

Allow me to offer nuance that this debate won't include otherwise

Slavery in america began as an economic system in which rich planters didn't need to pay their laborers wages and therefore could maximize profit. It took on a racial overtone as slave owners attempted to justify their right to own slaves. While slavery didn't start out due to racism, American racism was started by slavery and slavery was and still is the cornerstone of the divide between black and white people in america. I don't know what this senator was trying to do but it isn't even offensive to me as much as it is confusing. What's the point of his argument? The evil of slavery still happened and hurt race relations in the United States for centuries to come

Sometimes someone truly nails it and this time it is you.

[Iridencia]

Allow me to offer nuance that this debate won't include otherwise

Slavery in america began as an economic system in which rich planters didn't need to pay their laborers wages and therefore could maximize profit. It took on a racial overtone as slave owners attempted to justify their right to own slaves. While slavery didn't start out due to racism, American racism was started by slavery and slavery was and still is the cornerstone of the divide between black and white people in america. I don't know what this senator was trying to do but it isn't even offensive to me as much as it is confusing. What's the point of his argument? The evil of slavery still happened and hurt race relations in the United States for centuries to come

And with that, the thread fell silent.

Or they're busy typing and doing other things.

[All Wild Things]

Moving on by a couple of hundred years, and crossing the Atlantic, here is some further food for thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... avery-ring
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/

Apologies if you feel I'm off topic.

[Galiantus III]

Oh, and for the record, white slaves actually were available during the same time period. They were a bit further away, but by no means outside the reach of European and American trade. It would have been easy to get yourself a nice captured Norwegian to do your farm work for you if you really wanted or just didn't care, slave traders don't tend to be picky about who they sell their products to — and yet, mysteriously enough, there doesn't seem to have been as much a demand for them as there was for the brown guys. White slaves tended to be bought primarily by non-whites — almost as if human slavery has an element of prejudice.

There are two reasons for this:

First, African slaves were far cheaper, and in greater supply. While there were people going and enslaving people throughout Europe, there wasn't the same kind of port to trade them at, and fewer people were doing it. Europeans were also wealthier than Africans, so if a European was going to sell a slave he would have wanted a higher price.

Second, the prejudice started because people needed to justify an inherently immoral system somehow. Due to the aforementioned market pressures most slaves would have been imported from Africa, not Europe. Therefore an easy way to justify slavery - with minimal economic consequences on who should or should not be a slave - would have been racism.

This is why I say slavery caused racism, not racism caused slavery. Again, racism isn't natural. There has to be something to motivate it.

[Galiantus III]

And with that, the thread fell silent.

Or they're busy typing and doing other things.

Evidently so. I still think that post won this thread in about every way possible, and Rojava Free State deserves every ounce of credit for that post.

[Rojava Free State]

Or they're busy typing and doing other things.

Evidently so. I still think that post won this thread in about every way possible, and Rojava Free State deserves every ounce of credit for that post.

The thread fell silent and forevermore there was nothingness, a black abyss of an unnatural absence of life

[The Liberated Territories]

He's right in a way. Owning slaves doesn't make you racist. Owning slaves on the basis that they are racially inferior (and therefore justifies slavery) is racist.

[Kowani]

Evidently so. I still think that post won this thread in about every way possible, and Rojava Free State deserves every ounce of credit for that post.

The thread fell silent and forevermore there was nothingness, a black abyss of an unnatural absence of life

Poets…