User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 71

  1. #61
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ByMySword View Post
    There are also records of newly freed slaves going back to their masters to work for wages. They must have not been that bad! Though I know that there were masters that were.
    Could be that they didn't have a lot of other opportunities so they went back to what they knew. Also, there is such a thing as Stockholm syndrome.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  2. #62
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    I'm aware of white indentured servants- I found out a while back that my ancestors had owned the ancestors of someone I'd slept with as an indentured servant- that was both confusing and disturbing!
    Wow! What a mind-job! LOL

  3. #63
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    White indenture tended to be different in nature from Black slavery. It was also abolished much earlier.
    I wasn't making a comparison, just adding a "matter of fact" comment. Thanks!

  4. #64
    ByMySword
    Guest

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Could be that they didn't have a lot of other opportunities so they went back to what they knew. Also, there is such a thing as Stockholm syndrome.
    I am aware that in many instances this could have been the case. Thanks for the post!

  5. #65
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    I wish I was in Winn Dixie. They had pretty good donuts.

  6. #66
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Sorry to tear into your post here, whatever, but there were too many inaccuracies in my opinion to leave it alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Slavery was a result of the destabilization and civil war that was introduced into African cultures by the european colonizers
    No, Slavery was something that existed for millennia in Africa before the Europeans arrived to trade. Europeans mainly came to trade exotic goods and precious minerals. There are even examples, for instance on the Gold Coast, of the early European traders having to go further east to the Slave Coast to buy slaves in order to have anything the Gold Coast natives wanted to trade for gold, and the slaves sold to the natives were probably sold further inland to satisfy the high demand for slaves there (both to use locally and to feed the trans-Saharan slave trade.) After having seen that slaves were worth their weight in gold however, and with the increasing need for labour in the Americas, some Europeans adopted the practice and started trading for slaves to America instead. Seeing the profit this generated, more European traders arrived and kept increasing the demand. So yes, Europeans are a part of the puzzle, but they did not introduce it.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    - slavery started when the European colonists in the Americas had succeeded in using up the Native populations or killing them with diseases and needed more workers to work in thier plantations and mines.
    Well, the demand increased drastically at that time, but it didn't start there.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Since they had just opened up trade
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    and exploration
    Very limited exploration. Only coastal exploration at this time. (David Livingstone was born after the British abolished the slave trade, and didn't explore before in the colonial era, much later.)

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    (and exploitation) of the African nations
    No exploitation of the African nations at this time. That happened in colonial times, after slave trade had ended. During the slave trade, the Europeans only had coastal trade forts and lodges, and paid high ground rent to the locals and prices for slaves according to demand and supply. The slaves were never cheap, and as soon as the demand skyrocketed, so did the prices. The local traders were just as calculating, cold and financially aware as the Europeans.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    , they decided to start shipping Africans from the tribes that they had already destroyed to the Americas to do thier heavy manual labor.
    They shipped Africans to do the heavy manual labour for those who could afford it. They did not destroy any tribes in pre-colonial times.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    (how did the Europeans, namely the Portuguese at first, destabilize the African cultures? by forcing them into governmental models that were not traditional or understandable and introducing things like alcohol)
    The Portuguese in Africa didn't have the power to do that, nor the need. There was a high supply of slaves without forcing or tricking anyone. They did trade alcohol, but not to destabilize. Alcohol was often given as a present to chiefs because it was a valuable commodity, to strengthen relationships/promote trade from their fort instead of a rivaling European fort, and chiefs used it politically to gain favours and reward support etc in their community, but only because it was considered valuable (They didn't sell cheap alcohol. One chief I came across refused anything but Madeira ). It could as easily have been money, art etc. Alcoholism was an immensely bigger problem amongst the Europeans at the coast than it was amongst the Africans.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Slavery was introduced to Latin America first, and then spread to the United States as our plantation economy rising and the lack of sufficient indentured servants or native people to do all of the work that it entailed. Purchasing other human beings to do the work- humans who you would not need to pay or eventually release- seemed to be a practical and economical move for the plantation owner. The slave trade, and the fact that the slave owners kept the offspring of thier slaves, eventually led to there being a lot of African slaves in the United States.
    Yes, to the best of my knowledge, that's correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    While we all know that the prime cause of the Civil War was not slavery,
    I fear many don't know that. But you're right. It wasn't. Not even close. The racist above had that one right. It was mainly about federal power vs. independence. The slave bit seems more to have been about forcing the brits not to help the south. No amount of "giving up the slaves" would have changed the fact that the North couldn't tolerate an independent South.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    some media whores of the day were good at inserting it as a reason that we were fighting, which made southerners after the war all the more bitter towards the newly free African Americans. And we all know as well that scapegoats are quite easy to find and blame during periods of economic hardship and feelings of defeat, which is what led to the century of oppression of those of African descent in the US that still has not completely ended. In this century we saw lynchings, abuse, defranchisement, Jim Crow laws and basic dehumanization of people of African descent- and many of the oppressors used the stars and bars as thier symbol, since it was the potent symbol of the confederate cause, which had united most southerners, poor or rich (it was necissary to find a means for uniting the poor and rich since the populist movement in the late 1800s had nearly split the white southerners).
    Yes, this is a dark stain on American history. The Apartheid of the south not ending before after my mother was born... :sad:

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    African Americans did not ask to have thier cultures destabilized by European colonizers,
    No, and the destabilization didn't happen before long after slave trade was abolished.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    they did not ask for thier cheifs to sell them to European traders,
    No, but few were sold by their chiefs unless they were heavily indebted. And a lot of them did take part in the many wars, did ask their chiefs to win them and were hoping to win those wars in order to get their hands on a slave or two to sell to grow richer. (Though the wars were very rarely if ever about capturing slaves. Most or perhaps all wars were results of power struggles between "political" parties or between rival kingdoms.) Yes, Europeans did trade guns and gun powder, and yes, in some cases the presence of the Europeans did make wars more rife, but only because there was a new strategic and economic advantage to fight over. The European traders resented it when war broke out, because it hampered trade, made the country less safe for them and cost them a lot because allies demanded gun powder and guns to defend themselves (and if their allies lost, the victor would extort them for even more for having supported their enemies). War often meant hopeless diplomatic scenarios as well, because the coastal forts were placed several places along the coast, and the support for one local community could often mean hostility from a community surrounding another.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    and they certainly did not ask for or deserve the centuries of slavery that they were forced to endure in the new world.
    No, they didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    And it is because of the century of abuse post-civil war and the use of the confederate flag (the second one, which was also the confederate battle flag) it is considered a potent symbol of racism and oppression and should not be used in public because of the emotional weight that it slings.
    I agree!

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    hope that clears everything up a bit!
    I hope I cleared everything up a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    The meaning behind symbols is dynamic. You can't expect it to stay the same or for people to be aware of their original or 'true' meanings. It's a lot like language. You can say things that are technically correct but have people misunderstand your meaning dramatically because the common use of the words you use has changed with time.

    For example, you could say "Last night I had the gayest intercourse with my mate!" and mean "Last night I had a great time shooting the breeze with my buddy." That is not, however, what people are going to think you mean.

    Same with the Confederate flag. The common meaning of the symbol has changed. It has come to be seen as a racist symbol. Since you are a student of history, you probably also know that a burning cross was not originally a racist symbol, either, but I hope that you would use the phone or email to invite your buddies to a get-together instead of lighting a cross in your yard. In common use, both symbols represent the appalling mistreatment of an entire race of people.

    If you would not be misunderstood, you must make your message clear to your audience. If you do not care whether or not you are understood, then why bemoan the fact that you are not?
    I agree wholeheartedly. People may one day use the swastika again without the Nazi connotation, but until that day it'd be safer and kinder not to use it at all.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  7. #67
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    Could be that they didn't have a lot of other opportunities so they went back to what they knew. Also, there is such a thing as Stockholm syndrome.
    AND I doubt very much that the ones going back were plantation slaves. Slavery could entail anything from working till your hands bled (with the occasional whipping) to cooking and serving dinner. A kind slave owner and a job with decent clothes in a safe kitchen could probably seem more attractive than insecurity, poverty and potential starvation.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  8. #68
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexis View Post
    Well I would choose death if it meant life in prison. Yes life in prison is still a life you can live. But its one you will live going through the same routine things day in day out, and you would have no freedom to chose anything in your life again but what manner in which to do those routine things. So of course I would chose death.
    Some slaves did choose death instead of slavery. Some do choose death in prison. But remember that if you'd been raised back then, you wouldn't have had the upbringing, ideals or expectations you do now. It's hopeless to say what you would have done or thought if all those things were different. Most didn't choose death over slavery, so either you'd have thought very differently back then or you would have chosen death, but most people today probably wouldn't (unless you think most people living today would have been a lot less "stupid" if brought up in that time than the people living back then.)
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  9. #69
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    Well.... if we're going to be nitpicky I suppose I should be absolutley more precise, but that takes up a lot more space typing I generally prefer shorter posts since they are lighter on the reader's eye

    I've studied both the history of African colonialism and exploration (fully depressing) and the history of slavery in the Americas, especially Latin America (even more in depth and also dreadfully depressing). I was merely looking at slavery from the political science perspective there I also tend to look at such things from a Latin American perspective since that is what I have studied most heavily in recent years

    The Portuguese were some of the first to introduce wide scale slavery into the Americas (and are generally regarded by Latin American scholars to be the first trans-Atlantic slave traders) since the tribal of native people in Brazil was at best scattered and nothing like the signifigantly more exploitable Aztecs and Inca who the Spanish used in thier mines. When the plantation economy took off in Brazil, and gold and diamonds were discovered around Minas, more workers were necissary than the Portuguese could round up locally, so they turned to thier newly founded African colonies in order to supply the demand. The first wave of slaves were from Angola and later slave trade drew the traders farther north to the Gulf of Guinea. The Portuguese, unlike the Spanish, origionally traded slaves from thier own African colonies to Brazil until after their country was weakened by occupation and war. So many slaves were imported that Brazil now has the world's largest African population of any country.

    Farther north, in the Carribean the French and Spanish frequently used merchants from other countries, at first Portuguese and later many Dutch and British traders, to supply slaves for thier plantations, since the native Carib population was completely destroyed by disease and fighting.

    The United States got into the slave trading game rather late for a western hemisphere country, as the development of the US was much slower and started later. By the time that we got into the practice of buying slaves (a practice that lasted for approximatly 100 years, as the buying of new slaves from Africa was forbidden after 1800) the slave trade had already turned into an established international business, with American buyers purchasing thier slaves from experienced slave traders, often of British or Dutch backgrounds. Slave traders were known to break slaves through torture in order to make them more compliant to thier future masters, which would explain the lack of rebellion- the poor slaves had no will left to live, let alone to fight.

    ANY introduction of an outside culture has a destabilizing effect on the native culture. Look at the modern day Mayans and Aztecs in Mexico for an example. When the traders first started to trade outside goods, especially firearms and alcohol to the native populations (which was generally one of the first cultural outreach programs by several European nations) those goods had a definite negative impact on the local tribal structures. Firearms made it signifigantly easier to eliminate the competition than the older weapons that were used by local warriors, and lets face it- alcohol is a delightful substance that people will always want more of (and the local palm wine was a rather weak drink). From the first contacts between the cultures, the traditional tribal system started to weaken and crumble- and the more demands that the traders put on the local populations, and the more willing they were to exploit ongoing rivalries and civil wars- the weaker the local culture became. The Europeans happily exploited local wars and rivalries in order to gain more slaves to trade, and the more they traded, the more hooked the local people got on imported goods. Sure the wars may have been a disadvantage when it came to trying to extract goods from the colonized lands and make them "respectable" colonies, but the slave traders knew what they were doing and exploited these conflicts for thier own gains.

    I'm well aware that slavery has been around for thousands of years- I was forced to attend Sunday School every week growing up - but we were speaking of slavery in the Americas as was related to the Civil War and racism following it. it hardly seemed relevant to drag up ancient Egypt and Rome and such to argue about American racism.
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #70
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    I fear many don't know that. But you're right. It wasn't. Not even close. The racist above had that one right. It was mainly about federal power vs. independence. The slave bit seems more to have been about forcing the brits not to help the south. No amount of "giving up the slaves" would have changed the fact that the North couldn't tolerate an independent South.
    Sorry, but again, this is bullshit. someone could perhaps make the argument that it was about the interests of one region butting up against the interests of another region, but the big lash of interests revolved around slavery. (it would be equivalent to, say, if New england actually did secede during the 1812 war, and saying that the resulting secession was about large vs. small amounts of federal power and had nothing to do with the country's expansion, power struggles, or economic differences.)

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] I wish I was something else.
    By breakfastsurreal in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-19-2009, 12:03 PM
  2. [Other] What would you do if you was in power?
    By Saslou in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 03:48 PM
  3. I Wish I Was an ????
    By Haight in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 04-13-2009, 05:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO