Slavery

Originally posted by joneschr
What, as compared to, say ancient roman slaves? Or modern day asian sex slaves?

To answer the question you would have to consider those things happening concurrently with slavery in America to make any reasonable judgment as to why it was considered so abhorrent.

The short answer would be that the bible which offered many a supposedly legitimate reason for the practice of slavery, also became the driving force in the wake of the Reformation and the rise of the Protestant movement initially as far back as the Dutch in the 1600's, which put the practice of slavery on the nose so to speak.

Commercial constraints and potential outcomes buried that concern for the lives of all humanity and many argued that a life of slavery was still in fact better than a life left to the darkness of undeveloped paganism.

Such was the view of soon to be industrialized Europe which had arrogantly assumed to have 'discovered' the New World.

By the 1800's the tragedy of the West Indies plantation system, where slaves were 'broken in' in the most callous of ways to accept their new reality, came at a very high human cost. Part of that harsh treatment, was fear on the part of a very small white minority, who as Thomas Jefferson, himself a slave owner recognized, that to own slaves was to hold a jackal by the throat. You had gripped a poisoned chalice that you dare not let go of.

Most US slaves were 'seasoned' by one or two years of brutal treatment on plantations in the Indies before being brought to the mainland. However, regardless of how those who would continue the practice, would extol the virtues of conditions on the average Southern plantation, the truth was, that it was only relatively less brutal(when compared to West Indies plantations). The notion that somehow they were doing these 'heathen savages' a favor, was being exposed for the crock it was.

The role of the British people in undoing the system that their establishment agencies helped institute, should never be forgotten. The evangelical movement with its emphasis on the salvation of 'all' of God's children was sweeping across all of Europe as well as the US. Ordinary people when educated about the horrors that was the 'middle passage' and the hardship a slave could anticipate when landing on a typical plantation in the Indies, helped foment a surge of public opinion that as far back as the 1790's helped to lobby their Parliament to take a principled stand against its own best commercial interests and start the process that would see the ban of slavery on its own shores by the early 1800's, and furthermore to use its influence as the reigning hegemon to coerce all of Europe to outlaw the practice by the mid 1800's.

The claim that the British outlawed slavery because its practice and profitability was in decline is patently false.

In an age when the concepts of enlightenment and reason would confer inalienable rights onto all men(even though that meant 'white' for the framers of the US constitution) the inherent hypocrisy of that attitude while still condoning slavery became a sore point for the many who were becoming enthralled with the notion that if Jesus Christ had died for all, and if there were none righteous, and if all had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, then who was man to make arbitrary distinctions between which men should be allowed to enjoy a greater equality.

As a result of this conviction, the practice of plantation slavery was viewed with the utmost of contempt and provided the impetus for a groundswell of public opinion that would abolish it. Was the implementation of slavery in the 16th to 19th centuries any worse than at any other time in history? Its actually very hard to say. What is clear though, is that the perception of the oneness of man as a result of evangelical Christianity coupled with humanist secularism brought on by the advent of the age of reason certainly put paid to previous notions of the value of man, when compared to earlier ages for example, when societies were quite happy to be run on feudal lines, where serfs were the property of whoever owned the land, and a concern for one's salvation often never extended much further below than that of the middle classes.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Today, I watched the move Amazing Grace that was just released today. It told the story of the abolitionist movement in Great Britain soon after the American Revolution. It was a great movie, and I reccomend it to all.

Anyway, on to the debate. My friend, who also watched it, and I pondered over this question, but we could not find an answer. ...[text shortened]... lavery in the Americas considered so much worse than other countries who had practiced slavery?

why do you say it was?

Originally posted by kmax87
To answer the question you would have to consider those things happening concurrently with slavery in America to make any reasonable judgment as to why it was considered so abhorrent.

The short answer would be that the bible which offered many a supposedly legitimate reason for the practice of slavery, also became the driving force in the wake of the Refo ...[text shortened]... on often never extended much further below than that of the middle classes.

I think that you've made some good points, but the problem is that you're talking about the ideology rather than the material basis of what was happening. The problem with slavery as practiced by Britain and the US was that it was industrialized; industrial production methods in transporting slaves meant they were cheap, at least relative to the profits that they could make. This meant that the slave owners could afford to treat their slaves abominably, because they could always get new ones quite easily; in the ancient world slaves had more value because they weren't as easy to come by. It's the industrialization and mass production methods that caused it to be particularly aweful.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why do you say it was?

Honestly, I don't know...I'm still trying to figure it out...

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's the industrialization and mass production methods that caused it to be particularly aweful.

I think you may be onto something there. The same could be said for the first world war, which has been called the worlds first industrialised war.

The sheer rate at which young men were crunched up by the gears of the machine of that war has yet to be matched.

The value attached to humanity, certainly took another great nose dive during that brilliantly constructed trench war killing field.

Originally posted by kmax87
I think you may be onto something there. The same could be said for the first world war, which has been called the worlds first industrialised war.

The sheer rate at which young men were crunched up by the gears of the machine of that war has yet to be matched.

The value attached to humanity, certainly took another great nose dive during that brilliantly constructed trench war killing field.

what made slavery worse in America was the hypocrisy of the system. on one hand was the constitution preaching freedom as a fundamental right, and on the other hand people owning slaves. of course, it could be argued that the constitution was not contradicted as black persons were not considered human beings. an american law described a black man or woman as 2/3 of a human.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it could be argued that the constitution was not contradicted as black persons were not considered human beings.

The whole point of Jefferson Davis' take on the US constitution with the Confederate substitute, was simply to underline that point and leave no misunderstandings that the 'all men' referred to were 'white'.

Originally posted by Seitse
Williams' 'Capitalism and Slavery' makes a very good point towards
the theory that slavery ended only because it became much less profitable.

Capitalism and slavery cannot co-exist, capitalism is a social system based on individual rights (there are no other type) and makes no mention of race.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Capitalism and slavery cannot co-exist, capitalism is a social system based on individual rights (there are no other type) and makes no mention of race.

Er... uh... I don't think discussing the title of the book will contribute
much to the debate, mate.

I am not saying I endorse or not the book, but the Britain financed its
growth and industrial revolution with slave trading and/into the
colonies, i.e. Barbados' sugar production.

Williams' theory is that Britain stopped only after it became
unprofitable.

Originally posted by Seitse
Er... uh... I don't think discussing the title of the book will contribute
much to the debate, mate.

I am not saying I endorse or not the book, but the Britain financed its
growth and industrial revolution with slave trading and/into the
colonies, i.e. Barbados' sugar production.

Williams' theory is that Britain stopped only after it became
unprofitable.

No need for the stutter.

Just wanted to clarify buying and selling people is not capitalism.