The continuation of the slavery debate

[velvetpage]

Comment from trikotomy (not the same person as the original commenter - or at least, not the same username.) Additional comments welcome, and I've invited trikotomy to continue the debate in my journal if so desired.

Wait... isn't a failure to properly acknowledge human value the very definition of dehumanization, regardless of whether it was done consciously?

"NONE OF THEM DID"

No, most of them didn't, as far as we know. I assure you that in almost no point in the history of a culture has there ever been a complete and total consensus on anything, even if the dissent has not been successfully vocalized and charitably recorded, and the failure of people to bring "serious" efforts to fore is both an arbitrary distinction and insufficient to establish otherwise. I find it highly unlikely that it would never occur to anyone that slavery was humiliating for the slaves unless they were told so. Furthermore, how would such a consensus be relevant? Modern slavers and their supporters must surely have a consensus amongst themselves that what they're doing is fine, or else they wouldn't do it. Why should I despise them while respecting the slavers of the past? If it's because old slavers "couldn't" know any better, then I pity their poor and/or lazy critical thinking skills at best, and if it's because most people now disagree with modern slavers, this sounds like an ad populum fallacy.

"Even the Bible [...] never said slavery was wrong"

Well, there was certainly an understanding that it was wrong when it happened to the Hebrews, if not other people (a double standard the Bible is notorious for which I will not dwell on here). Moses didn't rally for the fair treatment of his people, but for their unconditional freedom. It seems reasonable that slaves typically do not endorse their slavery, and it is convenient that they are left absent from popular accounts on the morality of it.

Now, I'll grant you that the condition of being a slave-owner didn't necessarily make one a seething mass of pure, liquid evil, and that many may have been otherwise decent people who may have had valid ideas, but this fact does not obligate me to appreciate "different lifestyles and viewpoints" in relation to slavery. I shed no tears for stereotypical depictions of evil slave-owners... there are other subjects far more worthy of my sympathy.



"Wait... isn't a failure to properly acknowledge human value the very definition of dehumanization, regardless of whether it was done consciously?"

No, it's not. Acknowledgement of human dignity by a large segment of the population is a prerequisite for taking away that human dignity. Someone has to have something before they can be deprived of it.

Keep in mind that this was not a matter of slaves vs. free, the vast majority of the time. An ancient Athenian landowner who owned forty slaves was a well-respected citizen, while his heiress daughter might as well have been a slave herself for all the good she got out of her freedom. She was not more respected than her slaves; if anything, her life was MORE circumscribed than theirs. Similarly, in many cultures, a slave woman was seen as a legitimate source of free sons by her male owner, but a free woman who let herself be impregnated by a slave lost practically all value to her family and society.

The ancient Hebrews did, in fact, make slaves of each other. They were generally not slaves for life, though, and there were very, very specific rules about their treatment. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy for more on that.

I'm not talking about a consensus of opinion here. There was no consensus leading up to the Civil War in America. There was, however, an understanding of rights that was beginning to develop into a modern understanding of human rights, and which was debated vociferously throughout the country. Many nations had already abolished slavery - Upper Canada did it in 1809, and the rest of the Canadian colonies did it in 1834, along with Great Britain. This had never happened before. There was no movement anywhere in history to treat people in a way we would describe as "fair", that is, everyone has certain inalienable rights that they are born with. The concept did not exist before the eighteenth century, and its application to all levels of society has only recently become the norm in the West. Unfair treatment - that is, treatment based on societal status, gender, and wealth - was not framed in any thought as being fair or unfair. It was just the way it was, and if individuals railed against it (which they did, certainly, you're right there) they didn't rail against the system so much as against their place in it. If they managed to escape that place, they took their place in the system at a different level of it and made lives for themselves there. Even the concept of changing society through concerted action was a modern idea. Little people had no power to change their government or the way things were done. Only men in the highest social classes had that power in most societies.

The reason I believe this to be an important point to make for a student of history is this. If you claim that all slavery and all slave-owners were by definition evil, what you've done is set up an "us" and "them" situation where "those evil people" did something WE would never do. You've divorced yourself from their moral failings and you've failed to recognize that all humans have the capacity both for great good and for great evil, regardless of the social conditions in which they live. You've set yourself on a moral pedestal, and that's a dangerous place to be. The basic value of modern citizenship is that everyone has a role to play in running our society and in making needed social changes. Recognizing one's own potential involvement in social injustice is a huge part of that. Are we likely to recognize our involvement in the modern elements of economic slavery that go on around us, if we've so completely divorced ourselves from the morality of the past? I don't think we are.

In other words, by claiming all slave-owners were by definition evil, you divorce yourself from the possibility that you could have done the same things in a similar situation, and that you still do, and that there's progress to be made here. Humanity is not perfect. We can't afford to rest on our laurels from a comfortable moral superiority and say that we're better than them. It's hypocritical - at least, it is if you buy cheap costume jewellry made by child labour, or if you don't ensure that your fresh produce is grown on a farm where workers are paid a living wage, or if you shop at Walmart on a regular basis.

I'm a history teacher, an author, and an active citizen in my community. These are important things for me to think about in those contexts. I seek to get inside the collective psyches of the civilizations I study, to know where we've come from, to check direction on where we're going, and to write about all of that in my books. If you wish to look less critically at both modern and ancient values, that is, of course, your choice.

Comments

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

YAY! I'm extremely flattered that you drew from my previous comment in this post. It's wonderfully argued, probably better than I could have put it, especially in my sick NaNoZombie state.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

YAY! I'm extremely flattered that you drew from my previous comment in this post.

Me too! -and I agree, Velvetpage's post was wonderfully and thoughtfully written. Thank you for sharing this with us! ;)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're both welcome, and feel free to jump in further down the comment thread. :)

Part 1

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

"Acknowledgement of human dignity by a large segment of the population is a prerequisite"

I view human qualities (freedom, for instance) as intrinsic and existing independently of societal values. I believe it is possible to be disrespectful toward someone without establishing any prior precedent of respect, and if everyone behaves similarly, well, then everyone is culpable. Perhaps the concept was not recognized at one time, but the actions that defined it still existed. You cannot say something didn't happen simply because there wasn't a label for it. At best you could say they were non-respectful, which is not a vast improvement to me.

I realize that the debate between intrinsic and acquired human rights is a fruitless one that has mired philosophy for some time, so if we cannot agree on a definition, then we are simply at an impasse.

"this was not a matter of slaves vs. free"

While it is unfortunate that there were immoral circumstances in addition to slavery, their existence doesn't contradict slavery itself as an immoral condition.

The ancient Hebrews did, in fact, make slaves of each other.
That isn't particularly surprising, but it still doesn't satisfy the point that slaves do not typically appreciate the state of their own slavery and that their viewpoints are not taken into account as part of the general value system.

This had never happened before. There was no movement anywhere in history to treat people in a way we would describe as "fair"

I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't believe that things become wrong when their wrongness is acknowledged. I believe instead that, like a science, things are already as they are and we merely discover them to be so. You can prove to me that these values were not historically popular, but that doesn't matter to me, because the prior existence of the opinion has no bearing how I feel about its correctness now, then, and in the future. Again, we at an impasse.

they didn't rail against the system so much as against their place in it.
Why is the distinction important? If they hate being slaves, is that not a valid contribution to the concept that slavery was wrong? They don't need to disapprove of the entire social system to recognize the flaw in that facet of it.

Re: Part 1

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that you're saying your value system, exactly as it is, should be applied to your entire view of history; that if it is wrong now, it was necessarily wrong then, too; and that anyone who didn't live by your (as yet undeveloped) value system was guilty of evil, or sin, or however you want to define that particular quality of wrongness. (Please, correct me if I got any part of that wrong.)

For someone whose opinion of the Bible doesn't seem to be that high, you're actually sounding more right-wing Christian than I do.

As for your last example - I know women who hate, positively abhor, the idea that their bodies could produce babies. Does that make the motherhood aspect of womanhood evil?

Last point - I don't remember ever saying that slavery was moral. It wasn't. It's repugnant to me. What I started out saying was that, in a society where slavery was legal and unquestioned in popular dialogue, the ownership of slaves did not in and of itself make someone a bad person. It was part of the way people lived. In other words, judge the societal aspect of slavery all you want, but be aware that most of the people involved in that society a) had no choice about their place in it; b) had little influence over whatever public dialogue existed that might change it; c) did not have a mental framework for creating such a discussion even if they didn have access to one, because the framework of rights had not yet been articulated; and d) were just living, as best they could, using the resources at hand to survive.

It could be compared to the poor families in my neighbourhood whose response to my one-family boycott of Walmart on moral grounds is, "I can't afford to pay more for my goods than this, so I have to shop there."

Re: Part 1

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

if it is wrong now, it was necessarily wrong then, too

Yes, actually, that is more or less what I'm saying. This however does not make my value system immutable, and it is amended as new concepts are revealed, toward what I can only hope is a more correct way of thinking. I acknowledge the possibility of flaw in my perspective, and I don't expect to be absolved of at, but neither do I absolve others of it.

For someone whose opinion of the Bible doesn't seem to be that high, you're actually sounding more right-wing Christian than I do.

Yet I'm not, and my values are not steeped in Christianity or conservatism, so this does not concern me. I will not abandon what I find to be a good idea merely because it has something in common my opponents, any more than I will stop wearing black shirts because I saw Pat Robertson do it. I believe that this ties into the point of this discussion; that a single idea (in this case slavery) doesn't poison every act of an individual just because of its presence.

Does that make the motherhood aspect of womanhood evil?

In part, yes. And if it is forced on them, most assuredly yes. It is acceptable, however, to say that it has overwhelmingly more redeeming qualities that detracting ones. The same cannot be said for slavery.

I don't remember ever saying that slavery was moral.

Indeed, but why then must we prohibit ourselves from judging it so? I believe slavery remains a black mark on someone's character whether they understand it or not. It makes them partially immoral. The acceptance of that doesn't necessitate invalidating the other aspects of their character.

had no choice about their place in it

I think it dubious that many people were made to own slaves against their will.

had little influence over whatever public dialogue existed that might change it

I do not expect this of them, but the slaver-owners themselves are still accountable in my mind.

did not have a mental framework for creating such a discussion even if they didn have access to one, because the framework of rights had not yet been articulated

If you wish to establish that didn't understand what they were doing, I will accept that, though I still believe they could have arrived at the conclusion that slavery was wrong had they devoted more thought to it (they could have asked the slaves, at least).

were just living, as best they could, using the resources at hand to survive.

Certainly. But if I kill someone to survive, I am no less a killer. Perhaps the consequences that result can be said to exceed the evil that was done to produce them, but an evil it remains. Again, I do not seek to punish people for their unintentional misdeeds, but I do ask that they be responsible for them. Now, not everybody who shops at Walmart must do so to survive, hence why boycotting is still fruitful, just as it is unlikely that everybody must own slaves to survive.

Re: Part 1

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

I'm not a cultural relativist. I don't believe that things become wrong when their wrongness is acknowledged.

I think the difference here is between deliberate wrongness and unthinking wrongness.

When I was eight, I was a shoplifter. I didn't even think about it. It was wrong, but I didn't think about it then.

If I steal now, am I better than I was at eight? Worse? No different?

(Anybody that picks "better" or "no different" will be asked to explain their position.)

To me, the difference between owning a slave now and owning a slave in 1775 is that I expect people to know better now.

I accept that slavery was always wrong, just as publishing something with the word "nigger" in it was and is wrong. But I judge the people that did not know better less harshly, even as I spare Mark Twain's writings the judgement that I would give to a white supremacist. They were a product of their times.

Re: Part 1

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make all along.

Re: Part 1

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought. I'm hoping that I managed to explain it in a way that trikotomy can see what you're trying to say, and that both of you are right.

Re: Part 1

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

That sounds reasonable, and indeed, I hold those with a willful disregard for others in a harsher light. I should note, though, that I consider this margin slimmer for adults, as one should hope they are more capable of deducing things that aren't explicitly explained to them.

Re: Part 1

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that humans, in general, are still growing up. I don't know if that makes the human race the equivalent of a teenager, or a twenty-something, or what.

As for deducing things, that isn't as easy as it sounds. People aren't as observant as you might think. And to realize that there's something wrong, a person has to see it.

Yes, they could have seen what was going on. But why would they have looked? They were fine.

And this has wandered away from velvetpage's original point, which is that being a slaveowner doesn't make that person evil. Born into an immature society, certainly. Blind to the wrongness, whether by ignorance, willful dehumanization, or some other method, absolutely.

But evil? Not necessarily. Assuming that a slaveowner is automatically evil paints a rather poor picture of some of the people that signed the American Declaration of Independence. They were good people, for their time. For our time, they would be considered evil. But they were wrong to hold slaves, in both times.

And the difference between evil and wrong is the difference between deliberate wrong, and unthinking wrong.

Re: Part 1

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

humans, in general, are still growing up

I presume you refer to a cultural development, as whether in a suit or a loincloth (to quote Jhonen Vasquez), man is the same animal as he was a few thousand years ago. I cannot say how successfully lessons of time really translate into future generations, so I likewise cannot speculate as to the progress of some overarching development of the species. We may yet be on the path to destruction, for all we know. In any case, the possibility that future humans may be overall be better or past ones worse does not alter my view of the individual's capacity for reason, and the responsibility born of that.

As for deducing things, that isn't as easy as it sounds.

Easy and right are rarely related. I am aware (heh) of people's lack of awareness, and perhaps the problem is one of effort. People who are not interest in seeing will not see. The attitude of "I feel fine. Why worry about others?" is one I comprehend but do not think any better of. In fact, those in a position of contentment ought to be the most morally responsible, as they have less of their personal welfare to attend to. We must remember that, in talking about slavery, we are not talking about a single wrong that is absently committed and forgotten, but an ongoing process which, for slave-owners, sits under their very noses and confronts them daily with its ramifications. If it is so deeply wrong as we accept it to be, someone should have noticed. Perhaps many of them didn't want to.

being a slaveowner doesn't make that person evil

I accept, and have previously accepted, that it does not by necessity make them inherently evil, or overall evil, or even significantly evil. I do think, though, that it at least makes them partially evil, as everyone is. Coming back to another earlier point, I do not feel bothered when I find stories depicting an evil slaver owner as 1) they are the least of the victims of the situation, 2) they (or their representatives) are not present to be offended, and 3) a parable is more successful in demonstrating slavery as cruel if the perpetrator is cruel, heavy-handed though it may be. I likewise do not find offense with depictions of villainous thieves or killers, despite that it is a cliché that is not always valid. (Though I will admit that both of these topics have a broader and more daring array of depictions while slavery, for its controversy, does not. If someone wishes to write a story about a non-evil slave owner, I will not defy them.) My time and resources are finite and I have priorities, and defending the good name of slave owners is not amongst them.

Incidentally, "willful dehumanization" would imply an intentional harm, would it not?

...a rather poor picture of some of the people that signed the American Declaration of Independence.

I do not, as some do, view the founding fathers as paragons of virtue who were above reproach. They were people, composed of good and evil as other people are, and though they had good ideas, they were not saints. Even the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife, or so I've heard. (I think usulav dubbed the break between good ideas and character the "[David] Sim Effect", if anyone remembers that.) I will point out, as has been noted before me, that slavery was more acknowledged as wrong by that time period anyway.

But anyhow. I believe that possessing a mindset which causes one to repeat acts of harm represents evil, even without the amplification of a specific desire to produce harm, though it's possible for that evil to be insignificant. (Conversely, I believe I can apply a similar standard to good, which is likewise enhanced by but not expressly limited to deliberate intent. Random acts of senseless kindness, and all that rubbish.) As for whether people as a whole are evil vs. wrong, I have known a few people I consider to be evil out of being monstrously, incomprehensibly inconsiderate, but for average situations your distinction seems to be a reasonable one and I can think of no fault with it, although we might be splitting hairs at this point.

Re: Part 1

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

After 5 days I tire of this subject, and as I believe that this the extent to which an understanding will be reached, I respectfully take my leave. You may continue at your discretion with the knowledge that I, personally, will not contest your arguments (so make 'em good *grin*).

Part 2

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

(repost for failed html tag)

If you claim that all slavery and all slave-owners were by definition evil

I have not advocated such a claim, nor have I suggested that you or anyone else do so.

what you've done is set up an "us" and "them" situation where "those evil people" did something WE would never do. You've divorced yourself from their moral failings

I most certainly have not. Holding someone responsible for their actions does not absolve me of my own, and neither, for that matter, does holding me responsible absolve them. If we both rob a bank, and then we call each other bank robbers, does this then mean that NEITHER of us are bank robbers because that would make us hypocrites?

you've failed to recognize that all humans have the capacity both for great good and for great evil, regardless of the social conditions in which they live

On the contrary! If anything, I believe my view supports an even more complex concept of human moral capacity. Individuals are not merely good OR evil, they are good AND evil; capable of healing with one hand while slaying with the other, without mincing words as to which is which. Their character cannot be fully defined through any single facet, which is why I do not believe that accepting the wrongness of their endorsement of slavery represents a devastating threshold from which there is no return. In fact, I feel that sterilizing them of the accountability for their behavior and resting it on the conditions on their environment neutralizes the human element and its moral capacity, leaving it to the whims of time.

you divorce yourself from the possibility that you could have done the same things in a similar situation, and that you still do, and that there's progress to be made here. Humanity is not perfect.

If it is not perfect then you must not imply that it can be held to no wrong unless it believes so. And the very idea of progress indicates superiority to the past. If the evil of an action is relative concept, what motivation is there for progress? By ending something for being wrong, you must first establish is as wrong – essentially creating the very thing you mean to destroy. Why consider the social ramifications of your actions when you know they will forgiven tomorrow?

Would I act the same way as anyone else given the same background? Possibly. Would that remove the burden of my responsibility? No. Does it remove anyone else's responsibility? No. I'm sure I've contributed to many bad (and good) things which I am ignorant of, yet these things are no less what they are because of my ignorance and I expect them to be recognized as such. The deed is done, and the deed is all the matters. Good intentions are irrelevant to me. I do not punish people for their mistakes, but I do ask that they accept responsibility for them.

If you wish to look less critically at both modern and ancient values, that is, of course, your choice.

*snort* Of course, opposing your opinion inevitably means I don't examine things as critically as you do. That is a cheap and underhanded tactic, and I will not put up with it from you if you wish to continue this discussion.

Re: Part 2

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Okay, the original point of my original comment was a dislike of the character stereotype where a character is portrayed as owning slaves in order to point out that he is evil. Frankly, I think we're arguing in circles here, so let me point out a few things:

1) Slavery as an institution is wrong.

2) In a society where it was legal, I do not believe it is fair to portray all slave-owners as inherently evil, especially if the public dialogue for mass emancipation did not exist.

3) Morals change over time. If there is an absolute right, I doubt we've found it yet. To hold societies in the distant past accountable for actions which did not infringe on their morality at the time is, in many ways, an exercise in futility; history simply is, with no judgements necessary. Understanding how they saw things is a valuable exercise, even (perhaps especially) if we disagree with them.

4) It is necessary and right to hold societies accountable for their recent and current actions. This needs to include a public dialogue within these societies, which hopefully will have the effect of bringing their morality in line with our, probably more progressive one; that said, if the people of one particular group do not see themselves as oppressed, and it's not hurting them to remain as they are, why force cultural change on them?

5) Individuals acting within the laws of their own society can usually be forgiven for following laws that don't agree with our morality. For example: the bus driver who called the police to arrest Rosa Parks was doing what he believed to be right, and he was obeying the law. I would not judge him for that action. Instead, I would judge the society that felt those laws were okay. Collective responsibility is more valuable than individual responsibility in such situations. In fact, encouraging individual responsibility in that respect often has the effect of letting the collectively-responsible body off the hook.

Re: Part 2

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

1) Agreed.

2) Agreed.

3) I believe morals are understood over time, but there is no point in pressing this issue. I know history cannot be altered, but I believe making judgments of it has a valuable impact on the future. I understand that they view things differently, and perhaps did not have means to view otherwise, but I still do not feel obliged to pardon their actions, and further, I find it as unnecessary to do so as you find judging them. I will attempt to maintain an open mind, but I will not compromise my values in doing so.

4) the people of one particular group do not see themselves as oppressed

A person can be brainwashed into supporting a relationship that abuses them, and though they do not draw a mental connection between this support and their suffering, suffering it is. Now, if slaves are truly satisfied with their circumstance, then far be it for me to try to change them. But I believe you have actually maintained to the contrary. Incidentally, "bringing their morality in line with ours" would seem to suggest that there is an absolute, objective standard of morality.

5) "I was only following orders" is not a valid basis of forgiveness for me. Is obeying law to do harm inherently more respectable than breaking it to do good? I hold both society and individual accountable, and though you may consider one more practical than the other, I do not believe that they must interfere with each other. As for doing what someone believes is right, you will be hard pressed to find a wide number of people guilty of despicable acts who disagreed with themselves while they were doing them, up to and including the most violent offenders.

Re: Part 2

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

"As for doing what someone believes is right, you will be hard pressed to find a wide number of people guilty of despicable acts who disagreed with themselves while they were doing them, up to and including the most violent offenders."

That's not entirely true. People do things all the time, knowing full well that they are wrong. Usually they will try to justify the action to themselves, but not always. (Remember, I'm a teacher. I've lost count of the number of times in the last week when I've asked a student about such-and-such a thing they did and they said, "I don't know why I did it," and usually "I'm sorry. I know I shouldn't have done it.") It is entirely possible to live in an amoral state, where one doesn't think about the rightness or wrongness of one's actions at all. This is to be distinguished from someone who consciously thinks about two alternatives and chooses one because he believes it is the right thing to do. That's the example I was trying to give.

You know, Christians are held up (especially these days) as being very hard-line arbiters of right and wrong, unwilling to recognize extenuating circumstances or places where Biblical morality may no longer apply. And yet, I know very few Christians who would totally negate the possibility for forgiveness of sins based in ignorance of absolute morality as you have done.

I think that's the place where we fundamentally disagree. In my worldview, I don't have to judge history because that's God's job. I don't even have to judge modern people, other than to decide how to act myself and how to teach my students and children to act. Usually, judging them or refusing to forgive/excuse them is counterproductive to teaching them how to act better. "You didn't know, so you're not in trouble this time. However, you know now. Next time, I'll expect you to behave better." This is a standard line in my classroom, and my students respect it and learn from it.

This has been an interesting discussion, but I think we've come to the crux of our differences.

Re: Part 2

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

I think it more accurate that most people who "know" something they're doing is wrong know others consider it wrong, and do not accept it for whatever reasons that may or may not be rational. I'll note that it is not an inherently bad thing to oppose the morality of one's peers, but it comes down to reasoning and consequences. I think being motivated amorally out of self-interest and being motivated morally out of an unexamined social interest are sufficiently comparable for their lack of critical deliberation, even if the later can be said to be more conscious. As I have said above, I expect adults to be more careful in their consideration of others.

"I know very few Christians who would totally negate the possibility for forgiveness of sins based in ignorance of absolute morality as you have done."

It is fortunate that I am not Christian, then, as I would be a poor one. However, I do not negate the possibility of forgiveness, I only hold the forgiveness I personally distribute to my own standard. If you take it as God's place to judge history, I will accept that as your position and dispute it no further, except to suggest that, perhaps, forgiveness is equally an infringement on God's realm.

We have indeed isolated the core of our dispute and, now that we know where we stand, we will hopefully both come away richer in spite of it, or perhaps because of it.

Re: Part 2

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Only one thing to finish off: the forgiveness I offer is much more for my own peace of mind than anybody else's. I know people, some of them very, very well, who do not offer enough of it, either close to home or further away. The people I'm thinking of are generally less content with their lives and their souls than I choose to be.

Ultimately, forgiveness will be God's to offer, as is judgement.

Re: Part 2

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

Huh. Why did I think this was a new comment? Apologies, I am needlessly prolonging the debate.

Re: Part 2

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

One sentence summary of what we're doing here: I'm trying to point out how they saw themselves within the context of their own societies, while you're trying to judge the inherent injustices of the societies. We're arguing two completely different things.

Oh, and I apologize for the last statement. However, I feel obliged to point out that you made a similar assertion, further up; I found the use of the phrase "I assure you" to be rather patronizing, and my last statement was a reflection of my dislike of that phrase and its implications that you knew better than I did. Can we both agree not to bring that tone into this debate again?

Re: Part 2

[trikotomy.livejournal.com]

I found the use of the phrase "I assure you" to be rather patronizing

It was not done consciously, and I apologize for it. We can both consent to hold off on any further sort of Cold War era arms proliferation.

We're arguing two completely different things.

That occurs to me, yes. At this point, I believe we have resolved everything that is capable of being resolved and have each spoken our piece to reasonable satisfaction. I will consider this topic completed, unless you have something further to add.

Re: Part 2

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I don't. Thank you for the discussion; it was interesting, and it was conducted respectfully, and that made it fun.

[paka.livejournal.com]

The morality bound up in slavery as a specific issue really interests me.

We're both informed by recent slavery being; x ethnic group captures or buys y other ethnic group for the purposes of doing x's dirty work. Therefore y in x service are always treated poorly and usually with x taking an attitude that they're spiritually and intellectually far superior to y.

What gets me is that when I look at the mamluks, and at slavery as practiced in the Pacific Northwest, it gets weirdly more humane. There isn't this attitude of ethnically based superiority. In fact I remember reading this Haida account of someone whose house had a slave, and as a kid, he was forbidden to talk about it lest it shame the slave and by extention his own family. Makes you wonder how the morality of all that works - despite the way that as a modern person, and as someone who's certainly felt owned sometimes, the idea of depriving someone of their freedom is pretty abhorrent.

And then there's the whole gladitorial thing, where you could technically be a slave and still be this well-loved sports superstar.

Where it gets back to biblical stuff is the whole focus on treating strangers well, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt - that stuff! I get the feeling that fair treatment of slaves/indentured servants was a big priority, and one of the ways they figured they were acting better.