|
There are a few issues with re-instituting slavery in the way mentioned: - Are all states "forever slave owning states", or can they choose? Even in the Antebellum period you had lots of states that banned slavery. - Who is being enslaved? For example, are only black people being enslaved, or are Hispanics fair game too? Are Asians and Native Americans also potential slaves? After determining that, who would actually be enslaved? Would it be a punishment for a crime? Would everyone of that race become slaves automatically? Assuming it's put to a nationwide vote of white people, the chances of it passing seem slim because the states that would directly benefit from slaves are not very populated and/or white (eg, Texas is minority-majority, Alabama only has 4 million people, 2/3 of which are white). If you let individual states decide there's a better chance of passing but it would be confined to places that it would make economic sense. Also there's a fairly good chance that the Bundy types (as in the actual "gently caress the government" militas) would vote against it because it's the government making people slaves (just like they do with taxes etc etc).
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
It's pretty clear that racism of sorts existed pre-Enlightenment. The story of the Good Samaritan is literally "this guy is one of the good ones" to a racist audience.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:"White people" were created solely as a method of exclusion. Before imperialism and slavery, there were just English people, French people, whatever. It wasn't until the Atlantic Slave Trade and colonialism that Europeans had to come up with a system to oppress people based on skin color. That isn't to say that racism didn't exist before the 1600s, but it was different back in medieval times and ancient times. The Greeks were pretty racist but they didn't have a system of "white people vs non-white people", but rather "Greek vs non-Greek". Same with the Romans, the Chinese, etc. So "because people didn't travel much people didn't see people of different colors often and hence there was no need to classify people based on skin color". That's more of an argument of means than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the fact that those groups of people want to be parts of an oppressed group so badly is actually progress in its own sick little way. They certainly wouldn't be doing it in the 50s or 60s. It's just a shame their insanity and narcissism bleeds into so much other poo poo. I can think of a fair number of groups that were entirely voluntary and were intentionally counterculture in the 50s and 60s.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It wasn't nearly as widespread or fashionable, though. Decades of "raising awareness" have made generating the attention its own end and created this entire sub-group of people. The people in the 50s and 60s were bucking the trend, these people think they're following it. It was fairly fashionable; the oft-misquoted line from Steinbeck about temporarily embarrassed capitalists were about a bunch of liberals who believed it was fun to act like Socialists. (though I guess the piece in question was from the 30s)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 02:34
|
|