Interesting & Civil discussion re: slavery from Greek Life is HERE

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Disclaimers suck. Bow out gracefully.

What you're saying is correct, in general, but again this is an issue of attention to details. Living peacefully side-by-side doesn't mean there weren't conflicts of any sort. It just means that conflicts did not turn into all-out wars until the people had some scarce resource to war over. Whenever that happened is up for debate (not in this thread, though) but it certainly increased once outsiders began colonizing.

I remember when I got fussed out by an Eritrean years ago for thinking she was Ethiopian. I mean, one country is smaller than the other but other than that... I had no idea they were battling the way they are until a decade ago when I started hanging out with more Africans.

Hey, I don't want to bow out :P It's a civil discussion about a topic I enjoy talking about and feel passionate over. Obviously my studying to this point has been limited so this is an opportunity to fill in the gaps so to speak. I'm pretty hard core about fair trade so I like to have as much background as possible.
For instance, did you know that even though conflict diamonds are basically not kosher anymore, the only way for diamond miners in Sierra Leone to make money is to sell their finds to a diamond smuggler. The Kimberly Process is ideal on paper but not so great in real life.

My professor was hardcore socialist. She said she remembers when Walter Rodney published his book and what a sensation it caused, to the point of it being banned in Jamaica where she came from. So alas my class was slightly politically biased. Amazing teacher though. I didn't get to finish that class (I even fought off anaphylaxis while typing my midterm at 2am. New drug, but I couldn't go to the ER because the paper was due by 2pm the next day. One of the most horrible nights of my life. I sucked on my albuterol inhaler for the next 24 hours.)

I'm not even sure that I'm exactly arguing with breathegelatin...we've just had different sources. I guess I'm not naive enough to think any civilization can ever be peaceful. I just wish I could believe humans are innately good...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

For instance, did you know that even though conflict diamonds are basically not kosher anymore, the only way for diamond miners in Sierra Leone to make money is to sell their finds to a diamond smuggler. The Kimberly Process is ideal on paper but not so great in real life.

Yes.

For the record, I run away from discussions that begin with "did you know." Trivia and random "facts" bore me.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Yes.

For the record, I run away from discussions that begin with "did you know." Trivia and random "facts" bore me.

The peacock and the shooting star will be along anytime now. Apologies...think of it as a general 'you'. I just can't help myself on the diamond issue. I feel so strongly I don't ever want to wear a diamond or gold (20 tons of environmental waste for one 24k wedding band and human rights violations over the rights to the gold mines).

I do have to be shut up occasionally. Usually I say nothing because I do get going and I think it's like vegetarianism. Give the facts, but then let everyone make their own decision. So whatever.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I refrained from putting in my own two cents, but this pretty much sums it up. But I sure haven't seen any of those books fueling capitalist agendas.

That can be found in some Marxists' (not Marx himself but Marxists), neo-Marxists', economist, and other conflict theorists' accounts of history as fueling capitalism.

Some people think colonialism, slavery, and contemporary forms of systemic oppression of groups are about a hatred toward a group of people. However, people such as myself argue that prejudice and bigotry are unnecessary (except as a surface level attack) and it is really about group power dynamics and if there was an opportunity for history to work out differently, nonEuropeans would not have been the group in power. And the outcome would've been similar to the movie "White Man's Burden." One type of group power dynamic is pre-capitalist and the development and advancement of capitalism is why the pursuit of some type of profit led to slavery and modern day global oppressions. Of course, certain "capitalism" and conflict accounts of history can skew history because there are different takes 1) that the "natives" were a peaceful people until pre-capitalists came and raped them and their land and 2) what Europeans did was ncessary for capitalism in that it prompted competition, therefore "teaching" the world how to advance as the capitalist gods intended.

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Without using the fancy terminology, I find it ridiculous that people think all of Africa's problems come from "the white man". Good grief. Are these not the same African's that were capturing each other to sell to Europeans and Americans as slaves in the 18th century? Good thing there were no problems before whites interfered.

"All" or "some" is an unnecessary distinction in the long run, though, because we all know the outcome of colonialism and slavery.

Some Africans sold Africans into slavery (similar to how Europeans had indentured servants and so forth) but that historical point has been exaggerated by paranoid whites who are tired of "being blamed." Even the tone of your post sounds like a defense mechanism rather than an intolerance for inaccurate historical accounts. This is why I remove the racial aspect of it. When you type "the white man" it holds a different historical and racial connotation than talking about "Europeans" or just talking about power dynamics, in general.

So you are an example of how and why unbiased historical accounts are hard to come by.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

I'm not even sure that I'm exactly arguing with breathegelatin...we've just had different sources. I guess I'm not naive enough to think any civilization can ever be peaceful. I just wish I could believe humans are innately good...

I actually wasn't arguing with you on anything but the fact that A) there was conflict, violence, and war in African before European contact and B) there were "tribes" or political and cultural groups that resembled "tribes in early modern Africa. Our area of disagreement is really pretty small.

I'm working a Ph.D. in early modern European history (1450-1800) but my secondary field is early modern Atlantic history--thus Africa's role in Atlantic exchange.

Thornton's book is a classic and should be widely available on Amazon and other sources. If you're interested specifically in slavery, his Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles, and the Foundation of the Americas is also a good choice (co-written with Linda Heywood who is his wife).

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I refrained from putting in my own two cents, but this pretty much sums it up. But I sure haven't seen any of those books fueling capitalist agendas.

Without using the fancy terminology, I find it ridiculous that people think all of Africa's problems come from "the white man". Good grief. Are these not the same African's that were capturing each other to sell to Europeans and Americans as slaves in the 18th century? Good thing there were no problems before whites interfered.

Very few history books written by academics in the West are fueling "capitalist agendas." I would add that Marxism is definitely way, way, way out of vogue in academic circles. It's basically the crusty old guard that's Marxist. Not that "capitalism" is the preferred ideology these days... Just that pure Marxism is pretty well discredited, although many of Marx's concepts (commodity fetishism etc) are still really helpful to people analyzing history.

In terms of Africans & slavery, you seem to be somewhat misled there. It's true that slavery was predominant in African society even before European contact. But it was not the type of slavery called "chattel slavery" that predominated in America and it was not racialized. In fact, in many cases, it could actually be more beneficial to you in African society to be the slave of a elite, powerful person, than it would be for you to be a free, low-status person. The slaves were incorporated into the family unit of the master, often had a fair degree of autonomy, and in the case of elite masters would often serve as bureaucrats, jobs like that. Africans (at least at first) probably did not understand the type of slavery they were selling their captives into. By the 18th century that's arguable. Littoral African societies that were involved in slave trading basically mobilized their whole economies to participate in slave trading. But this type of trade, feeding into the Atlantic slave trading system and the more oppressive chattel slavery was created by European markets. That much is unarguable.

One of the things Thornton argues actually is that pre-contact African societies had as their basic unit of property slavery--because they did not have land ownership or feudal society as we see in medieval Europe.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Very few history books written by academics in the West are fueling "capitalist agendas." I would add that Marxism is definitely way, way, way out of vogue in academic circles. It's basically the crusty old guard that's Marxist. Not that "capitalism" is the preferred ideology these days... Just that pure Marxism is pretty well discredited....

Not true.

Your frame of reference will be your profession and discipline and my frame of reference will be mine. I know you weren't responding with my post in mind but your assertions are simply not true across the board.

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

although many of Marx's concepts (commodity fetishism etc) are still really helpful to people analyzing history.

This is true. Not just for historians but for many economists and social scientists. However, Marx was not the first to introduce many of these concepts.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not true.

Your frame of reference will be your profession and discipline and my frame of reference will be mine.

Marxism is not in vogue in academic circles. I'm trying to think of one professor in the departments I interact with that is a Marxist and is below 60. I can't think of one.

I love to read Marx. He has a lot of helpful methods of analysis. But his whole system (superstructure, economics is all that matters, consciousness raising) does not make sense to analyze history... I mean I'm really struggling to think of anyone that has published in the last 20 years that would argue that. And I do economic history!

I'm not sure what your frame of reference is--but I can speak to academia (at least the humanities--history, literature, etc.) pretty competently.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Marxism is not in vogue in academic circles. I'm trying to think of one professor in the departments I interact with that is a Marxist and is below 60. I can't think of one.

Again, that is your frame of reference so what you are saying is true only based on what you have been exposed to, in addition to being a historian versus another type of social scientist.

My frame of reference in academia is different. I am surrounded by Marxist colleagues.

[nittanyalum]

This is awesome.

This has got to go down in the books as the hijackiest of hijacked threads!

Carry on, ladies, this is fascinating!!

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Again, that is your frame of reference so what you are saying is true only based on what you have been exposed to, in addition to being a historian versus another type of social scientist.

My frame of reference in academia is different. I am surrounded by Marxist colleagues.

Well, I wouldn't call myself a "social scientist" at all--that's a huge debate among historians as I'm sure you'll know.

We'll leave it here. I guess I don't know the context of whatever discipline you are working in. I'm guessing it could be sociology now that I've given a little thought to it. My adviser is having a lively & friendly debate over some economic history matters with a sociologist at UT lately.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

This is awesome.

This has got to go down in the books as the hijackiest of hijacked threads!

Carry on, ladies, this is fascinating!!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

This has got to go down in the books as the hijackiest of hijacked threads!

You mean we're not still talking about visiting other chapters?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You mean we're not still talking about visiting other chapters?

Yes! Remember when the European chapters had that TransAtlantic roadtrip to visit the nonEuropean chapters in pursuit of D-I-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y and a good lager?

[DSTCHAOS]

How did we end up here, anyway? It began with a poorly crafted jab. I remember that much.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

Marxism is not in vogue in academic circles. I'm trying to think of one professor in the departments I interact with that is a Marxist and is below 60. I can't think of one.

I love to read Marx. He has a lot of helpful methods of analysis. But his whole system (superstructure, economics is all that matters, consciousness raising) does not make sense to analyze history... I mean I'm really struggling to think of anyone that has published in the last 20 years that would argue that. And I do economic history!

I'm not sure what your frame of reference is--but I can speak to academia (at least the humanities--history, literature, etc.) pretty competently.

I tried to find my 40-ish associate professor who taught my class but it appears that she has left the department. Good news is that they've really expanded their range of international poli sci courses. I can hardly wait to get back to school and finish up. I'm about a year and a half from graduating, no point in not finishing. Okay, I admit it, I drooled over the International Relations courses. Pathetic.

I'd pretty much decided that if nursing doesn't work out for me, I'm going into international law.

I figured we weren't arguing, it truly was a discussion that I was enjoying. No one was getting heated or namecalling and I've learnt new things today. It's not so much slavery that interests me (though I was that kid who wrote a paper on William Wilburforce in US History my junior year of high school and how Britain abolished slavery 150 years before the US and why. Yeah, I was also that kid who joined Amnesty International because I actually care about human rights, not how it looked on a college app).

So mostly I have a passionate interest in Africa and how the Colonial Period affected the continent because I have, kind of, a humanitarian streak that runs through me. I want to undo what my ancestors did any way I can, and undo what the developed countries are doing to developing nations now on the global market if I can. Nothing academic, I just learn about things and I get fired up.

And SEC...who do you think those Africans were capturing their fellows for? Other Africans? Or the "white man"?

Breathesgelatin, I saw a part of a documentary about slavers and it said that dirt and sand was found in the Africans' stomaches. They believed it was so they could carry something of home with them. Do you know anything about that?

Also I don't think I've ever been so honest about myself on GC ever. Ugh. Pretend I never wrote this, hate everyone, wear a 100 karat diamond containing the souls of a million African children on my left ring finger and drive a giant Hummer, never allowing anyone a ride. I throw my trendy coffee shop latte cups out the window when I'm done and swerve to hit little animals. I only joined a sorority to hook up with guys. Teehee. Remember all of that please.