Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

MarksMan posted:

Also, according to him and his friends (this is something he "shared"), white people did not end slavery -- for some reasoning I don't quite fully understand?

When he talks about white people, does he really mean white Americans? That's one of the hosed-up things I feel about racial relations in the US, no one escapes the americentric perspectives, even the people who for racial reasons have been rejected as proper members of the society which their worldview is entirely attuned to.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2014 01:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 14:04

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Omi-Polari posted:

Yeah I agree with your second graf. But the impeachment stuff sounds to me like politics as usual for fringy types.

I might be misremembering things I've read in D&D, but didn't the Republicans basically start talking about impeachment from day one of the Clinton presidency? And hate groups/right-wing militias also multiplied during his presidency, like they did after Obama came to power. If I remember right, I think there's an argument to be made that at least some of the reaction to Obama comes from a tribal Democrats vs. Republicans hatred, independent of the color of his skin. The way that hatred is then shown is often through classic racist stereotypes and poo poo, but it's not necessarily the primary cause. Obviously this doesn't mean these people aren't racist, but to some degree I think it can be argued they're primarily extremely anti-Democrat due to the polarized American political landscape. Had Hillary become president, they would just have brought out the anti-woman rhetoric instead.

Obviously this also ties into the general ideology of the Republican party, so it's really a lot of things feeding into each other. Basically, ready-made and popular prejudices that conform to the ideology of the party, combined with massive polarization, means the stable state of the Republican base is "massive outrage" whenever there's a Democrat president. Being some sort of minority just dials it up a notch further, but it would still be there without it.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 11:22

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

gradenko_2000 posted:

Whether or not the "people who dislike Barack Obama either partially or purely because he is black" figure amounts to less than 50% as the original argument that was made sounds like a lot of semantic quibbling.

I don't think it's semantic quibbling to point out that all of this poo poo with Obama is standard politics in the US, just flavored and (fueled to some degree) by racial hatred.

Sucrose posted:

Yeah, and that's because they were going up steadily during the Clinton years, until one of them did something so crazy that suddenly the rest of them wanted to distance themselves from the movement as quickly as possible.

And this was when unemployment was lower, and going steadily down.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 12:37

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

gradenko_2000 posted:

The post that kicked off this whole shebang was:
"Just look how insane half the country has gone as a result of Obama's election. Those people aren't reacting to Obama as a politician; they're reacting to the fact that his election seemed (and mostly only seemed) to destabilize the established racial hierarchy."

I'm saying just because the number of people reacting to the (perception of) destabilization of racial hierarchy isn't literally "half the country" doesn't mean that there are zero people that reacted to the (perception of) destabilization of racial hierarchy

And I haven't argued that either, so I don't see the problem. My post isn't about whatever post started this part of the discussion, just impeachment and how it relates to overall political tribalism.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 14:42

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sucrose posted:

This doesn't really prove anything, other than that the dropoff apparently took a couple years to happen, rather than immediately like I thought. But it doesn't show the early years of Clinton's presidency, where the numbers had been rising to get to that point. Obviously, it's even worse under Obama, but there's a very clear Democrat-Republican difference. Also from my understanding "Patriot" groups are largely anti-immigration lunatics; the number of "militia" is actually lower than it was during the Clinton years.

And to be clear I think some of the opposition to Obama is driven by racism on the far right, but it's the cherry on the top of the already fervent resistance he'd get just for being a Democrat president.

I think you misunderstand me, I was basically agreeing with you. The thing about unemployment was just me pointing out that there's at least one additional reasons for increased activity on that front now, compared to back then. Basically, the Obama presidency combines unemployment, a Democrat president, and a black president (emblematic of an overall demographic change) all in one package. It's all of them together that fuels the outrage against him, not just the black part. Plus of course the general polarization of American politics, which has seen the Republicans shoot away from the Democrats, even while the Democrats started moving right.

As for the "Patriot movement", I think it's a sort of big tent movement, like American political parties themselves. It's basically radicalized rural conservatives, whether sovereign citizens, tax protesters, states' rights people or Christian apocalypse cults.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 18:53

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

RonMexicosPitbull posted:

Yea, almost all of those "patriot" groups are utterly nonviolent and noncriminal dumb as they are so I'm not sure what the scary graph is supposed to mean lumping them in with militias. Hell even most "militias" are just 5 redneck guys who really love guns hanging out with eachother and two of them are undercover fbi agents there looking out for trouble. We've had those crazy militia types since the country was formed and they pull some poo poo every now and then but your chance of being harmed by any of those people is the same as ever, vanishingly small. They are completely infiltrated by the fbi and thats a good thing fyi before I get accused of loving militias.

I think the point is that the line between the two is kind of blurry, and that their support waxes and wanes for similar reasons. The latter in particular means it's a good barometer for reactionism in the US.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 20:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

gradenko_2000 posted:

Adjusted per capita? As a percentage of the population?

It's hard getting accurate numbers, plus you have to decide what counts as slavery or not, though I kinda doubt it matches up today. The Arab slave trade estimates alone starts off matching the transatlantic one (11 million), going as high as 25 million, and the slaves in the Americas might match the per capita enslaved population of today alone. (Compared to world population obviously, Brazil was like 50% slaves at one point.) The Arab slave trade had a 700 year head start on the transatlantic one though, and the entire system might have worked very differently, so I have no idea how many were ever enslaved at the same time.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2014 07:37

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

My fellow Whites, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will legalize slavery forever. We begin enslaving in five minutes.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 15:52

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Powercrazy posted:

Also what is stoping whites from re-instituting slavery? I thought they controlled the world?

I just did two hours ago.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 17:56

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

SedanChair posted:

Yeah everybody knows white europeans are waaaaaay less racist

That doesn't really change the fact that this thread is Americentric as gently caress, and people are obviously talking about white America.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 20:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

paranoid randroid posted:

On the other hand, recorded history.

40% of the population of the CSA was black, while only 1% of the population of the states that remained loyal was black. It's pretty obvious that White people in the North were fighting for the freedom of black people against their own will.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 20:34

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

paranoid randroid posted:

Those massive riots in the 1860s that burned large swathes of NYC to the ground were just white america exercising their exuberance for human rights.

White America = Irish-Americans in New York.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 20:59

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

paranoid randroid posted:

Then it sounds like "white america" did not universally desire rights for black people, and the situation is a little more complicated.

If a few Irishmen rioting, partially over the wealthy being able to buy themselves out of military service, is enough to disqualify the idea that we can talk about "white America", that sort of undermines any kind of talk of "white America" as a monolithic entity I think.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:08

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

paranoid randroid posted:

It was the single largest civil disturbance in American history.

And yet it's called the New York City draft riots, not the American draft riots.

paranoid randroid posted:

Anyway I have more of a problem with the assertion that the civil rights movement can be boiled down to white people generously ending segregation with minimal encouragement from black americans.

I think the point is more that white people decided the status quo wasn't going to work anymore, due to the actions of the black community, which just left the option of giving in or getting rid of them.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:21

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

Yes. Blacks did a lot of work to change the minds of white america. My point is that means white america was still the deciding power. My only point is that it would not have been possible for blacks to secure their rigjts by force if white america decided to fight back. Thats why i find the white vs black attitude so silly. If the majority of whites wernt for equal rights the we would not have equal rights. Its not white vs black itsmost whites and blacks vs the racists.

In this case, it's not so much white and blacks vs. the racists, it's whites-who-are-not-racist-enough-to-favor-genocide and blacks vs. whites-who-are-racist-enough. The dividing line between racist and not-racist isn't "will commit genocide to defend their position in society".

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:41

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

natetimm posted:

EDIT: Oh hey, you want to see what happens when a black guy has opinions that don't jive with the typical leftist hive-mind idiocy? Look no further then SedanChair's avatar. One of your like-minded progressives gave him that for bucking your party line.

Please do not call it leftist. The "SjW's" you're railing against seem to generally be a bunch of well-off kids who don't give a gently caress about the working class. They just want everyone, no matter the color of their skin, the thing in their pants, or where they would like to put that thing, to be able oppress other people independent of all that stuff too. Now, I realize that to an American, liberalism is usually seen as leftism, but that's kind of the point. These people have monopolized the struggle against inequality, defined it in a way that serves their interests, and anyone who senses that American society is unequal as gently caress is going to be told "It's because cis white males oppress us", largely ignoring the relationship between labor and capital.

Which before anyone says anything, doesn't mean the identity stuff is irrelevant, just that it's not the complete solution.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 09:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Anti-white racism does not exist. There are no racialized systems or institutions that target white people, make them less equal, or hurt them in any way. It is not a thing.

I have a hard time finding the specific article*, but are you really sure about this? Not talking federal systems or institutions, but ones that cover much smaller geographic areas. Is the idea that the institutions of a solidly majority black city might mirror those of solidly majority white cities, except with black people on top, really so unfathomable? Obviously the fact the systems above will not share this quality means there's a greater check on their power, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

To be clear, I don't think this means white people are off the hook "because black people are just as bad!", but failing to acknowledge the existence (or even possibility) of these outliers (and they are outliers) seems to me to just be a way to mythologize white people. It's not just that history created the conditions of today, which white people happily take advantage of, white people are specifically suited towards creating such structures. That is the argument you're putting forth when you unequivocally say that it is not a thing. Not just a thing that is insignificant on a societal scale, but literally non-existant.

*It was some years ago, and people screeching about "anti-white" racism for every little thing kind of makes it hard to find legitimate examples.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 14:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Not at all, please post the article when you find it, or PM me.

I know I've posted it a link to it more than once, so I suppose it should be possible to find again, unless the recent troubles ate the posts. Assuming as well that the article is still up at all. Just to not get anyone's hopes up, it's literally just a single example, not an examination of the concept itself.

VitalSigns posted:

Exceptions exist to pretty much any general rule; there's no sense in pretending they don't exist.

Which is why I remarked upon you doing exactly that.

VitalSigns posted:

The obstructionism tactic is those like on the left who have to come in and draw attention to minor quirks and exceptions to the exclusion of anything else, and that should be ignored. If the NAACP had to endlessly quibble with every white person who demanded they explain how it's not racist to only work for the advancement of people of color, they'd never get anything else done. Which is, of course, the point of these antics.

Way I'm thinking, the best way to use the few instances of things being turned around, is to make people consider the scale of things. If a heavily/all black city council can create anti-white racist structures within their limited authority, what does that mean for a society where white people have the same degree of control across much of the country, from the smallest scale to the very top? You basically have to say "black people are uniquely racist and vengeful" to not come to the conclusion that black people have a point when they complain about racial discrimination, if you want to act like anti-white racism is a thing and not just one-off discrimination.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 16:02

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

What?

Okay, so the criticism is that giving points for race on college admissions mainly benefits well-off educated minorities from other countries because they have the test scores and money. Okay, buuuuut how is that Affirmative Action's fault, when in its absence they would still have the test scores and money?

Who says they would have the test scores? Asian-Americans have a 140 points handicap on their SATs when it comes to college admission to prestigious colleges compared to white people, while black people have a 310 point advantage. Asian-Americans are the ones who bear the brunt of affirmative action in this regard, not white people.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 17:03

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Raw test scores. Wealthy immigrants will likely have better raw test scores than impoverished native-born African Americans.

The plight of Asian Americans bearing the brunt of affirmative action wasn't his complaint. His complaint was that a well-off recent immigrant from Nigeria will have a better application than a poor black kid from Mississippi so the benefits of Affirmative Action to black people will tend to accrue to them, and thus according to him it's just a way for classist Nigerians to entrench their privilege over impoverished African Americans.

Yes, and they do this at the expense of the Asian-American community. Affirmative action in this case becomes a way to foster an international class of rich people who set their prejudices about each other aside so they can stand united against everyone else, instead of a way to make things more equal.

VitalSigns posted:

But of course, that wealth and better primary education are to the advantage of the recent immigrant regardless of whether affirmative action exists, so eliminating affirmative action will not harm the power structure he is decrying...unless we go back to segregation, which would be very effective at smashing the power recent Nigerian immigrants have, which, as a staunch anti-racist, is on the left's overriding goal.

Alternatively, make affirmative action dependent on wealth, not race.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 17:24

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Right okay, this can be a good faith argument that it has this effect, and from you it is. But let's fit it into the context of his posts, which appear to consist of lashing out at anti-white racism, and blaming oppression on anything and everything he can except for white people. I mean, apparently to him one drive-by shitpost on page 4 is still worth talking about to the exclusion of everything else 9 pages later.

But hey, maybe I'm being uncharitable to him. Say, on the left, does institutionalized racism exist in America, is it perpetrated by white men as a class, and do white men disproportionally benefit thereby? Or is that all pretty much solved, leaving anti-white racism as the biggest problem of the day?

Well, I'm not necessarily defending whatever views he holds, just using them as a jumping off point.

VitalSigns posted:

I don't know that this thread is the best place to debate affirmative action, but the usual response to this is that making it race-blind and solely based on socio-economic status privileges white people because they are advantaged compared to black people of equal socioeconomic status.

Yes, it's not perfect, the question is if it's superior to favoring (wealthy) black people. As far as I can tell, white families are SIX times wealthier on average than the average black family, which seems to me like it would mostly take care of the issue of white people being advantaged given similar socio-economic status. Most black kids can kick rear end at a "my family is poorer than yours!" competition, so they would have a significant advantage here. Hell, if a white person comes from a family poor enough that it economically fits in with black families, is it really that big a tragedy if they get to take advantage of affirmative action? Yes, it would be better if it went to the black version of that person, but if the alternative is the kid of a rich African guy?

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 18:15

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

JeffersonClay posted:

The kid of a rich African guy is still oppressed compared to his rich, white peers.

What about middle class Asian-Americans? Why is race so important that the comparison has to be to other rich people, if it means favoring certain rich people over people far below them economically?

JeffersonClay posted:

The answer to helping poor white people

An answer to a question I haven't asked, except in the sense that poor whites belong in the poor people category.

JeffersonClay posted:

is to implement class-based AA in addition to race-based AA, not to replace one with the other. That way rich black and poor white kids both get AA, and poor black kids get even more AA, which makes sense because they're the most oppressed.

AA has to come at the expense of other people, agreed? Why would you then "spend" it on helping rich kids? Sure, rich black kids don't have it as good a rich white kids, but are they really so bad off that even their wealth can't compensate for it compared to the average person? If the two were to be combined, increasing wealth really should severely taper off race-based AA, so the black skin of rich African immigrants won't trump the wealth-based disadvantage of pretty much everyone else (other black people excluded) automatically.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 19:02

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

JeffersonClay posted:

You seem to have the assumption that economic oppression has a significantly greater impact than racial oppression, and thus AA spent on a rich black person is wasted. I'm not convinced.

https://www.princeton.edu/~pager/ASR_pager_etal09.pdf

http://www.cepr.net/documents/black-coll-grads-2014-05.pdf

Class-based AA won't do anything to disrupt these patterns.

This assumes they get their job by handing out resumes, not through connections made while in school.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 20:18

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Main Paineframe posted:

Yes. Systemic racism goes way beyond the local level - it's a society-wide ill, and even minority enclaves will be ultimately under the rule of a white elite, either directly or through systemic disenfranchisement of the minority community.

I'm not sure if you're repeating what I'm saying, or disagreeing?

Main Paineframe posted:

African-Americans are tremendously underrepresented at the top levels of the business world, so it looks like connections aren't very effective for black students either, at least not at schools like Yale or Harvard. Over 90 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are white males; blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women combined make up less than 10 percent.

The median age of Fortune 500 CEOs is 55, which means the African-Americans who would compete with them were born before the Civil Rights Act. I think you would have to do a much more thorough overhaul of the system to counteract the one these people were born into if you wanted people of that generation succeeding to that degree. I think a better measurement here would be the demographics of the management a rung or two below them, since changes have to propagate from the bottom to the top. (Not that I expect those to be 100% demographically balanced either.) The most effective solution would probably be to just enforce affirmative action on companies, so they become demographically balanced in their management. Could be phased in from the bottom too, if discrimination has resulted in there being too few qualified candidates for the higher positions.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2014 15:55

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DeadmansReach posted:

I guess you could examine the class aspect of it at that point. A wealthy minority could be accused of "punching down" at a poor white person, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum and it doesn't strip that white person of all their privilege suddenly.

Considering how important your job/career is in our economic system, I think it's kinda weird you basically dismiss the position of power the boss has in that situation, just because the person in power in this case is a minority. Racial privilege isn't some magical thing that just trumps everything else, especially on the individual level.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2014 16:10

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DeadmansReach posted:

My point was that even in these rare instances somebody may be upset at equal(ie NOT-privileged treatment) and call it discrimination. I love that people concede that genuine instances of this scenario are so uncommon that they aren't worth addressing at a system wide level, but apparently still worth moaning and hand-wringing over.

It is discrimination though. Only difference is that the minority boss' power comes from their position in the capitalist system, not their race or whatever. The capitalist system certainly is worth addressing at a system wide level, it's the single most powerful system in the world.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2014 18:50

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DeadmansReach posted:

My example was of a white person receiving fair and equal treatment but being upset because they are used to extra privilege. There is no discrimination here.

When did the example change? The one AVeryLargeRadish laid out was explicitly about a racial justification for not giving a raise/promotion. That someone believes this is impossible/unlikely/hard to prove doesn't change the facts of the hypothetical.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2014 19:55

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DeadmansReach posted:

It was to demonstrate that the example that we've agreed is very unlikely to actually happen is even more so when races X and Y are anything and white, respectively.

How is that relevant, when we're discussing the conceptual possibility of anti-white racism? That seems like the go-to trick to discussing that topic in this thread, to conflate the fact that it's very rare with the idea that it's an impossibility. Maybe people don't commit to writing it explicitly like that, but that is basically what people are doing.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2014 20:17

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Yes, instead of talking about actual problems, let's wring our hands over the travails of an imaginary white man.

That's not what I'm trying to do. Like, seriously, I don't care about the travails of an imaginary white man. I care about the fact that a lot of people in this thread believe his existence is an impossibility, which goes back to the whole mythologizing white people thing. White people aren't individually special, they just happened to come out on top. In a system where minorities can succeed enough to carve out places of power themselves, the idea that you can't see reversals of power relationships (as seen from the perspective of race), within limited boundaries, is mythologizing white people.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2014 21:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Yes. He's taking "discrimination against white people is so rare and powerless in 2014 America that it's not worth bringing up and just distracts from actual issues" and pretending he thinks you mean "Whites are Gods among men and cannot be harmed by puny dark-skinned untermenschen." Because you're the real racist, you see.

No, what I mean by mythologizing hasn't got anything to do with white people being superior or anything, it has to do with setting them apart as somehow uniquely predisposed to racist behavior.* The repeated refusal to contemplate the idea that a white person might find themselves in a place where the racist system, that usually put them in a position of great privilege, is turned on its head, is acting like white people are uniquely predisposed to racist behavior. White people get to be the racist bastards many/most of them are due to historical circumstances, the historical circumstances weren't built around some inbuilt flaw. At least not one unique to white people.

That doesn't mean white people aren't consciously or unconsciously a part of the racist system, because they are. What I'm saying is that minorities can be as well, if the specific conditions of the locales or institutions they're part of allow it, such as if they're mostly controlled by minorities themselves. All of which of course does, as we have established, still operate within the larger structure created by white people. In fact, you can probably make the argument that this is a pretty drat natural reaction to living in a society structured this way.

*Tied up into a greater historical narrative of European exploitation as a special historical sin.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2014 23:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 14:04

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

VitalSigns posted:

Nobody is saying that it's cosmically impossible for anyone other than white people to be racist.

No, they're clever enough to just not truly acknowledge the possibility. It reminds me of arguing with people who argue they have nothing to do with the racist system they live in, so maybe it's something they've picked up from them. Lord knows arguing with those people isn't going to keep you sharp. I'm not talking about you though, you're actually engaging with me even if you're not agreeing with me.

And before anyone says it, just because I compared the way of arguing does not mean I think the substance behind it is equivalent.

VitalSigns posted:

You're making things up to prove some maximally pedantic point about...something. I don't even know.

The point that racism (or any other of the -isms) is better argued in conjunction with the other major system that rules our society, capitalism, is not a pedantic point. It's just that people react to an assumption of what I'm saying, decide it's time to dig in their heels and not give a single inch of ground, which means you get bogged down in what seems like a pedantic point because they won't let you move past it. The idea that in specific circumstances, the system might be flipped on its head, is not just a pedantic little detail, it's acknowledging that the mechanics behind racism are much more complex than "white people are bad". Doesn't even matter that in aggregate you still see white people as bad, hell, who would blame you, it just matters that you can see that a lot of the power the system has is tied up into its connection to the capitalist structure our society is built around. Not all of it, but I do believe it lends it a whole lot of power it wouldn't otherwise have.

Maybe I've misunderstood people, and they actually agree with that? It wouldn't be the first time people misunderstand each other based on their usual experiences with the topic, and I'm certainly not going to claim I have perfect understanding of other people's thoughts.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jun 23, 2014

# ¿ Jun 23, 2014 00:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?