Slavery in the South and Slavery today...the great "con"

reply to post by dizziedame


I would like to agree that working to serve the rich is some sort of victory, but there money comes from skimming the profits of your work. They push your taxes into their coffers, they through stock ownership, take profit from shops they never set foot in.

Your only victory would come if after taking them out to the sight seeing spot, you turn and say your money is no good to me anymore, walk home.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Redge777]

mmm, this is an interesting subject. Am I for or against slavery. The truth of the matter is slavery is no more then an interpretation of a lack of freedom. This being said, we are all slaves. While we all have choices, ultimately, we have a master that we answer too.

The common perception of slavery is nothing more, then the most crude and rudimentary form of the subject. It is the basic economic model, from which all other economic models have come from.

In tribes, it was the slaves that did the work in the fields, to provide for the betterment of the conqueroring tribe. As populations expanded, Monarchies developed, which in order to keep anarchy from ruling, the Head established a line loyal to the crown. These people were put in charge of the fields, the armies, and the "slaves" which were then call peasants, or Fiefs.

As population continued to expand, it bacame necessary to all the slaves some independence, otherwise, anarchy could again develop, this time against the elites, Therefore, the Republic was founded, and the burguise was formed under the elite to cushion the elite from potential problems with the "slaves". The Burguise are the merchant class, those who were loyal to the elite, and therefore the crown. The merchants "hired" the "slaves" to perform duties for them, and thus, while the slaves were free, how many actually became "free" They had the choice now of the master that they wanted, but more often then not, they were still just given a living wage.

As populations continued to expand, the republic changed to other types of government, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, and finally Totalarism. All of these are all and the same, in that you are still a slave, there is still an elite, and for the most part, you still have a master. The only difference is who, and how much control do the masters have.

In Socialism, you give the state power to provide for your basic needs. Food, Health, and infrastructure. Because of this, you give the state the majority of your income, or production. THis being said. There is still an elite, the rulers, that state whats fair for you, and others like yourselves, and whats fair for them. They decide what you get, and what they get. Instead of taking 90% of the take, they take 1%. This being said, the pie is huge, and as a result, that 1% still makes them more then enough to stay your master.

In Communism, its much the same, the only difference is that instead of everyone having a say in who is put in charge, now a block, or group has it. If you don't agree with there views, then you are not allowed to decide, and therefore while you may experience more freedom, there is still the potential for signifacantly less.

Before going on to Democracy, lets go to Totalirism. This is nothing more then a Monarchy, that is dependant on the military. The Monarch, instead of having an elite, has a military structure in place to over see the population.

Finally, we come to Democracy, This is an illusion of freedom and choice, without either. The burguise(merchants) elect the leaders, who then give benefits or favor back to there constituents. This is most evident in The U.S. arena.

In the U.S., which is the oldest form of modern democracy, in order to keep the illusion of democracy, the people are represented by the electorial college, which is supposed follow the path of the electoriat. This being said, they don't have too. They representatives can choose the leader they want ignorant to that fact by the burguise, and the lower class. This being said prior to the electorial college making there decision, there is a run off to eliminate the contenders, and narrow it down to 1 of 2 people. This is done, through the primary system. Where the contenders via for money, and give power, in exchange for votes. Basically, this is nothing more then vote buying. The problem with this is the fact that all that money has to come from somewhere. Continued............

This money comes from the Elite ofcourse, which basically is buying favoritism in order to expand there power. So what basically happens is contenders come forward. Those will the clout(most money) can buy the votes needed to secure a primary. This being said, they go on and go to the elections, where the illusion of freedom decides who wins. This being said, either way, you vote for someone that has been bought and paid for by someone else, who, in essence is there master, and therefore controls who, and where you go. This is done, not only through the rule of law, but through media's use to "inform" you the population.


The bottom line: Slavery is rampant, and we are all slaves. It only depends upon who your master is as to how well you do, and what benefits you recieve. There is always going to be an elite, there is always going to be merchants, and finally there is always going to be the lower class. How many lower class have you seen succeed to become a merchant? How many merchants have you seen become Elite? Finally, how many Elite go on to control the world? The percentage is staggeringly small, in my opinion, and it is ment to be that way. The bottom line is that you don't have freedom, until there is no government, and the downfall of government is the loss of the rule of law, which can allow for others to take your freedom away. Thus its a matter of the least of 2 evils. Do you chose "freedom" through government or a weaker freedom dependant on you to maintain through anarchy?

Regards,

Camain

We may all be slaves in some philosophical sense, but I dont get beaten if I choose not to go to work one day.....That my friend is a big difference.
Thats is reality. This philisophical mumbo jumbo about being slaves to the government or corporations is totally baseless.

I can choose what career I want to pursue and If I have a particular talent in a certain skill I am free to develop it to the best of my ability.

There is very little comparison in my opinion to real slavery and the type of economic servitutude some some are referring to.

10% 90%?

This still puzzles me. Slaves were not paid. The slave owners reaped all the rewards from the work of the slaves.

How about this, lets not worry about how much slavery we are under now, but what direction it is going. The norm dictates what is tolerated, if everyone accepts more slavery, it occurs, if everyone does not accept it, there is more freedom.

And as far as slavery being mandatory because there will always be rich, we can make the rich slaves to the people by forcing those with money to do the will of the people not the other way around, It is the idea of making power give up power through accountability and transparency.

Untill all greed is gone, there will always be disparity, it is how much and is it getting better or worse.

Originally posted by True_Confederate
Even though the Northerner was more racist, more inhumane, and more tyrannical than the Southron.

Look at the descriptions of Southrons from Northern Generals, and compare them with descriptions of Northerners by Southron Generals; the Northerners are full of hate, animosity, racism, and belittle blacks as "worthless and unproductive".

Meanwhile the Southron Generals almost entirely refrain from belittling their enemies, merely saying "Those people" whom "intend to take away our freedoms".

What's not talked about often is that racism did go on in the North. It was not talked about or put into action like in the South.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by dreamingawake]

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by True_Confederate

What is to be said about Northerners who portrayed the black slave as docile, uncivilized and unproductive? Even though it has been proven that the black slaves were 34% more productive than their white northern counterparts?

[edit on 1-10-2007 by True_Confederate]

The crack of a whip could have something to do with productivity.



I think I would prefer to deal with someone thinking I am lazy rather than endure the forced productivity. Look at the picture and tell me you don't agree.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Sparky63]

You realize that one picture was taken for a court case against a Slaveholder who was charged with abusing his slave correct? It is an illegal activity, used by Abolitionist liars to portray the Southerners as "vile" even though it was an event which occurred in a border state and was illegal.

Fathers beat their children, should no one have families?

I think the North foresaw that next generation of slavery. In order to institute this new form of slavery, the old form was offered up for sacrifice.

Many states in the South saw fit to cesseed from the Union. Given the plans that the Federal Government had in store for the United States, they in turn made the war more about abolishment of slavery rather than controlling the United States as a whole. And in this action made the whole of the United States a slave force to the Almighty Dollar. The final accomplishment of this act came in 1913 when the Federal Income Tax was established.

We've been hobbled ever since by media and corporatism.

Originally posted by coop039
10% 90%?

This still puzzles me. Slaves were not paid. The slave owners reaped all the rewards from the work of the slaves.

Slave owners had to return their profits in forms of housing, food, clothing, and amenities to their slaves. When all is said and down, the slave received about 90% of what he produced (in value). You don't make anywhere near that and if you are earning a minimum wage today you would be living in a 400 sq. ft apartment with 10 other people and die at the age of 40 in 1860.

If you made average wages today you may have earned an apartment for just your immediate family.

The difference is EVERYONE's standard of living has improved, the richest person in 1840 lived barely better than a family earning $100k today.

Today the super wealthy fly in space....that is quite the rise of standard of living.

Does not change the fact that for people of the time, a slave was living as if he were living on $200k a year.

And yes the book is the tenth edition I guess that's 2004 not 2006 whatever.

Originally posted by Sparky63
We may all be slaves in some philosophical sense, but I dont get beaten if I choose not to go to work one day.....That my friend is a big difference.
Thats is reality. This philisophical mumbo jumbo about being slaves to the government or corporations is totally baseless.

I can choose what career I want to pursue and If I have a particular talent in a certain skill I am free to develop it to the best of my ability.

There is very little comparison in my opinion to real slavery and the type of economic servitutude some some are referring to.

No you don't get beaten. You get fired and may die from starvation or live in a cardboard box. A slave rarely was beaten. Coercion is best done by ridicule or less than capital punishments. The Southerners, great managers they were, knew how to punish without physical abuse and physical abuse was forbidden in slave states.

Originally posted by Redge777
Untill all greed is gone, there will always be disparity, it is how much and is it getting better or worse.

That's being idealistic. It won't go away. It's part and parcel of what people are; selfish, greedy and generally control freaks.

The most probable and logical way to go for now is to reduce that disparity. Eliminating it is highly improbable, especially with human culture becoming more and more materialistic and longing for creature comforts. Media glorification of material wealth isn't helping the situation, either.

In fact, you can argue that it's making a lot of folks voluntarily slaves by taking up mortgages and living beyond their means. Result -- they end up being slaves because they have to work real hard to pay the debt, all the while thinking they are free. The best kind of slaves. Illusion of freedom and illusion of choice.

Originally posted by True_Confederate

No you don't get beaten. You get fired and may die from starvation or live in a cardboard box. A slave rarely was beaten. Coercion is best done by ridicule or less than capital punishments. The Southerners, great managers they were, knew how to punish without physical abuse and physical abuse was forbidden in slave states.

Perhaps you missed this: In the book you sited repeatedly as one of the main sources for your information, "Time on the Cross", The authors use the "Barrows Whipping List" as a source for arguments.

There own source stated that on an average, most slaves were whipped every 4.6 days.

Care to revise that statement? Or do you have any other source to support your notion that slaves were rarely whipped.? Either racknowlege your statement is wrong or offer some sound proof. The ball is in your court.

reply to post by Beachcoma


The world without greed, leans into my projections of heaven, you know void of sin and all. But here I agree, wont happen until major spiritual change of planet return of Christ,

So I agree what we need to do is be aware of the direction we support, more or less of what we think is right.

Illusion is important. Satisfaction of people in a society can be a measurement of how good a society is, it is also a measure of how unruly a society is. If you keep a society from knowing how screwed they really are, or you simply do not allow them to know concepts that challenge the status quo, you do as much to control dissent as you would if you actually gave them many things.

This was why at first only the religious people read the bible, why the Gutenberg press was a revolution to public acceptance of what is allowed, and why blacks were at one time outlawed from learning to read. If a society only knows a civilization where a few rich rule, then they will be much happier then a people aware of societies that lead to more equality. This is why tyranny supports ignorance and lack of thought.

While keeping people removed from their true potential lives effectively keeps them happy, it is not just, this is shown by the innate sliver in the mind of people when they grasp for what is wrong but do not have the knowledge to identify it. They will search until it is found, then awaken. Furthermore potential happiness is a true measure of the good of society not perceived happiness, for suffering is still suffering even if it is all a people know.

This also is used in the indoctrination of the elite, if you convince a ruling party, weather it be Nazi or Soviet, or rule by the rich, their system is needed for the best of mankind, that they are better, literally superior and deserve what they have, then they are more happy, and will challenge any change in society that would spread opportunity. So even the expectations of the potential of society of the elite is controlled, often through lack of identification threw establishing superiority complex and limiting interaction through social isolation.

If elites were forced to question the legitimacy of their actions, some would lose happiness because of their innate goodness, just like the lower tier does when they question the same thing. Which is why a ruling society has 'need to know' levels of the social truths, with only a few really in the know of all the controls of society, the clear unseen pyramid at the top. Make sure only those cold enough move up high enough in the order to learn that information, and society becomes ran by the evil. The document in my sig starts by saying a persons cold calculation is why they were chosen to learn the information in the document.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Redge777]

Originally posted by True_Confederate

Originally posted by coop039
10% 90%?

This still puzzles me. Slaves were not paid. The slave owners reaped all the rewards from the work of the slaves.

Slave owners had to return their profits in forms of housing, food, clothing, and amenities to their slaves. When all is said and down, the slave received about 90% of what he produced (in value). You don't make anywhere near that and if you are earning a minimum wage today you would be living in a 400 sq. ft apartment with 10 other people and die at the age of 40 in 1860.

If you made average wages today you may have earned an apartment for just your immediate family.

The difference is EVERYONE's standard of living has improved, the richest person in 1840 lived barely better than a family earning $100k today.

Today the super wealthy fly in space....that is quite the rise of standard of living.

Does not change the fact that for people of the time, a slave was living as if he were living on $200k a year.

And yes the book is the tenth edition I guess that's 2004 not 2006 whatever.

That 90% sure got them a nice shack with a dirt floor. Why dont you ask some african americans what they think of this?

Regarding the "Middle class" housing the slvaes are reported to have enjoyed; These first hand accounts should be considered.


) Francis Fredric, Fifty Years of Slavery (1863)

This mode of living is no doubt adopted for the express purpose of brutalizing the slaves as much as possible, and making the utmost difference between them and the white man. Slaves live in huts made of logs of wood covered with wood, the men and women sleeping indiscriminately together in the same room. But English people would be perfectly surprised to see the natural modesty and delicacy of the women thus huddled together; every possible effort being exerted, under such circumstances, to preserve appearances--an unchaste female slave being very rarely found.

(2) Olaudah Equiano, The Life of Olaudah Equiano the African (1789)

Their huts, which ought to be well covered, and the place dry where they take their little repose, are often open sheds, built in damp places; so that when the poor creatures return tired from the toils of the field, they contract many disorders, from being exposed to the damp air in this uncomfortable state, while they are heated, and their pores are open. This neglect certainly conspires with many others to cause a decrease in the births as well as in the lives of the grown negroes.

(3) Josiah Henson, The Life of Josiah Henson (1849)

We lodged in log huts, and on the bare ground. Wooden floors were an unknown luxury. In a single room were huddled, like cattle, ten or a dozen persons, men, women, and children. All ideas of refinement and decency were, of course, out of the question. We had neither bedsteads, nor furniture of any description. Our beds were collections of straw and old rags, thrown down in the corners and boxed in with boards; a single blanket the only covering. Our favourite way of sleeping, however, was on a plank, our heads raised on an old jacket and our feet toasting before the smouldering fire. The wind whistled and the rain and snow blew in through the cracks, and the damp earth soaked in the moisture till the floor was miry as a pig- sty. Such were our houses. In these wretched hovels were we penned at night, and fed by day; here were the children born and the sick - neglected.

compliments of www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

This thread's premise is just plain wrong and I am appalled that anyone, southern or not can still try and justify slavery in this day. It throughly disgusts me.

I see according to his member page that he has been banned. I went to see who this fool was and I have to say I am pleased. This whole notion is deeply offensive.

AND I say that as a southern born and bred man.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by grover]

The economists who wrote this book were attempting to sugar coat this travesty in American history. They are part of a group who have romanticised AnteBellum South. By attempting to only focus on the economic factors of slavery and ignoring the assaults to basic human rights they fall into the category or revisionists. In my opinion.
No different than those who say that the hohocaust really wasn't that bad.

I think its obvious that the author of this thread is, how should I put it nicely, Ill-informed. I gave him several sources refuting the stand taken by the authors of the book he puts forth as his main source.

Granted from a purely materialistic standpoint, that is the standpoint of the plantation owners, slavery was a profitable system.

But how can a blind eye be turned to the horrible abuses that took place & mans inhumanity to their fellow man.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Sparky63]

Well you know the south has a problem with violence. It was commented upon before the revolution and in fact Toqueville makes mention of the southern penchant for violence in his Democracy in America. I think it has something to do with the turning of human life into a commodity.

One of the things that both Rome and America (and on a smaller scale, Sparta) have in common is not that they instiuitionalized slavery, rather that slaves were bred and if you were born a slave, your children and grand children would be as well, unless you were lucky in the chance of a master and were either freed at their death, or were given the opportunity to work and buy your freedom... a chance few had access to.

The originator of this thread has put forth as his proof the book "Tme on the Cross.' The authors of this book wanted to to write something sensational & controversal, To hell with the facts. .
They succeeded in doing so and even though the book has been thoroughly discredited there are still many college professors your use it or reference it in order to do the same thing;

They want their students to think that their all wise professor is controversial and the holders of hidden knowlege. Unfortunately a minimum of research is all that is required to show that they are full of it (****)

Let me just add that the average college student who can barely find the US on a map, is usually to intimidated by his professors to question the veracity of this kind of tripe.

Economics is a pretty bland subject, so if they can invoke the subject of slavery and whether it was profitable I don't have a problem with that.
Just make sure you identify whose standpoint the profitability is based on i.e. the plantation holders.



[edit on 5-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 5-10-2007 by Sparky63]