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

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

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.

Who said you two were "arguing?" It's intellectual discourse.

I was just teasing about "bowing out" from such discourse because you playfully provided that disclaimer about possibly not having your info straight.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by AlexMack

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?

I have no idea. Sorry.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

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.

Right.

BTW, I don't know why you can't find the more recent Marxist and neo-Marxist writings. I have quite a few of them and know some of the authors.
Maybe you're looking for a particular thing or searching within a particular discipline (i.e. economics or history---when disciplines dismiss particular works it doesn't mean that other disciplines dismiss them. Plus, it doesn't mean that newer scholars won't bring the works back into relevance in the disciplines that have dismissed them.).

Just wanted to highlight the importance of being cautious when making certain sweeping claims.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Who said you two were "arguing?" It's intellectual discourse.

I was just teasing about "bowing out" from such discourse because you playfully provided that disclaimer about possibly not having your info straight.

Yeah it's why I don't normally get involved in deep intellectual discussions. I know that either I don't know enough, my knowledge is gappy from years between learning about the subject and the discussion, or someone is doing a dissertation and is studying it hardcore so I get to be a little bit right but they get to be a lot right. And because it's the internet and thus serious business, I don't feel the need to go open up my notes and textbooks for spontaneous discussion.
Playing dumb is way easier. But I am happy to find out that there are people here who share my interest in Africa's history and its relevance to its current problems.
But I so wasn't even alive back then so it's totally not my problem that we're flooding their markets with our overstock because the US Government pays farmers subsidies to produce extra crop and then laws require overseas markets to sell the import before they can sell their own produce. Nope, not my problem. I didn't do it.
I don't even drink coffee anymore. Starbucks is supposed to have one pot of Fair Trade Coffee on all day, all stores according to the website. Everytime I go in and ask for it, not only do they not have it, I get very confused looks and replies. I've pretty much quit coffee altogether and just drink water. I pick up Ethos Water when Starbuck inevitably disappoints me.

It totally sucks. England has a coffee chain called Costa Coffee. All fair trade and they don't charge extra for soymilk. The UK's gone all fair trade everywhere, even fruit in the supermarkets. It's amazing.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

The government does not pay farmers subsidies to produce extra crops. They are paid minor subsidies to ensure that enough food is being produced to feed our own country, and to cover anticipated exports.

The only thing you can blame the government for (in this case) is the food on your table.

OMG you're so right. It's nothing to do with developed nations, it's all the poorer country's fault.
The US produces way too much crop and floods the global market. Developing nations cannot hope to compete when they have to sell the import before they can sell their own stock. Just a 1% increase of exports for Africa in the global market would lift 100 million people out of poverty.

EDIT: Okay, this thread has been very civil up till now. I do not want to get drawn into an argument and feel angry because 1. internet arguments are stupid and 2. this is a subject I feel strongly about and the better place to learn about it is the actual website. http://www.maketradefair.com There are a few research papers on there, a few reports with statistics. I'm not just pulling this all out of my ass.
I don't want to feel mad, angry or sarcastic, so unless you can be less volatile, I'm officially bowing out.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Haha, glad I could be useful.
But I'd have to say that my attitude is in response to the "anti-capitalist" and "Europeans destroyed the continent" type of historical accounts that I've been forced to learn about since grade school.
Defensive? Maybe. Dismissive? Definately.

That's funny because I was fed the opposite. Could be an age difference thing or a school resource difference thing.

If it had not been for my parents who made us read and watch educational things, I would have had no idea that Europeans didn't save the continent AND the world. I would've also thought that the only thing that black Americans contributed to society was being slaves (that's the only time black Americans were discussed until we started watching Eyes on the Prize for Black History MONTH (more like week ) in middle school).

Originally Posted by SECdomination

If I read a history book telling me that American plantation owners constantly (and commonly) abused their slaves, killing them, starving them, raping them, beating them (or something as equally absurd)- I can't take anything else in that book for truth.

Interesting. Do you find this to be untrue based on FACT or just because it hurts your feelings? Will I now read that the Trail of Tears was more of a destination wedding?

It should hurt many black Americans' feelings more than yours because it has continued to impact our family lineages, ability to accumulate generations of wealth, eating patterns, etc. Yet, we're constantly told to get the hell over it. So I find it interesting that THAT bothers you.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Oh, it's neither based on fact......

Well, alriiiiiiighty then.

Take care.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I forgot- some believe everything they read, as long as it's from an "academic" source.

And some confuse their "logic" for something more substantive and confuse it with a true cost-benefit analysis approach. You admit that there was abuse but you want to debate semantics of "a little" versus "a lot." Like such subjectivity makes a difference.

Do you know how many Africans died in route during the TransAtlantic slave trade? Cost-benefit analysis never precludes ill treatment. Then or now:

Sure, logic tells us that more employers would invest in making employees happy and healthy. Happy and healthy employees make for good workers and more profit. Yet...the average American employee feels overworked, underpaid, insecure in their jobs, and broke as hell because they don't have benefits. Logic would also tell many people "hey...get a new job or demand better treatment...these damn companies need YOU more than YOU need them....." However, the reality of the matter is that the average American employee across social classes isn't a hot commodity on the market so it's a co-dependent relationship both psychologically and materially. But they remain cheap and dispensible labor.

Apply that general logic to slavery and you'll understand why the facts are as they are.

/back to dismissing you

[Little32]

@ SEC Of course, now elementary school textbooks in Georgia are labeling slavery "low-wage labor." Perhaps that is to your comfort.

I am pleased to hear that you were exposed to a more three-dimensional narrative about slavery. Many of the ideas that you introduce emerged to contradict the accepted narrative about "happy" enslaved people. I am glad to know that some of those ideas are gaining currency outside of the ivory tower.

Plantation owners replaced the enslaved people that they beat to death, worked to death, and starved to death, by breeding the women to produce more chattel. So even if they were not in on the raping themselves, they did breed enslaved women as though they were animals to increase their wealth (to which enslaved peoples contributed).

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Little32

@ SEC Of course, now elementary school textbooks in Georgia are labeling slavery "low-wage labor." Perhaps that is to your comfort.

That's certainly a capitalist approach to slavery. "Low wage labor" is the market terminology but to be realistic they should put "no wage labor for the slaves but the pay went to the slave sellers."

I didn't know textbooks were saying that. Do you know when they started including this?

But it isn't too far off the mark for people who believe that it was about the labor and not about where the people came from (i.e. the belief that Africans were only chosen because they were identifiable as NOT European). I agree with that framework to a great extent but believe that the reinforcing role that prejudice and racism played should not be downplayed or ignored.

Ditto @ the rest of your post, btw.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Right.

BTW, I don't know why you can't find the more recent Marxist and neo-Marxist writings. I have quite a few of them and know some of the authors.
Maybe you're looking for a particular thing or searching within a particular discipline (i.e. economics or history---when disciplines dismiss particular works it doesn't mean that other disciplines dismiss them. Plus, it doesn't mean that newer scholars won't bring the works back into relevance in the disciplines that have dismissed them.).

Just wanted to highlight the importance of being cautious when making certain sweeping claims.

Yeah I guess--as you probably guessed I'm the overzealous doctoral student. I certainly agree that historians use a lot of Marxist tools of analysis but in terms of accepting the overall structural argument I don't see many people doing that these days. The historical discipline as a whole has shifted to cultural history (using both structuralist & poststructuralist anthropological techniques) as well as the literary turn & the accompanying return of intellectual history. Actually one of the big things now in my field (17th c. France) is the return of diplomatic history but analyzing it based on sexuality, gender, culture, etc.

I am pretty old-school amongst my fellow graduate students in that I'm really interested in economic history, but economic history of the kind that was practiced in the 1980s is dead, dead, dead... deader than dead. Most economic history is focused on microeconomics today. That's the kind of work I do. I think that part of the popularity of microeconomics is historians' general turn away from huge explanatory structures. Just a hunch. But I can honestly say that in my experience Marxism is basically nowhere around me. But who knows, that could just be the discipline of history.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I wasn't claiming it as a fact.
I forgot- some believe everything they read, as long as it's from an "academic" source. Do you always rule out all speculation?

Do you always make claims about the practice of chattel slavery in America based on your gut reaction to your elementary school textbooks and not your own research?

I have many friends that study these issues full-time. That devote their lives to reading sources about slavery. I would say the picture you got in elementary school is pretty accurate. In the last 15 years the ways that slaves were able to successfully resist their masters and oppression have been brought to the foreground. But not that's not to say that they were happy or well-treated. Just that they were very savvy people who sometimes pulled the wool over their masters' eyes.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

But who knows, that could just be the discipline of history.

Well, it certainly isn't every discipline.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Well, it certainly isn't every discipline.

ha, yeah.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Oh, it's neither based on fact or feelings. More based on logic really. I refuse to believe that the majority of plantation owners of 200 years ago treated their slaves as poorly as it's made out to be. Sure, they probably had the minimum amount of food, water, clothing, shelter, and sleep. I'm not debating that.
The way I see it, those crop producers NEEDED the slaves- wouldn't they do everything they could to keep them working as efficiently as possible? I mean, books and documentaries make it out that you could run to the general store and pick up a replacement slave 10 minutes after you beat one to death. They did cost money- money that plantation owners and operators wanted for themselves.

And yes, I think that slavery has slowed progression for many black Americans. But in my experiences, it's more of the indifferent attitude that holds many back- black or white.

And one more thing. I know you'll probably counter by saying something along the lines of: "Fearing for their lives made them efficient workers." so I'll work on preparing a response now.

ETA: In advance, if the fear for their lives was enough, there would be no need to mistreat them.

Woooooooooowwwwwwwww.

Reading this just made me really, really sad.