Justifying slavery...

[Mista Commie]

I was talking to an acquaintince on my bus ride home, and the conversation gets to the issue of slavery. He says that blacks blow it way out of proportion, and that slavery was disappearing in the late 1800's anyways. I called him on his bullshit, saying that the killing of 120 million or more during the slave trade is not blown out of proportion. He then said that the Romans enslaved white people, and with this he tried to justify the slavery in America. I was going to say that the reason why blacks "blow it out of proportion" is due to two things: 1.) The American slavery was more recent, and 2.) that Rome doesn't exist anymore. But I had to get off my bus. This pissed me off because I have African ancestry (as well as Cherokee, who almost were killed by American genocide, but that's a different story :glare:).

Anyways, I just wanted to share. Feel free to discuss.

[Bostana]

Well,
what a fucking idiot. I mean seriously? 'American slavery wasn't as bad as they said it was' Okay first it was never dissolving in the 1800's. When president Lincoln was elected he wasn't even intent on banning slavery just stopping the expansion. This is a common mistake made by people. Abraham Lincoln's goal wasn't to abolish slavery but to stop the expansion. Two, Ask him how he would like to die before the age of 25? Or how he would like to have toes cut off because he was caught reading? How would he feel if his mom was raped by the slave owners? Fucking moron looking for a fight. Doesn't know what he is saying at all.

All right that was my rant anyone else?

[Mista Commie]

Well,
what a fucking idiot. I mean seriously? 'American slavery wasn't as bad as they said it was' Okay first it was never dissolving in the 1800's. When president Lincoln was elected he wasn't even intent on banning slavery just stopping the expansion. This is a common mistake made by people. Abraham Lincoln's goal wasn't to abolish slavery but to stop the expansion. Two, Ask him how he would like to die before the age of 25? Or how he would like to have toes cut off because he was caught reading? How would he feel if his mom was raped by the slave owners? Fucking moron looking for a fight. Doesn't know what he is saying at all.

All right that was my rant anyone else?

Oh, and he also said that slavery was going away anyway, due to machinery. Also the whole "the Civil War was about state's rights" thing. What a load of bullshit. Oh, and by the way, he's a middle-class white kid. Go figure.

[Revolution starts with U]

Marxists.org search "civil war"

[Yuppie Grinder]

Oh, and he also said that slavery was going away anyway, due to machinery. Also the whole "the Civil War was about state's rights" thing. What a load of bullshit. Oh, and by the way, he's a middle-class white kid. Go figure.

There's some truth to this, although he does sound like an apologist for slavery and an idiot.

[Bostana]

Oh, and he also said that slavery was going away anyway, due to machinery. Also the whole "the Civil War was about state's rights" thing. What a load of bullshit. Oh, and by the way, he's a middle-class white kid. Go figure.

What? Because the cotton gen was invented slavery was less harsh? Bahh. Wish the boy hell and just be on your way.

[Nox]

the killing of 120 million or more during the slave trade

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. I highly doubt the population of Africa was 120 million in the 17th/18th centuries. And even then, they almost exclusively took them from West Africa. And even then, they only took a small percentage of the overall population of that area.

I am just as opposed to the slave trade as anyone else but it pisses me off when I see bullshit figures like this thrown around. It's like when people say Stalin killed 100 million people. Stick to the facts rather than making up ridiculous numbers or you'll just end up looking stupid.

Also, the context in which the slave trade is talked about is reactionary as fuck, it's almost always used to turn blacks against whites (by dingbat black nationalists), the majority of whom are working class. It's fucking pathetic.

With all due respect, it happened and nothing can change that. You can either sit there and cry about it while distancing yourself from white workers or you can move on and work towards socialism.

[The Machine]

uuuhhh dude

slavery was pretty where racism as we know it today got started and youre a stupid

[#FF0000]

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. I highly doubt the population of Africa was 120 million in the 17th/18th centuries.

Errr, what? You understand that Africa is big enough to fit all of the United States, China, and western Europe inside of it, right? And you don't think there were 170 million people living there? I dunno about that, dogg.

Either way, the person OP's talking about is a dummy -- and apparently doesn't talk to many 'blacks' if he thinks they just talk about slavery all the time. And he's also missed the point of why slavery is so bad if he thinks "oh it was only so many people it wasn't that awful".

[Mista Commie]

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. I highly doubt the population of Africa was 120 million in the 17th/18th centuries. And even then, they almost exclusively took them from West Africa. And even then, they only took a small percentage of the overall population of that area.

I am just as opposed to the slave trade as anyone else but it pisses me off when I see bullshit figures like this thrown around. It's like when people say Stalin killed 100 million people. Stick to the facts rather than making up ridiculous numbers or you'll just end up looking stupid.

Also, the context in which the slave trade is talked about is reactionary as fuck, it's almost always used to turn blacks against whites (by dingbat black nationalists), the majority of whom are working class. It's fucking pathetic.

With all due respect, it happened and nothing can change that. You can either sit there and cry about it while distancing yourself from white workers or you can move on and work towards socialism.

I think it is highly possible that 120 million people were killed in the slave trade. This includes those in America. This is believeable to me, where I do not think Stalin killed 100 million, which is not believeable. I also do not think it was not just racism, it was also capitalism who created the slave trade. Also I am not a black nationalist, as I am neither black nor am I a nationalist. And I am not "crying", I simply had an experience that I wished to share. I'm not dwelling on it.

[Nox]

I think it is highly possible that 120 million people were killed in the slave trade. This includes those in America. This is believeable to me, where I do not think Stalin killed 100 million, which is not believeable. I also do not think it was not just racism, it was also capitalism who created the slave trade. Also I am not a black nationalist, as I am neither black nor am I a nationalist. And I am not "crying", I simply had an experience that I wished to share. I'm not dwelling on it.

The population of the entire world in 1700 was 610 million. Slaves were a small percentage of the population of West Africa. Are you seriously suggesting that a small percentage of the population of West Africa made up ~20% of the world's population at that time? And are you suggesting that the slave trade wiped out 20% of humanity? Please give me a break. Utter bollocks. Assuming that you're just talking about the slave trade perpetrated by Europeans (that is, excluding the much larger Arab slave trade), the upper estimate is around 10 million slaves taken from Africa and the lower estimate somewhere around 2 million, and that's just the number of slaves taken - not the death toll; many died but many lived and there are virtually no records of that, so it's hard to give an accurate estimate for the death toll but it's pretty obvious 120 million fucking ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting you're crying at all, and I'm not implying you're a black nationalist, I'm just saying the people who constantly babble on about the slave trade, regardless of their intentions, are extremely reactionary and are destroying the chance of having socialism in America by significantly dividing the workers and turning them against each other by stirring up racial hatred.

[Nox]

Errr, what? You understand that Africa is big enough to fit all of the United States, China, and western Europe inside of it, right? And you don't think there were 170 million people living there? I dunno about that, dogg.

I think you're forgetting that the height of the slave trade was ~300 years ago, and back then the population of the ENTIRE WORLD was 610 million. Africa's population would have been no more than ~50 million imo, probably a lot less.

[honest john's firing squad]

no more than ~50 million imo, probably a lot less.
The world population in 1700 ("~300 years ago") was 610 million. Africa constituted 10% of the world's population at the time (i.e. 61 million). (Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History (Penguin, 1978))

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-21_jyYvyZxo/T16-fJ9X6oI/AAAAAAAADqI/HaJaKxYuxfg/s1600/themoreyouknow.jpg

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

The numbers may have been significant to this fucking idiot, but comparing slavery and genocides etc, trying to figure out which was the worst one as a means of excusing one with a lower body count....people were fucking enslaved, people were killed for no better reason than to make some white folks rich..the numbers game is not important when addressing how much outrage it stirs up; if only ten thousand had been enslaved for a few decades years it would still be an outrage.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There's some truth to this, although he does sound like an apologist for slavery and an idiot.

There's no truth to this. Why do you think there was a war? The slave-system wanted more land and to expand slavery into Mexico-controlled land! The slave-trade had stopped long before, but the slave trade within the US slave system continued and the slave-based ruling class was trying to expand their hold into the North through salve-catching mandates and so on. Sure this was no doubt the fears of an out-moded but still powerful ruling class, but as any Marxist should know, a weak and antiquated ruling class can reassert itself with increased repression and brutality and I think that would have been the case with the Civil War - as it was just not completing reconstruction led to white terror which is nothing compared to what an injured but victorious slave-owning class would have done.


He then said that the Romans enslaved white peopleHis emphasis on white Roman slaves I think exposes the underlying reasons for his argument: he probably wants to argue that racism is not a big deal in contemporary America and that blacks are "playing the victim".

At any rate Classical slavery was totally different than modern slavery and had no racial component anyway.

[dodger]

In 45yrs of work, not one person ever brought up the subject. Except as wage slavery.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was going to say that the reason why blacks "blow it out of proportion" is due to two things: 1.) The American slavery was more recent, and 2.) that Rome doesn't exist anymore.

Just to add: slavery was more recent, but I think that wouldn't matter if the racial system of slavery hadn't been transformed after the war and then transformed again after the civil rights struggles. So I think the continuation of black inequality and racism are the reason slavery is a "living issue" in the US. People won't "move on" if they're being systemically held back.

To me this is the danger in seeing racism as an individual thing or based on negative images or slurs. It reduces systemic racism to the status of bigotry or even just an "insult". Most Irish-Americans would laugh at someone making an antiquated joke about "No Irish Need Apply" but I don't think they would if Irish-American unemployment was 30% while WASP unemployment was 15%.

This is why no one gives a shit about Rome - slavery was not a racial system and has no real living effects today. People weren't slaves because they were thought to be inherently or culturally or biologically inferior and their entire families weren't doomed to slavery forever and even slaves weren't necessarily doomed to be slaves forever. They were only considered inferior circumstantially, as long as they stayed slaves and they only became slaves because their parents were poor or they lost a war and were captured. People only care about Egyptian slavery because it's in the bible and Charlie Heston movies and can be used as a generalized echo about continuing antisemitism (though I think it's an ahistorical comparison because modern antisemitism is much more Hitler than Pharaoh or feudal European anti-Judaism).

[Nox]

The world population in 1700 ("~300 years ago") was 610 million. Africa constituted 10% of the world's population at the time (i.e. 61 million). (Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History (Penguin, 1978))

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-21_jyYvyZxo/T16-fJ9X6oI/AAAAAAAADqI/HaJaKxYuxfg/s1600/themoreyouknow.jpg

I did say ~50 million, and it was a rough estimate. I'm surprised I was only 11 million off. Nevertheless, I'm still correct in saying that 120 million is a fucking ridiculous figure and you've just backed me up on that.

[bcbm]

'the death toll from four centuries of atlantic slave trade is estimated at ten million'

could just google (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_African_Americans_died_from_slavery) it instead of arguing 'omg that is a ridiculous figure'

[Nox]

'the death toll from four centuries of atlantic slave trade is estimated at ten million'

could just google (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_African_Americans_died_from_slavery) it instead of arguing 'omg that is a ridiculous figure'

>Implying I didn't already google it
>Implying your information is from a trustworthy source
>Implying you've done anything other than just prove that I was correct

[honest john's firing squad]

>greentexting on revleft

[hatzel]

Though it's kind of stupid to just run around comparing slavery systems as if the existence of one excuses the other or whatever, it's worth noting that slavery in Rome (and other ancient societies) was very different from the slavery of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Maafa etc. Though it appears as though these later realities of slavery have coloured our understanding of these ancient systems, and when we hear mention of 'slaves' and 'slavery' in the ancient world - particularly when these slaves are brought in from overseas, - we assume that this must be referring to a situation effectively identical to that experienced in the Americas and elsewhere from the 16th-19th centuries in particular. This then gives people the possibility to speak of the enslavement of Africans as if it were a wholly unremarkable process, identical to the earlier enslavement of Europeans and other communities, and as such just 'one of many' enslavements, one that the descendants of these slaves have no right to treat as exceptional. (Of course this overlooks the legacy of these slaveries, and how they do or don't remain relevant in contemporary society, which is an arguably more important point, but one which Jimmie has already hit, and is anyway beyond the point of this post)

It is my understanding, however, that slavery in ancient societies such as Sumeria and Babylon was initially tied to debt; individuals who could not repay their debts would enter into a state of servitude vis-à-vis their creditor, would work in the household for period up to a few years in order to 'repay' the debt, before being emancipated, to return home. With time, prisoners of war were also taken as slaves, yet these people too were always held 'temporarily,' and the wholesale emancipation of slaves after a set period was in fact a legal obligation in these societies.

Later, in imperial Rome for example - where I believe these laws of manumissions were absent from the statute books, - slaves brought in from the colonies would still only be held for a few years (as a matter of custom more than anything else) whilst they learnt Latin and 'the ways of Rome,' so to speak, and mastered a trade, after which they would routinely be emancipated to become full citizens of Rome, with the period of slavery acting almost like an apprenticeship, an initiation of sorts into the 'movers and shakers' of the city - in fact it appears that the city of Rome predominantly consisted of former slaves and their descendants, which is not surprising, given the size of the city during the height of the empire.

None of these systems are comparable to the experience of slavery in the Americas. The idea of people exercising such total control over their slaves that they were to be held into perpetuity, and that even their children would be born into servitude, was absent in these ancient systems of slavery. The Africans and Native Americans held in the Americas where not held with an eye to their imminent manumission, and even those who were emancipated certainly didn't then become equal citizens in the overarching political structure, nor could they simply return home, as the slaves of Sumeria had. The treatment of slaves in many of these ancient societies seems to have been more akin to the treatment of a butler or live-in maid than the image of oppressive toil rightly associated with New World slavery, and the continuing warm relationships between former slaves and former masters can only be taken as a suggestion that there was far less animosity than would be expected had these individuals undergone extreme hardship during their period of servitude.

Even if we were to pretend that the widespread existence of European enslavement of fellow Europeans at some point in history somehow mitigated the enslavement of Africans during colonialism, one could not appeal to these ancient systems of slavery as parallels, as they were of a radically different nature (which is not by any means to imply that they are to be seen as positive or desirable structures, or that their oppressive elements are to be swept under the carpet). The only comparable internal European slavery I can think of off of the top of my head would be the oft-overlooked enslavement of the Kalderash Ŕoma (and other communities, such as the Tatars) in Romania and surrounding territories up until the mid-19th century, though even this has some marked differences, and of course cannot be separated from the trends of European enslavement of 'non-European' peoples seen throughout the period of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. And I would never claim that the fact that Europeans also enslaved and mistreated non-African peoples during this period somehow 'justifies' the enslavement and mistreatment of African peoples during that same period, or lessens its magnitude. That would obviously be a ludicrous assertion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. I highly doubt the population of Africa was 120 million in the 17th/18th centuries.
From 1600 to 1800, Africa's population was between 106-114 million.

[Raúl Duke]

that slavery was disappearing in the late 1800's anyways.I don't think this was the case. I recall, perhaps even on this site, discussions about that.

During the 1700s, if I remember correctly, it was believed that slavery was going into decline.
Thus some of the US founders, while some disliked slavery to some abstract extent (i.e. they held slaves as well), took a conservative position (conservative in the classical Burke sense) and expected slavery to phase out naturally.

But with the rise of industrial capitalism (starting with the UK and spreading throughout Europe), the textile industry, etc; the demand for cheap cotton sky-rocketed. The US South was one of the main providers of this cotton and the demand help 'stabilized' slave society. It also effected the US politically I believe, the industrial North wanted trade tariffs so to be competitive against Europe and the UK but the South was against such tariffs due to lucrative trade to Europeans.

I mean, to some extent, I guess you can say it was "disappearing" but not in a uniform sense of phasing away quietly. In some cases, like the US, slavery disappeared due to war.

[citizen of industry]

One thing to keep in mind with these figures, is that the international slave trade ended in 1807, and the US (including the south) was signatory to the treaty. After that slaves were no longer brought from Africa, but "bred" domestically in the south. At the outset of the Civil War, 40% of the southern population was slave. Prior to that, around 650,000 were brought to the US from Africa. The "plantation elite" of the south (those owning more than 20 slaves) made up less than 3% of the population.

I'm calling bullshit also on the 120 million deaths figure, particularly since as property, it would be in the best interest of the slaveholder not to damage or destroy his property.

Comparison of this system with earlier systems of slavery is innacurate. In antiquity the conquered were enslaved, often released or integrated, and race didn't play such an important factor. The southern system was a whole different level of production.

[Invader Zim]

I think it is highly possible that 120 million people were killed in the slave trade. This includes those in America.

You think wrongly. From the opening years of the transatlantic slave trade in the 15th century, to its abolition in the 19th, around 20 million people were captured and allocated to travel the middle passage, only around 60% of that figure survived capture and transportation, and significantly more would die during the first three years of servitide, meaning that only around 11 million were imported into the America. Truly startling figures, but not 120 million.

See:

Paul E. Lovejoy, 'The Volume of the Atlantic Slave Trade: A Synthesis', The Journal of African History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1982), pp. 473-501.

[homegrown terror]

slavery WAS a horrible thing, but what's often overlooked is that the chinese and irish immigrants who built the US's railroads were in a lot of cases treated even WORSE than african slaves. the work was often more dangerous, living conditions worse, and even though the room and board afforded to slaves was incredibly meager, when you factor in the cost to their owner, black slaves were actually "paid" more than the average railroad worker. so when you think about it, any time somebody starts shouting about reparations, anyone of irish-american or chinese-american ancestry has about as much right to chime in.

[wsg1991]

you should mention arab \ Islamic slavery , although Islam teaching itself tried to make a nicer slavery system ( without abolishing it ) like giving slaves the right to buy their freedom ( 1 year work ) , the fact that slavery itself was not abolished was the problem , and did eventually create the typical abuse , there was a slave revolution in Iraq back in the Abbasid days , rarely mention it pretty close to Spartacus form . btw studying slavery history made me realize that this Hijab and Burqa and veil , is utterly crap , and served only as a mark to make difference between free women , and slaves
also , worth mentioning that arab's preferred slaves were white women , as sexual slavery was allowed , of course they had some (rights) theoretically but i doubt any was applied specially with rich and powerful who are practically the one concerned ., millions were enslaved in the mediterranean see , Tunisia did a lot of "contribution" specially in 16 , 17 and 18ies century , we had famous pirates operating from Jerba ( a island here ) , the most notable one is Hayreddin Barbarossa ,

[Lobotomy]

I'm just saying the people who constantly babble on about the slave trade, regardless of their intentions, are extremely reactionary and are destroying the chance of having socialism in America by significantly dividing the workers and turning them against each other by stirring up racial hatred.

discussing slavery is not "stirring up racial hatred", give me a break. Although racism is present in every day American life, a lot of people don't recognize it, let alone understand where it came from. Slavery was the number one phenomenon in determining black-white relations in the US, and its effects are still present. It is something that should be discussed and understood, not swept under the rug like it didn't happen. it is perfectly possible to discuss it and to better understand it without dividing the working class.


slavery WAS a horrible thing, but what's often overlooked is that the chinese and irish immigrants who built the US's railroads were in a lot of cases treated even WORSE than african slaves. the work was often more dangerous, living conditions worse, and even though the room and board afforded to slaves was incredibly meager, when you factor in the cost to their owner, black slaves were actually "paid" more than the average railroad worker. so when you think about it, any time somebody starts shouting about reparations, anyone of irish-american or chinese-american ancestry has about as much right to chime in.

Although indentured servitude of all kinds of immigrants did occur and was often pretty much chattel slavery, it did not have the lasting effects of African slavery. There is certainly no systemic racism against Irish people in the US. I am not as certain about Chinese-Americans, but I do know that whatever systemic racism does exist against Chinese people in America is not in the same league as that of blacks.

anyways, I'm interested in this discussion about if slavery was in decline or not around the Civil War. I have heard (in school probably) that slavery was economically unsustainable and would have ended in some fashion by the turn of the century. Is there any truth in this?

[homegrown terror]

there's also one other thing worth mentioning: black slavery wasn't a european invention. for centuries, african tribes had been warring with each other, and it was customary for the victorious tribe to take the most desired members of the defeated as slaves. the arrival of europeans only meant that now, rather than taking slaves for tribal use, the market was now geared towards foreign slave trade.

[Ocean Seal]

>Implying I didn't already google it
>Implying your information is from a trustworthy source
>Implying you've done anything other than just prove that I was correct
I don't think that he was trying to say that you're incorrect.

[Tim Finnegan]

there's also one other thing worth mentioning: black slavery wasn't a european invention. for centuries, african tribes had been warring with each other, and it was customary for the victorious tribe to take the most desired members of the defeated as slaves. the arrival of europeans only meant that now, rather than taking slaves for tribal use, the market was now geared towards foreign slave trade.
You're oversimplifying. The enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans was not a European invention, that's obvious, but black slavery, that is, the identification of certain people as "black" and their mass-enslavement on grounds of the alleged inferiority of people so identified, very much was. Previously, slavery had been a question of class, religion and culture, not of "race"; that was an entirely European innovation, one alien to any human being living before the 16th century.

[Invader Zim]

You're oversimplifying. The enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans was not a European invention, that's obvious, but black slavery, that is, the identification of certain people as "black" and their mass-enslavement on grounds of the alleged inferiority of people so identified, very much was. Previously, slavery had been a question of class, religion and culture, not of "race"; that was an entirely European innovation, one alien to any human being living before the 16th century.

o rly...

"The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state [in Spain]."

"Beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings."

"Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."

- Ibn Khaldūn 1332-1406

[Tim Finnegan]

Ibn Khaldun certainly represents a forerunner of modern conceptions of race, but he's working with a far from fully developed conception, and you'll see at the same time a European source, Marco Polo's account of his travels to Asia, which appears quite oblivious to the concept. Khaldun was working with a theory of geographic determinism quite common in the Islamic world at the time, he wasn't working with a theory of race as we would understand it. (Specifically, latitude was understood to be the primary determinant of a people's intellectual characteristics, making black Africans stupid from an over-abundance of sunlight, and white Europeans hysterical from a lack of it.) He didn't presume any intrinsic genetic or familiar link between one black person and another or one white person and another, and it was generally believed that if a group were to migrate from one latitude to another their appearance and behaviour would over the course of several generations shift accordingly; that if an African tribe and a European tribe were both brought to live in Syria, they would gain over a number of generations a complexion and temperament like that of the locals. (In fact, he was specifically critical of the Judeo-Christian account of the origin of blacks in the cursing of Ham.) The fact that he expresses a number of the same prejudices and in similar fashion shouldn't suggest that he's working within an identical or even equivalent framework, and in particular we should be careful how the translation of his words into loaded terms such as "Negro" bias our reading.