!2 Years a Slave

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby grzegorz on Sun May 07, 2017 12:35 am

From Prager University.



https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby yeniseri on Sun May 07, 2017 11:02 am

according to this radio show (I trust this guys fact checking on history)- USA has a very small percentage of slaves than did the Caribbean and South America.

Enslaved Africas: 40% went to Caribbean islands, 37% Pourtugese Brazil, 15% Spanish America, 5% British north america, 3% europe and Asia.

More slaves have been white people (Slaves= Slavic) . Greek society was dependent on slaves.

6% of southern whites owned black slaves.

slavery was indegenous to African and Muslim countries well before Europe.

US Consensus In 1830 in Charelston SC, 407 blacks owned slaves.

28% of Free blacks owned slaves, much higher than whites.

People who were against slaves were poor whites since it brought down the price of labor.

Europeans are the ones that lead the fight against slavery, but Europeans are blamed for slavery.


These are only 1/2 truths but the facts are that individual bias is accepted but when one uses legal and constitutional laws/legislation (of tha nation to secure social position and priviledge,that is the real present and future scourge of a society. To elucidate further, here are additional part of the "truths" as stated above:
1 Where slaves went is irrelevant to the facts of persistant legislative efforts to maintain the status of slavery for monetary priviliedge (economic)

2. More slaves may have been white people but again the laws targeted those of a darker hue. 12 years a slave as one record show how this targeting achieved its goal. Target people were never of European origin per the historical context. I have read where there were a few Irish "slaves" who were sent into slavery but that was a bias against the insolent Scotch Irish who were sympathetic to the abolitionist cause so they was an attempt for them to be taught a lesson. We are talking about USA (my guess) and the glaring example is all men are equal but not those brown/black objectified people over by there ;D

3. OK Let is accept the fact that 6% did own slaves but that does little to show that when the laws were applied to secure equity for all, the 94% (my esxageration, of course ;D preferred to maintain segregation at all cost (the South, OK parts of the south) while maintaining separate facilites. And for them that was equity before the law ???

4. Whether slavery was indigenous to Africa and the Middle East, this does not reflect the motto of the New America, where it was used to sanctify priviledge. Either it was right or wrong ???
People who were captured in war served as slave labour regardless of clime and it made sense when the Turks captured Byzantium to follow that tradition when they occupied Europe proper. Eventually,
those same European slaves were mobilized as military units in defense of the Turkish realm through the ages but when they grew too strong, they were seen as enemies of the state apparatus ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries
background of the Jannisaries (Turkey)

5. Free people according to US law did have the right to own slaves and naturally as a minority of those were blacks/mulatos ;D , they had that right but the exception is noted as such.

6. 28% of blacks owned slaves vs a lower percentage of whites but this comparison is similar to the fact that most people who are recipients of all Federal programmes are white ;D Raw numbers would indicate that but if we look at a statistical breakdown, there will be skewness ;D

7. No doubt that decent white people were against slavery but they were a minority. Many who could be punished were treated accordingly. The more upper class had the right to do what was proper in conscience and upholding the sanctity of human life. The history of John Brown is a case in point. Actually John Brown's abolitionist stance was seen a that of a madman or some type of terrotistic activity despite his obvious attempt to correct a societal wrong ;D

8. Europeans fighting against slavery was never the principle. Haiti was the first nation in the Americas to break the yoke of European hegemony. It was the duty of decent people to get rid of a system that was anathema to life, liberty and the pursuit of 'happiness'. Additionally, the real reason was that the slavery economic model was seen as inefficient in the face of industrial use of machinery though many did not want to free themselves of the power of owning other humans, for whatever reason.
Last edited by yeniseri on Sun May 07, 2017 11:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
When fascism comes to US America, It will be wrapped in the US flag and waving a cross. An astute patriot
yeniseri
Wuji
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Steve James on Sun May 07, 2017 2:45 pm

Enslaved Africas: 40% went to Caribbean islands, 37% Pourtugese Brazil, 15% Spanish America, 5% British north america, 3% europe and Asia.

More slaves have been white people (Slaves= Slavic) . Greek society was dependent on slaves.

6% of southern whites owned black slaves.

slavery was indegenous to African and Muslim countries well before Europe.

US Consensus In 1830 in Charelston SC, 407 blacks owned slaves.

28% of Free blacks owned slaves, much higher than whites.

People who were against slaves were poor whites since it brought down the price of labor.

Europeans are the ones that lead the fight against slavery, but Europeans are blamed for slavery.


:) This was posted before, and I was going to ask what it had to do with the Prager U. video. But, the quality of its poorness merits a reply. Jeez, at least the writer would spell check so that the research doesn't look like the work of a lower freshman. Anyway, Yeniseri made some good points.

The numbers actually do matter. Consider this, if only 3% of AfricaNs were taken to the British colonies --and we have to include Canada, so the number of Africans enslaved in the future US is even smaller-- why does the US have the second highest number of Africans (people descended from those brought from Africa) outside of Africa? The country with the highest is Brazil because most transported Africans were brought there. To simplify, if there were so few brought, why are there so many now? It is actually a fucking easy question to answer and just means that most people of African descent in the US are also of European descent.

Afa having slavery or slaves, there's not an ancient society that one can find that didn't have slaves of one sort or another. Yeah, there were slaves in Egypt and Babylon long before there was a hint of large scale civilization in Europe. But, even the Druids had slaves and performed human sacrifice. The Greeks and Romans had slaves, but the Saudis and others still have slaves. If the argument is "so what," every one has slaves, ok. Now, tell me why the US declared its independence. I.e., the question is about freedom, not slavery.

Europeans are not blamed for "slavery." White people in the US feel ashamed because the majority of slave holders were White. But, that's not even really why because the problem is what happened "after" slavery was abolished. Telling me that the Irish were slaves here is fine because it was no different for them in England. There's still a lifetime servant class there. Here, however, it was supposed to be all "men" were created equal and had equal right given by God. (But, of course, able to be abridged by certain men). That means that in, my lifetime, I remember going to places where I had to eat at the take out window because they didn't allow "Negroes" inside, and that my grandparents were not allowed to vote. It's not history to me. Ymmv.

Btw, the part about Europeans being the first to fight against slavery is completely false from a practical point of view. It's like saying that the Africans who were enslaved didn't fight their captors. That's just stupid. There were also complaints by Africans in Africa about the enslavement of people. Oh, and several of these complaints came from Christian Africans (in the 1500s). However, organized resistance to the slave trade by Europeans against Europeans was certainly started by Europeans. For some, it was an ethical issue. For others, it was a way to ensure English economic empire. Between 1808 (when the British outlawed the slave trade and promised to interdict any slave ships) to the 1930s, the British Empire was the largest the world had ever known.

Anyway, here's a video about what happened immediately after the war. Anyone who's really interested can always find primary documents, newspapers and historical accounts (diaries, letters, etc.) from the period and learn a lot more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIC8ifQlDVY
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Steve James on Sun May 07, 2017 4:21 pm

Afa the reasons for the Civil War. The reasons for southern secession were stated clearly by the VP of the Confederacy in a speech that was called the "Cornerstone."

In March 1861, after secession but before the Civil War broke out, Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice president and one of the most perceptive and brightest men in the Confederate government, forcefully set out the reasons for secession and the creation of the Confederacy in his famous "Cornerstone Speech." Here, Stephens tied slavery to race, making clear that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was not merely chattel slavery, but also on the assumption of the racial and ethnic superiority of the ruling class and the utter inferiority and subordination of blacks.

Thus Stephens declared that, “Our new government is founded upon . . . its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.” Stephens denounced the northern claims (which he incorrectly attributed to Thomas Jefferson) that the “enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.” He unabashedly asserted: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea.” Stephens argued that it was “insanity” to believe “that the negro is equal” or “that slavery was wrong.” He proudly predicted that the Confederate Constitution “has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution-African slavery as it exists amongst us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.”

Thus, for the Confederate Vice President, the “cornerstone” of the new country was slavery and white supremacy and the view that “African slavery as it exists amongst us” is “the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.” If anyone had any doubts what secession was all about, or what the Confederacy was formed to protect, we need also consult Vice President Stephens.

Stephens echoed the Declaration of the Causes of Secession, adopted by the South Carolina secession convention in December 1860. The South Carolina secessionists explained that they were leaving the Union because “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that ‘Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free. And that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.’”

In other words, South Carolina was leaving the Union because Lincoln believed slavery was wrong and should one day – in the far distant future – be ended.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/sec ... nd-slavery

Ya don't have to believe it. It's possible to look up the original speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
The 'Cornerstone'[edit]
Stephens' speech declared that disagreements over the enslavement of Africans was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had resolved such issues:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


People still say that he was right. All men are not equal. True, some are born richer. Some are born blind or without an arm or leg. Some are autistic or stunted. Fair enough. Does that mean that any of them are less entitled to "rights" supposedly "endowed" by the Creator?

If Stephens is right that the DoI is wrong, then can he use the DoI to justify southern secession? Were the 13 colonies right to declare independence from England? Wasn't that "the natural order of things"? Btw, using his argument, at least some White southerners were not equal to others. Plantation owners come to mind. Obviously, they deserved to have more rights.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 7:59 am

As far as the Declaration of Independence, maybe Stephens figured there was a God loophole since the Africans weren't Christian?

Of course people are equal in some ways and in a few ways they are not the same, both individually, and by extension, their groups are different. Therefore, the differences can be interpreted as specific and particular advantages and disadvantages, and it's really only the rule of law that can grant people equal rights and equal opportunities, while allowing them to retain their individuality and group identity. I think it's common sense, but an over-literal interpretation of "all men are created equal" does seem to resonate at times. Maybe that's because it's an ideal to strive for, I like to think that, but it's difficult to get away from group identity.

Greg, what's up? How did you come across this video?

Steve, I'm watching those After Shock videos. Pretty shocking to hear the details, no pun intended.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11174
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Steve James on Mon May 08, 2017 8:47 am

Yeah, difficult.
Of course people are equal in some ways and in a few ways they are not the same, both individually, and by extension, their groups are different.


So, the Americans are equal to the English or is it the White English group who are equal to the White American group? How about the Irish group? Are they equal? Were they considered equal? What do you think the Irish and Scots thought?

Secondly, using that group logic, does it ever mean that you are superior to anyone because you belong to that group? Besides, there is also the intelligent group and the not-so-intelligent group whose members are those of all other groups. Sure, it's easy to agree that there are group differences as long as one agrees that one might be born a member of any group and every human is a member of many groups.

What made the DoI different, and encouraged the French and Haitian Revolutions was that idea "All men are created equal." That the Americans --of all stripes who fought for that idea-- were equal to the Brits and had God-given rights to ... blah, blah, blah. Unlike England or India, where one was born into a certain class, caste or underclass, in "America" an individual could rise on his or her own merits and become anything, even President. No place else (said it) had anything like it.

Anyway, Mike, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsSIFFlKirM
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Steve James on Mon May 08, 2017 8:57 am

Correction, I know of at least one other country that adopted that principle: Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam. Check out their DoI ...http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5139/
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 10:12 am

Yep, at this point in time, the Danish video is weak sauce in the face of the intrinsic in-group / out-group preferences that I see expressed here in China, or that are de facto in most places in the world, where there are locals and foreigners, whereas in the USA immigrants can achieve full rights and status.

I don't think East Asia or Southeast Asia are particularly egalitarian and although I've nver been there, I'm pretty sure Vietnam would be included among countries that sees only us and them. Japan is apparently the current perfect example of a country maintaining its culutral identity by avoiding the "melting pot myth."

Social dynamics and social dominance patterns are lower level programs, so they're not easily displaced by abstract concepts like equal rights. Fewer people will sacrifice for an abstract concept like the rule of law and the equal rights of others, especially for a perceived out-group member. I think what you're saying about America, and what I think about America, is that the ideal of equal rights is a fundamental concept, meant to carry a preponderance of the weight to over-balance group preferences.

So, the Americans are equal to the English or is it the White English group who are equal to the White American group? How about the Irish group? Are they equal? Were they considered equal? What do you think the Irish and Scots thought?

I'm sure they found ways to justify lapses of inequality.

Secondly, using that group logic, does it ever mean that you are superior to anyone because you belong to that group? Besides, there is also the intelligent group and the not-so-intelligent group whose members are those of all other groups.

For superiority and inferiority, yes, but it just depends on where you wish to focus your attention, on what aspect you want to consider comparable and measurable. This is the basic argument against literal equality, or identicalism(?). It's the argument for diversity of outcome being related to diveristy of origin.

Yesterday I listened to a discussion between intellectual Sam Harris and author of The Bell Curve Charles Murray. Harris asked him that considering the "invidious" nature of exploring data about racial differences, why would he even go into the topic? Murray's answer wasn't memorable.

Sure, it's easy to agree that there are group differences as long as one agrees that one might be born a member of any group and every human is a member of many groups.

There can be many groups and you can belong to multiple groups, but the limiting factor is there can only be one dominant group and one dominant culture at a time.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11174
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Steve James on Mon May 08, 2017 10:48 am

There can be many groups and you can belong to multiple groups, but the limiting factor is there can only be one dominant group and one dominant culture at a time.


Well, see, there's the problem. I can say that French people should be dominant in France and, it follows, that all "French" people are equal. I could say the same thing about Germany, Italy, Nigeria, China, etc. Then it comes to the US and "Americans." I can say that Americans should dominate in the US, and that all Americans should have equal rights. That's probably how/why your family came here. My problem is only that I am an American and think that all Americans should be dominant in this country. OOPs, that's my mistake isn't it. No matter how many generations of my family have been born, some people think that they should be dominant. They even think that someone whose grandparents came from somewhere else can be president and determine who is a legitimate American or not.

If that dominance is true, then I don't see why those who are not in the dominant "group" have served in the military, or pay taxes. The point of the Tea Party was "taxation without representation." Meh, but like I said, I'm an American, and once upon a time what defined that was belief in a set of ideas -that people were willing to die for. I know it was all bullshit to a lot of people. I'm just saying that there have always been people who really believe, and for whom it's not a philosophical debate.

Oh, when you bring up how you feel in China or Vietnam, I shake my head. You are not a citizen of China. I'm a citizen here. It's kumquats and apples.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby grzegorz on Mon May 08, 2017 12:51 pm

grzegorz wrote:From Prager University.



https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4


In the contexts of the alleged low numbers of slave owners, I thought the video made an interesting point concerning poor whites in the South and how slavery made them feel superior.

I have witnessed this myself with my wife coming from formerly communist Europe. In fact just yesterday I heard a man from her country complaining about all the Mexican here. Basically they come here competing for the same jobs so they jump on the superiority bandwagon and consider themselves better. I have no doubt that poor whites benefited from slavery in the South by being given better work positions and conditions than the slaves and more than likely were the ones who "supervised" the slaves.

Yet when Beegs was here he argued that poor whites had it worse than African slaves.
"Fascists rejected reason in the name of will, denying objective truth in favor of a glorious myth articulated by leaders who claimed to give voice to the people."

-Timothy Snyder
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Divided States of America

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 8:03 pm

Steve James wrote:
There can be many groups and you can belong to multiple groups, but the limiting factor is there can only be one dominant group and one dominant culture at a time.

Oh, when you bring up how you feel in China or Vietnam, I shake my head. You are not a citizen of China. I'm a citizen here. It's kumquats and apples.

I am not complaining about my situation, I merely meant that as an example of how humans typically choose their group identity at other levels in order to contrast this to the American ideal of one national group that you have explained, and that I agree with. And yes, I also think there have been enough people who have believed and scarified for this ideal in order to make it real.

If that dominance is true, then I don't see why those who are not in the dominant "group" have served in the military, or pay taxes.

One reason is they are required to do so. Another is pragmatic beyond threat of punishment, simply that here you are and you play the hand you're dealt, make the best of things even if you don't believe in every part of the system you're in. People around the world do that.

Since conscription effectively ended in the USA in the mid-70's, voluntarily joining could be about getting a job or being a young person looking for an adventure as much as joining for specific ideals about defending one's country. And there's also the Hollywood marketing arm of the Dept. of Defense, whose target audience is young, dumb and not full of kum-by-yah.

I can say that Americans should dominate in the US, and that all Americans should have equal rights. That's probably how/why your family came here. My problem is only that I am an American and think that all Americans should be dominant in this country. OOPs, that's my mistake isn't it. No matter how many generations of my family have been born, some people think that they should be dominant.

There is currently a "social justice" movement in the USA, and Canada, as well as other Western countries, that defines a group they call the "white male patriarchy" and wishes to destroy its dominant position, blaming it for all social problems and claiming the goal to re-distribute power to the less privileged. Their agenda depends on creating group categories other than the top-level American group, all of them dependent on personal identity traits, such as race, ethnicity, gender, and an un-ending list of variations of these, including trans-gender and trans-racial, such as Rachel Dolezal, a white woman claiming to be black. These are some reasons why it's difficult to maintain the ideal of a top-level, American group identity.

When competing with more obvious and default group identifiers, such as phenotype, or when competing with the latest victimhood oppression olympics identities (another endless list of personal problems exalted to group identity status by social justice warriors, I'll post a few examples below) that appeal to people who have little or no other sense of identity, essentially people who don't know who they are because their culture became amorphous in the face of unlimited inclusion, it requires constant effort and innovation to maintain a group identity that is a complex set of ideas like American or Western egalitarianism. It's worth the effort, but some think the pendulum has swung too far, like the jig is up on Western civilization.

This video is a bit long at 17 minutes, but is a good example of the reaction from those who are being identified as the "white male patriarchy". The tone of these kinds of videos sounds bigoted to me because they are either predicated on, or in response to race as fundamental to either identity or to these made up identity categories from the social justice movement. The vid explains some of the challenges of sustaining an ideal like a top-level American identity, unfortunately, it also has a bit of gloom and doom to it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPembXZMKv0

Greg, apparently Prager University has an anti-social justice stance and maybe because their vids are kept to a very marketable size of 3-6 minutes, they are really popular with the conservative crowd, just sayin'. Anyway, that's how I recently came across a lot of Prager U videos.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11174
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 8:06 pm

Here are some examples of made up group identities from the social justice movement. Although not covered in these short videos, these identities are in competition for group dominance in America, Canda, etc.

Intersectionality Singularity - Queering Fatness (THE SAAD TRUTH_414)
5 minutes about fatness as an oppressed group identity for the book Queering Fat Embodiment (Queer Interventions)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr2z6OoNUv8

Queering Fat Embodiment (Queer Interventions) wrote:Cultural anxieties about fatness and the attendant stigmatisation of fat bodies, have lent a medical authority and cultural legitimacy to what can be described as ’fat-phobia’. Against the backdrop of the ever-growing medicalisation, pathologisation, and commodification of fatness, coupled with the moral panic over an alleged ’obesity epidemic’, this volume brings together the latest scholarship from various critical disciplines to challenge existing ideas of fat and fat embodiment. Shedding light on the ways in which fat embodiment is lived, experienced, regulated and (re)produced across a range of cultural sites and contexts, Queering Fat Embodiment destabilises established ideas about fat bodies, making explicit the intersectionality of fat identities and thereby countering the assertion that fat studies has in recent years reproduced a white, ableist, heteronormative subjectivity in its analyses. A critical queer examination on fatness, Queering Fat Embodiment will be of interest to scholars of cultural and queer theory, sociology and media studies, working on questions of embodiment, stigmatisation and gender and sexuality.


Peak SJW Identity Politics Reached! (THE SAAD TRUTH_406)
4 minutes reading the bios of PhD's in higher education, who believe their various made up group identities are of primary importance for their audiences to know beforehand, and are typically used like badges of honor in what this vlogger, Dr. Gad Saad, calls the victimhood oppression olympics.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzp1VAvRv0M

Conditionally Accepted Archive wrote:Dr. Eric Anthony Grollman, Editor, I speak as a queer, multiracial (Black, white, and Jewish), middle-class, fat, spiritual, US-born, feminist genderqueer man without disabilities.

Dr. Jeana Jorgensen, Regular Contributor, I write and teach from the life experiences of a culturally Jewish, agnostic, able-bodied, sex-positive, intersectional feminist and as a bisexual cisgender woman.

Dr. J. Sumerau, Regular Contributor, I write from the life experiences of a most of the time male-appearing bisexual, genderqueer, skeptic Queer Intersectional Feminist. My teaching, research and activism focus on the intersections of sexualities, gender, religion, and health in the interpersonal and her-his-our-storical experiences of sexual, gender, and religious minorities.

Dr. Manya Whitaker, Regular Contributor, I blog from the perspective of a southern, Black, middle class, US-born woman.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11174
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 8:34 pm

My point is that even for people who claim to believe they have transcended racism, i.e. group identity based on race, they will create group identities that are not egalitarian, not as all-inclusive as American, and they do so in order to have an inherent advantage in the competition for social dominance. I think this happens because such competition is the default position for social dynamics and that believing otherwise allows for a lot of nonsense to become popular, such as the social justice warrior identity categories described above.
Last edited by Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11174
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Michael on Mon May 08, 2017 8:46 pm

grzegorz wrote:In the contexts of the alleged low numbers of slave owners, I thought the video made an interesting point concerning poor whites in the South and how slavery made them feel superior.

Yet when Beegs was here he argued that poor whites had it worse than African slaves.

People tend to support the status quo, even if it doesn't really benefit them, which was the position of poor whites. It's difficult to put myself into the mindset of someone taking any solace or satisfaction that their extremely poor situation is more acceptable because at least they're not a slave, but relative social status is a thing, so I guess there's some truth to this. I just don't think it was really an operative factor in the social order. I don't think this relatively higher social position for poor whites was part of what kept the system stable, but I could be totally wrong.

I have witnessed this myself with my wife coming from formerly communist Europe. In fact just yesterday I heard a man from her country complaining about all the Mexican here. Basically they come here competing for the same jobs so they jump on the superiority bandwagon and consider themselves better. I have no doubt that poor whites benefited from slavery in the South by being given better work positions and conditions than the slaves and more than likely were the ones who "supervised" the slaves.

There are industries that are populated by illegal immigrants to the exclusion of citizens, such as construction, agriculture, food and other service industries, and even things like car washes.

How do whites, blacks, browns and other citizens feel about illegal Mexican immigrants taking over the menial labor jobs that previously belonged to them? Owners then driving down the wages, at least partly forced to do so in terms of competition, to the point that the industry norm for payment is now so far below poverty that citizens can't compete for those jobs?
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11174
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: !2 Years a Slave

Postby Steve James on Tue May 09, 2017 8:03 am

:) The slave owner's argument. Ok, I accept your premise: people are different; groups are different; inevitably some or one will dominate. So, some people will always end up as slaves. Moreover, they should accept their condition because
here you are and you play the hand you're dealt, make the best of things even if you don't believe in every part of the system you're in.
.

As I said, I was taught principles. Every July Fourth, I was told how noble the founders of this country were for doing exactly the opposite of the premise above. You asked before whether I should support someone's right to "free speech" because it was ... Constitutional and an American principle. But, if I don't have the equal rights of an American citizen, why should I respect his? Because that's just the way it is here? Some people are more equal than others?

And, I must condemn those evil Antifas, leftists and social justice warriors on principle. All lives matter. Oh well, btw, that "group identity" (i.e. "racial identity") idea was invented by White men here; it's not some new idea that others are thrusting upon them. And, it doesn't take a Freud to analyze why it emerged and why it's easy for some people to accept. What puzzles me is why they think anyone else even considers it?

There's the group of people who believe in the DoI's principles. And, there's the group who don't.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest