In Louisiana, state Republican lawmaker Ray Garofalo said that public schools and colleges should teach the good of slavery during a debate over a Louisiana state education bill. This attracted criticism from both Republican and Democratic Louisiana state lawmakers. That is likely a law that is going nowhere and what are your thoughts about this?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 21-4%3famp

I would like him to offer himself as a slave to a black family for let's say one year to help prove his point.

So in other words, he's a proponent of the 1776 commission.

Good on his fellow GOP members to object. I'd like to see more of that coming from that party.

Difficult to think of a suitable response other than "It's Louisiana!"

At least it would be a short lesson. You could fit it into a 10 second slot alongside "the humanity of Hitler" and "the sanity of Trump".

What are we supposed to discuss?
The article doesn't mention what may or may not be good.
Maybe cheap clothing?

phatfarmlines wrote:

Good on his fellow GOP members to object. I'd like to see more of that coming from that party

I mean, yeah, good on them, I guess. But how low a bar can you set? "Slavery is bad". Yay for saying what anyone with half a brain would say.

Sokes wrote:

What are we supposed to discuss?
The article doesn't mention what may or may not be good.
Maybe cheap clothing?

You f***king can't be serious? Next we are discussing the merits of cheap bullets for the Third Reich through forced labour?

CRJockey wrote:

Sokes wrote:

What are we supposed to discuss?
The article doesn't mention what may or may not be good.
Maybe cheap clothing?

You f***king can't be serious? Next we are discussing the merits of cheap bullets for the Third Reich through forced labour?

Of course I'm not serious. I assumed the sarcasm is obvious.

Anyway if somebody wants to discuss the advantages of slavery or advantages of the Third Reich or the beauty of Stalinism I'm willing to consider any hypothesis.
But there is no hypothesis.

If somebody has an opinion violating a common accepted opinion and even feelings of a group, he should at least have a well thought through hypothesis.

Free economy travel to the US and West Indies?.

Sokes wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Sokes wrote:

What are we supposed to discuss?
The article doesn't mention what may or may not be good.
Maybe cheap clothing?

You f***king can't be serious? Next we are discussing the merits of cheap bullets for the Third Reich through forced labour?

Of course I'm not serious. I assumed the sarcasm is obvious.

Anyway if somebody wants to discuss the advantages of slavery or advantages of the Third Reich or the beauty of Stalinism I'm willing to consider any hypothesis.
But there is no hypothesis.

If somebody has an opinion violating a common accepted opinion and even feelings of a group, he should at least have a well thought through hypothesis.

Let me try...

Privilege is invisible, you know? Abe Lincoln was a nice guy, but abolition didn't solve the problem of cheap labor. However, there is a solution: welcome to Slavery Lite 3.0: Undocumented Immigrants!
Of course, some goss aspects are removed from this version, but core advantages are still there: cheap workers, no need to spend on social needs, work for pennies. You can enjoy the advantages of 3.0 Lite version anytime you do grocery shopping!

You can not deny the economic impact of slavery and the impact it had for the economic development of the USA. The cotton produced in the South kept the mills in New England running. But also shipping companies and railroads were making good money, as well as banks.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy

seahawk wrote:

You can not deny the economic impact of slavery and the impact it had for the economic development of the USA. The cotton produced in the South kept the mills in New England running. But also shipping companies and railroads were making good money, as well as banks.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy

I now see it in a whole new light. Is a referendum on bringing it back a possibility? (bad taste joke). Genocide in China (no need to go back in history to look at another occurrence) is bad, but looking on the bright side, the world is over populated.

I guess you can try and find the good in anything, but there are probably times when you might ask "should I?", before "can I?".

Virtual737 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not deny the economic impact of slavery and the impact it had for the economic development of the USA. The cotton produced in the South kept the mills in New England running. But also shipping companies and railroads were making good money, as well as banks.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy

I now see it in a whole new light. Is a referendum on bringing it back a possibility? (bad taste joke). Genocide in China (no need to go back in history to look at another occurrence) is bad, but looking on the bright side, the world is over populated.

I guess you can try and find the good in anything, but there are probably times when you might ask "should I?", before "can I?".

One lesson which can be learned from this proposal, though, is that acceptance threshold for similar aspects is different in different people.
We denounce slavery, look with some doubt - but still practice - colonialism, just starting to object private jails, and enjoy the benefits of trade deficit and undocumented immigrants. The core idea - seizing the labor of other people, who is often seen as inferior in some way, for the benefit of other groups - is still doing great. So yes, we can, and yes, we do!

bennett123 wrote:

Free economy travel to the US and West Indies?.

It was Basic Economy: no free baggage, and not much legroom.

Sort of like AA today...

Here is an interesting follow up article on the whole discussion , and that the end result was that Garofalo had to pull his bill.

https://www.bayoubrief.com/2021/04/28/s ... f-slavery/

And in the article the author makes the point that everyone should recognize about history. We learn from those who tell the story. Every side has a story, and we have to judge history through multiple stories.

Hilferty then engaged him in an epistemological conversation about how history is defined, and for a brief moment, it appeared as if she was close to unraveling the central mistake of Garofalo’s entire premise: His fundamental failure to recognize the ways in which our understanding of history is both constructed by and contingent on who we empower with its retelling.

Slavery was never good. It was cruel, barbaric, inhuman.

Virtual737 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not deny the economic impact of slavery and the impact it had for the economic development of the USA. The cotton produced in the South kept the mills in New England running. But also shipping companies and railroads were making good money, as well as banks.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy

I now see it in a whole new light. Is a referendum on bringing it back a possibility? (bad taste joke). Genocide in China (no need to go back in history to look at another occurrence) is bad, but looking on the bright side, the world is over populated.

I guess you can try and find the good in anything, but there are probably times when you might ask "should I?", before "can I?".

I personally think it would make a lot of sense to put the contribution of those slaves to the development of the country more into focus.

seahawk wrote:

I personally think it would make a lot of sense to put the contribution of those slaves to the development of the country more into focus.

If it concluded with their descendants being back-paid the going rate for the work I'd agree, although I could make the same argument for the UK.

seahawk wrote:

You can not deny the economic impact of slavery and the impact it had for the economic development of the USA. The cotton produced in the South kept the mills in New England running. But also shipping companies and railroads were making good money, as well as banks.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy

Yes, I can deny it. If slavery was needed for the economic development, why did industrialisation happen in the North? One should assume that those who inherited a thousand slaves had the money to start industries.

Industrialisation happens if there is investment security. I wouldn't be surprised if the landholding class in the South even prevented industrialization.

To add a sentence from Marx from memory:
Slavery isn't a smart economic system as only the dullest can be happy in it. Much better for the rich to give the appearance that workers are free, when in reality they are totally dependent.

Virtual737 wrote:

I now see it in a whole new light. Is a referendum on bringing it back a possibility? (bad taste joke). Genocide in China (no need to go back in history to look at another occurrence) is bad, but looking on the bright side, the world is over populated.

I guess you can try and find the good in anything, but there are probably times when you might ask "should I?", before "can I?".

I have to disagree.
In the book " Poor economics" I read that saving rate of Chinese households when one child policy was introduced was IIRC 6% which IIRC went up to 28% eighteen years later.

But not only the Chinese got richer. Poverty in India reduced a lot. But India had a chronic trade deficit. Their extra consumption depended on somebody else's savings. Only low interest isn't enough. Somebody had to limit consumption.

And India is not alone. Poverty in Africa and many places got a lot less the last years. This improvement started with forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Similar the Napoleonic Code came with the sword.

A lot of good can come of evil. It's rare. But it happens.

On a more theoretical basis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_end

What do you think of Carnegie and the Homestead strike?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

Sokes wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

I now see it in a whole new light. Is a referendum on bringing it back a possibility? (bad taste joke). Genocide in China (no need to go back in history to look at another occurrence) is bad, but looking on the bright side, the world is over populated.

I guess you can try and find the good in anything, but there are probably times when you might ask "should I?", before "can I?".

I have to disagree.
In the book " Poor economics" I read that saving rate of Chinese households when one child policy was introduced was IIRC 6% which IIRC went up to 28% a few years later.

But not only the Chinese got richer. Poverty in India reduced a lot. But India had a chronic trade deficit. Their extra consumption depended on somebody else's savings. Only low interest isn't enough. Somebody had to limit consumption.

And India is not alone. Poverty in Africa and many places got a lot less the last years. This improvement started with forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Similar the Napoleonic Code came with the sword.

A lot of good can come of evil. It's rare. But it happens.

On a more theoretical basis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_end

What do you think of Carnegie and the Homestead strike?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

At first glance that all looks a bit like "the end justifies the means", but when I have more than just a moment I'll take a closer look at the links you've given. Thanks.

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You can not deny the economic impact of slavery and the impact it had for the economic development of the USA. The cotton produced in the South kept the mills in New England running. But also shipping companies and railroads were making good money, as well as banks.

https://www.history.com/news/slavery-pr ... rn-economy

Yes, I can deny it. If slavery was needed for the economic development, why did industrialisation happen in the North? One should assume that those who inherited a thousand slaves had the money to start industries.

Industrialisation happens if there is investment security. I wouldn't be surprised if the landholding class in the South even prevented industrialization.

To add a sentence from Marx from memory:
Slavery isn't a smart economic system as only the dullest can be happy in it. Much better for the rich to give the appearance that workers are free, when in reality they are totally dependent.

Imho one can not deny that slavery allowed the industrial revolution because available arable land worked by cheap labour freed the local population from working the local fields and made them available to work in the industry. That does not make slavery right, but is surely makes the enslaved person much more than victims, it makes them an important and active part of economic development.

seahawk wrote:

Imho one can not deny that slavery allowed the industrial revolution because available arable land worked by cheap labour freed the local population from working the local fields and made them available to work in the industry. That does not make slavery right, but is surely makes the enslaved person much more than victims, it makes them an important and active part of economic development.

That they didn't have a choice in the matter means they were still victims. How many do you think would have volunteered to be slaves if they were told beforehand "the world will look favourably on you"?

seahawk wrote:

Imho one can not deny that slavery allowed the industrial revolution because available arable land worked by cheap labour freed the local population from working the local fields and made them available to work in the industry.

Again:
Why did the industrialization happen in the North instead of the South?

Virtual737 wrote:

At first glance that all looks a bit like "the end justifies the means", ...

That's what I meant to say.
If you could undo all the forced abortions in China, would you?

Sokes wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

At first glance that all looks a bit like "the end justifies the means", ...

That's what I meant to say.
If you could undo all the forced abortions in China, would you?

Really don't know. Possibly, probably. Chinese culture as a whole has long preferred males over females, so many of those families who wished for a second child might well have done so because they weren't happy with the gender of the first rather than always wanting a larger family. It's not something I know too much about so might well be talking out of my backside.

Regardless, I guess the only hypothetical worth discussing should be more relevant to the OPs subject.

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho one can not deny that slavery allowed the industrial revolution because available arable land worked by cheap labour freed the local population from working the local fields and made them available to work in the industry.

Again:
Why did the industrialization happen in the North instead of the South?

Availability of skilled workers and resources, the first one made possible by the agrarian output produced in the South, the second one as well when it comes to cotton, sugar or tobacco. Slavery was legal in Noth America for over 300 years and the Northern States still used them to a sizeable extent in the 18th century.

Sokes wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

I now see it in a whole new light. Is a referendum on bringing it back a possibility? (bad taste joke). Genocide in China (no need to go back in history to look at another occurrence) is bad, but looking on the bright side, the world is over populated.

I guess you can try and find the good in anything, but there are probably times when you might ask "should I?", before "can I?".

I have to disagree.
In the book " Poor economics" I read that saving rate of Chinese households when one child policy was introduced was IIRC 6% which IIRC went up to 28% eighteen years later.

But not only the Chinese got richer. Poverty in India reduced a lot. But India had a chronic trade deficit. Their extra consumption depended on somebody else's savings. Only low interest isn't enough. Somebody had to limit consumption.

And India is not alone. Poverty in Africa and many places got a lot less the last years. This improvement started with forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Similar the Napoleonic Code came with the sword.

A lot of good can come of evil. It's rare. But it happens.

On a more theoretical basis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_end

What do you think of Carnegie and the Homestead strike?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie

Not really. I have many links which tells the story differently in many ways. Sadly airliners.net thinks because there are many links it is spam. Just to simplify, look up ' leftover men in China' and also lookup 'Where are India's millions of missing girls?' both these and many more will give you the details.

China's rise is and was primarily because they opened up to the world for competition. India still hasn't and as a result has suffered. We still are continuing with the idea of 'atmanirbhar' without getting into how and why.

CRJockey wrote:

Sokes wrote:

What are we supposed to discuss?
The article doesn't mention what may or may not be good.
Maybe cheap clothing?

You f***king can't be serious? Next we are discussing the merits of cheap bullets for the Third Reich through forced labour?

How about a better comparison, not really about slavery, but just as morally ambiguous - the scientific knowledge that the Third Reich gathered through horrific and thoroughly abhorrent means?

A lot of what we know today about anatomy, drowning, medical overdoses, hypothermia etc is directly because of experiments run by Third Reich doctors and scientists on unwilling victims - theres a great BBC article on the Pernkopf Topographic Anatomy of Man book that is still considered today one of the best guides to anatomy, but no one dare print it or even display it on a bookshelf because of its source material.

The moral issues of todays gains from yesterdays horrors is still very much alive in medical circles - medical science gained massively from the things Nazi doctors did, but should we be throwing that science away purely because we abhor the method in which it was gained, or should we be using it while accepting the moral issues involved in its gaining and striving to prevent it from happening again? Should the Pernkopf Topographic Anatomy of Man be in print today?

seahawk wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Again:
Why did the industrialization happen in the North instead of the South?

Availability of skilled workers and resources, the first one made possible by the agrarian output produced in the South, the second one as well when it comes to cotton, sugar or tobacco. Slavery was legal in Noth America for over 300 years and the Northern States still used them to a sizeable extent in the 18th century.

The US was not the first society with slavery. Slavery is one of the default economic systems of mankind, as it fits the human "dominance and submission" operating system. Those who run on the liberal operating system may not be able to understand that sentence.

Anyway slavery doesn't lead to industrialization. The book "Why nations fail" discusses the factors that make nations succeed/ industrialize. The main factor is pluralism/ division of power.

England had a parliament. It wasn't a parliament in our sense, but the king did need the parliament's consent for important affairs, I think it was taxes. It was this division of power that let Britain industrialize first.

Or maybe it was having the empire with access to resources and spare manpower.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/4
https://historyofyesterday.com/how-slav ... 190a9b48a1

Virtual737 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

At first glance that all looks a bit like "the end justifies the means", ...

That's what I meant to say.
If you could undo all the forced abortions in China, would you?

Really don't know. Possibly, probably. Chinese culture as a whole has long preferred males over females, so many of those families who wished for a second child might well have done so because they weren't happy with the gender of the first rather than always wanting a larger family. It's not something I know too much about so might well be talking out of my backside.

Regardless, I guess the only hypothetical worth discussing should be more relevant to the OPs subject.

India also has the same problem, 48% of the country is female, there are nearly 55m more males.

https://statisticstimes.com/demographic ... population.

casinterest wrote:

Here is an interesting follow up article on the whole discussion , and that the end result was that Garofalo had to pull his bill.

https://www.bayoubrief.com/2021/04/28/s ... f-slavery/

And in the article the author makes the point that everyone should recognize about history. We learn from those who tell the story. Every side has a story, and we have to judge history through multiple stories.

Hilferty then engaged him in an epistemological conversation about how history is defined, and for a brief moment, it appeared as if she was close to unraveling the central mistake of Garofalo’s entire premise: His fundamental failure to recognize the ways in which our understanding of history is both constructed by and contingent on who we empower with its retelling.

Slavery was never good. It was cruel, barbaric, inhuman.

Instead of worrying about slavery in centuries past how about these idiots concern themselves with the tens of millions of slaves in Africa, Haiti and the Middle East today.

seahawk wrote:

Or maybe it was having the empire with access to resources and spare manpower.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/4
https://historyofyesterday.com/how-slav ... 190a9b48a1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_A ... n_Act_1833
There are and were plenty of societies with slavery. If anything, slavery is an indicator for backwardness. Once industrialization starts, demands for the abolition of slavery get louder. I don't dispute that some businesses grew or were based on profits of slave trade. I dispute that slave trade was an important factor in industrialization.


Did industrialization suffer from abolition of slavery?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade

Did Andrew Carnegie need slaves to build his business?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industria ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... Revolution

Investment security through a functioning legal system is necessary for industrialization. Are societies based on slavery known for good courts?

Kiwirob wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Here is an interesting follow up article on the whole discussion , and that the end result was that Garofalo had to pull his bill.

https://www.bayoubrief.com/2021/04/28/s ... f-slavery/

And in the article the author makes the point that everyone should recognize about history. We learn from those who tell the story. Every side has a story, and we have to judge history through multiple stories.

Hilferty then engaged him in an epistemological conversation about how history is defined, and for a brief moment, it appeared as if she was close to unraveling the central mistake of Garofalo’s entire premise: His fundamental failure to recognize the ways in which our understanding of history is both constructed by and contingent on who we empower with its retelling.

Slavery was never good. It was cruel, barbaric, inhuman.

Instead of worrying about slavery in centuries past how about these idiots concern themselves with the tens of millions of slaves in Africa, Haiti and the Middle East today.

Doesn't pay as well from their donors. They need the red meat lies to survive.

I think the question could be re-written as "can we purge our consciences by remembering all the free things slavery gave us while sweeping aside the inhumanity and proving to everyone else that we STILL don't get it?".

Virtual737 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho one can not deny that slavery allowed the industrial revolution because available arable land worked by cheap labour freed the local population from working the local fields and made them available to work in the industry. That does not make slavery right, but is surely makes the enslaved person much more than victims, it makes them an important and active part of economic development.

That they didn't have a choice in the matter means they were still victims. How many do you think would have volunteered to be slaves if they were told beforehand "the world will look favourably on you"?

What a bizarre path to go down. Even if you accept this proposition that slavery freed up labor, you still have one group (white people) expressly benefiting and gaining wealth and capital off of and to the detriment and evisceration of another group (black people), whose effects are still felt to this day. And conservatives would sooner set themselves on fire than recognize that reality. ....Hence why we have mouth breathers who have never read a book in their life suggesting we should teach "the good of slavery".

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or maybe it was having the empire with access to resources and spare manpower.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z ... revision/4
https://historyofyesterday.com/how-slav ... 190a9b48a1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_A ... n_Act_1833
There are and were plenty of societies with slavery. If anything, slavery is an indicator for backwardness. Once industrialization starts, demands for the abolition of slavery get louder. I don't dispute that some businesses grew or were based on profits of slave trade. I dispute that slave trade was an important factor in industrialization.


Did industrialization suffer from abolition of slavery?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade

Did Andrew Carnegie need slaves to build his business?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industria ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_In ... Revolution

Investment security through a functioning legal system is necessary for industrialization. Are societies based on slavery known for good courts?

The first industrial revolution first and foremost needed skilled labour and available resources. Do not forget that the textile industry was a driving force in the industrialisation and they needed cotton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

And I do remember that "King Cotton" was a very American thing at the time. And the workforce of African Americans did not suddenly disappear when slavery ended, they just became cheap but paid workers.

Imho it is important to finally admit the huge impact African American had in the economic development of the United States. Without them America would not have risen in power so steeply from the 17th to the 20th century. It would be much more fitting than painting them as poor but dispersible victims. And I personally think most conservatives won´t be too happy about that "Good of Slavery".

MaverickM11 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho one can not deny that slavery allowed the industrial revolution because available arable land worked by cheap labour freed the local population from working the local fields and made them available to work in the industry. That does not make slavery right, but is surely makes the enslaved person much more than victims, it makes them an important and active part of economic development.

That they didn't have a choice in the matter means they were still victims. How many do you think would have volunteered to be slaves if they were told beforehand "the world will look favourably on you"?

What a bizarre path to go down. Even if you accept this proposition that slavery freed up labor, you still have one group (white people) expressly benefiting and gaining wealth and capital off of and to the detriment and evisceration of another group (black people), whose effects are still felt to this day. And conservatives would sooner set themselves on fire than recognize that reality. ....Hence why we have mouth breathers who have never read a book in their life suggesting we should teach "the good of slavery".

How about we stop teaching this foolishness and get it out of the schools along with the 1619 project and get back to teaching kids how to read and write for a change. We are way behind in STEM education and now with covid and remote learning kids are even further behind enough of this already.

seahawk wrote:

Imho it is important to finally admit the huge impact African American had in the economic development of the United States. Without them America would not have risen in power so steeply from the 17th to the 20th century. It would be much more fitting than painting them as poor but dispersible victims. And I personally think most conservatives won´t be too happy about that "Good of Slavery".

I think the US would have still risen in power. That doesn't make the injustice any bigger or smaller.

Anyway the subject was "the good of slavery". Since I say industrialization doesn't depend on slavery I don't defend that institution. On the opposite. I still don't know what " good" the lawmaker was refering to.

Cotton was also a big thing in India. After food and housing clothing is the next big industry in a developing economy. And how to show off? There were no cars or Apple phones?

And then there are more ways to exploit the poor than just slavery.
England prohibited slavery early, at least in Britain itself. Did it stop the industrial revolution?

You have the last word.

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And then there are more ways to exploit the poor than just slavery.
England prohibited slavery early, at least in Britain itself. Did it stop the industrial revolution?

Did the English industry use resources produced in Britain or within the Empire?

stratosphere wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

That they didn't have a choice in the matter means they were still victims. How many do you think would have volunteered to be slaves if they were told beforehand "the world will look favourably on you"?

What a bizarre path to go down. Even if you accept this proposition that slavery freed up labor, you still have one group (white people) expressly benefiting and gaining wealth and capital off of and to the detriment and evisceration of another group (black people), whose effects are still felt to this day. And conservatives would sooner set themselves on fire than recognize that reality. ....Hence why we have mouth breathers who have never read a book in their life suggesting we should teach "the good of slavery".

How about we stop teaching this foolishness and get it out of the schools along with the 1619 project and get back to teaching kids how to read and write for a change. We are way behind in STEM education and now with covid and remote learning kids are even further behind enough of this already.

$1 you haven't read the 1619 project, couldn't find it if you tried, and have no clue what it's really about, along with the rest of the GOP.

seahawk wrote:

Imho it is important to finally admit the huge impact African American had in the economic development of the United States. Without them America would not have risen in power so steeply from the 17th to the 20th century. It would be much more fitting than painting them as poor but dispersible victims. And I personally think most conservatives won´t be too happy about that "Good of Slavery".

Conservatives will never admit the former, which is why they conjure up the insanity of the latter.

Just look at how they lost their febrile minds at the mere mention of slaves building the White House.

Its amazing to me, that there are still educated people that want to separate White Supremacy and the institution of Slavery, that has been going on for thousands of years.

In what little I was taught in Public Schools, the reason for the US Civil War was given "to end slavery," yet there was no mention of the Confederacy's White Supremacist doctrine that they intended to practice in perpetuity. Nor was the rise of the KKK in the early part of the 20th Century covered. And being in school in the 60's and early 70's... NONE of the Civil Rights Movement was ever mentioned.

Public School... Preparing you for Tomorrow Preparing you to work an hourly job, or, to go to (an overpriced) college.

seahawk wrote:

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And then there are more ways to exploit the poor than just slavery.
England prohibited slavery early, at least in Britain itself. Did it stop the industrial revolution?

Did the English industry use resources produced in Britain or within the Empire?

I guess just like Germany or Japan they had to import raw materials.

seahawk wrote:

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And then there are more ways to exploit the poor than just slavery.
England prohibited slavery early, at least in Britain itself. Did it stop the industrial revolution?

Did the English industry use resources produced in Britain or within the Empire?

It could be argued that slave labor was used at every point of production. Not just harvesting and mining raw materials, but also refining those raw materials into products.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Its amazing to me, that there are still educated people that want to separate White Supremacy and the institution of Slavery, that has been going on for thousands of years.

In what little I was taught in Public Schools, the reason for the US Civil War was given "to end slavery," yet there was no mention of the Confederacy's White Supremacist doctrine that they intended to practice in perpetuity. Nor was the rise of the KKK in the early part of the 20th Century covered. And being in school in the 60's and early 70's... NONE of the Civil Rights Movement was ever mentioned.

Public School... Preparing you for Tomorrow Preparing you to work an hourly job, or, to go to (an overpriced) college.

That is not correct. The Barbary Pirates loved raiding European coastal towns and capturing slaves to sell on the slave markets in North Africa. Africa itself saw serious slave trade, the Arabian peninsula loved slaves from Africa and the list goes on and on.

seahawk wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Its amazing to me, that there are still educated people that want to separate White Supremacy and the institution of Slavery, that has been going on for thousands of years.

In what little I was taught in Public Schools, the reason for the US Civil War was given "to end slavery," yet there was no mention of the Confederacy's White Supremacist doctrine that they intended to practice in perpetuity. Nor was the rise of the KKK in the early part of the 20th Century covered. And being in school in the 60's and early 70's... NONE of the Civil Rights Movement was ever mentioned.

Public School... Preparing you for Tomorrow Preparing you to work an hourly job, or, to go to (an overpriced) college.

That is not correct. The Barbary Pirates loved raiding European coastal towns and capturing slaves to sell on the slave markets in North Africa. Africa itself saw serious slave trade, the Arabian peninsula loved slaves from Africa and the list goes on and on.

Yes, you are correct. I should have been more clear. When talking about US slavery, it's "slavery is bad, and it's been going on for thousands of years..." they would say, but totally leaving out the US component of White Supremacy. That's what I was trying to say.

seahawk wrote:

Sokes wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And then there are more ways to exploit the poor than just slavery.
England prohibited slavery early, at least in Britain itself. Did it stop the industrial revolution?

Did the English industry use resources produced in Britain or within the Empire?

Both. The island after all sat on massive amounts of coal.

And here is another GOP luminary regaling us how the Three Fifths compromise was reached to end slavery:

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1 ... Q3xBe4E4i8

These are not outliers, this is core conservative doctrine.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Its amazing to me, that there are still educated people that want to separate White Supremacy and the institution of Slavery, that has been going on for thousands of years.

In what little I was taught in Public Schools, the reason for the US Civil War was given "to end slavery," yet there was no mention of the Confederacy's White Supremacist doctrine that they intended to practice in perpetuity. Nor was the rise of the KKK in the early part of the 20th Century covered. And being in school in the 60's and early 70's... NONE of the Civil Rights Movement was ever mentioned.

Public School... Preparing you for Tomorrow Preparing you to work an hourly job, or, to go to (an overpriced) college.

I mean....conservatives are the loudest voices screeching against teaching any of that reality yet here we are.

MaverickM11 wrote:

And here is another GOP luminary regaling us how the Three Fifths compromise was reached to end slavery:

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1 ... Q3xBe4E4i8

These are not outliers, this is core conservative doctrine.

I don't know much about US history. But general franchise didn't come in one go. Women rights didn't come in one go. British India gave rights in steps over several decades to Indians.

Gandhi was criticized for making compromises with the British which seemed to be microsteps for Indians. But Gandhi wanted a change in thinking more than anything else. After the reform was before the reform.

The French Revolution had lot of excesses. But Napoleon married the daughter of the Habsburg emperor. Princes lost some power, but not their good life. The Napoleonic Code was the main change.
Did Gandhi get his "reform always comes at snail pace" philosophy from the excesses of the French Revolution?

If Taliban are extreme opposed to schooling for girls, is it thinkable to first introduce 12 years schooling for boys only? What demands are these boys going to have 30 years from now?

Coming back to the US:
One has to go to the original writings of the time. It's possible that wellwishers of slaves were willing to do compromises which seem unacceptable today.