John Lame Deer

[Cypress]

Thomas Jefferson recognized that slavery was wrong, but still kept and banged his slaves. The difference between an ideal and a reality.

The modern world was built on ideals but most people are motivated out of self-interest, the reality. Good government protects people from each other. The fact cities can't control gangs shows the flaws in our society. Mostly it's a matter of resources and lack thereof for an affordable price. I doubt we'll be able to have a true meritocracy without unlimited energy and the ability to convert matter into whatever we need.

Even then,without advances in mental healthcare, we'll still have the problem of mentally ill people killing others.

Yes, in some sense Jefferson felt slavery was wrong . In Jefferson's own generation, slavery was outlawed in Europe and banned in the northern United States.

What I am saying is we can't look back and excuse slavery and the nature of colonization because everyone back then thought it was the natural order of things.

Spanish Dominican friars were petitioning the crown to reign in the enslavement and abuse of indigenous by Spanish settlers. People in North America said Indians should be treated fairly.

I am saying colonization could have proceeded differently, because there was a sense of morality about it. But people choose not to act in accordance with a moral compass

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The early tribes were responsible for wiping out the majority of mega fauna from North America

They clear cut forests with fire leaf idling to soil erosion and destroying life in huge parts of major rivers

You need to look at the real history of native Americans, not just the woke version

Hell the Iroquois and Mohawk tribes practiced cannibalism

You are truly insane. Not a shred of this is true. Early humans in the western hemisphere did not kill off the megafauna. Climate change did that.

Your second sentence is a false word salad; quit drunk-posting. Let's see your credible evidence for what you are so poorly trying to say about destroying life in rivers.

Your last sentence is a bald-faced lie. BTW, did you know that our Constitution was influenced by the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy's laws?

In 1988, Congress passed a resolution formally acknowledging the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy on the U.S. Constitution. It reads, "The confederation of the original 13 colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy, as were many of the democratic principles incorporated into the constitution itself.” In addition, the resolution stated, “the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution,” which reaffirmed the legitimacy and sovereignty of Native nations and their governments.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, in some sense Jefferson felt slavery was wrong . In Jefferson's own generation, slavery was outlawed in Europe and banned in the northern United States.

What I am saying is we can't look back and excuse slavery and the nature of colonization because everyone back then thought it was the natural order of things.

Spanish Dominican friars were petitioning the crown to reign in the enslavement and abuse of indigenous by Spanish settlers. People in North America said Indians should be treated fairly.

I am saying colonization could have proceeded differently, because there was a sense of morality about it. But people choose not to act in accordance with a moral compass

Recognizing that's the way things were is not "excusing" their behavior. There's not a damn thing anyone can do to change history...despite efforts by, first, Democrats and, now, Republicans to revise history in our K-12 textbooks. It's important to understand the past so we can work in the present to forge a better future.

Obviously those pushing Peace, Love, Dove during the Spanish Inquisition were in the minority. LOL Yes, they were better Christians, but still in the minority.

 

[Cypress]

Recognizing that's the way things were is not "excusing" their behavior. There's not a damn thing anyone can do to change history...despite efforts by, first, Democrats and, now, Republicans to revise history in our K-12 textbooks. It's important to understand the past so we can work in the present to forge a better future.

Obviously those pushing Peace, Love, Dove during the Spanish Inquisition were in the minority. LOL Yes, they were better Christians, but still in the minority.

Slavery was never widespread, except where sugar, tobacco, and cotton were cultivated in the tropics and subtropics of the Caribbean, South America, southern United States.

So obviously what was driving it was capitalism and mercantilism; not a sense that slavery was just the perfectly understandable natural order of things.

I'm saying that, in large part, people turned a blind eye to the immorality of slavery, rather then letting their moral conscience speak to them. The people most interested in defending forced labor had an economic vested interest or were amoral sadists, usually both.

 

[Cypress]

Great observation. Remember the "hippies" of the 60s and 70s? They often dressed as pseudo-natives with braids, beads, headbands, etc. and adopted many of the spiritual ideation of indigenous Americans. The EPA and other laws protecting wildlife and domestic animals stemmed from that, at least in part, I believe.

Do you remember what the most effective of the early environmental commercials were on TV in the early 1970s?

It was that anti-pollution ad that ended with a closeup of the Indian with a tear rolling down his check.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Slavery was never widespread, except where sugar, tobacco, and cotton were cultivated in the tropics and subtropics of the Caribbean, South America, southern United States.

So obviously what was driving it was capitalism and mercantilism; not a sense that slavery was just the perfectly understandable natural order of things.

I'm saying that, in large part, people turned a blind eye to the immorality of slavery, rather then letting their moral conscience speak to them. The people most interested in defending forced labor had an economic vested interest or were amoral sadists, usually both.

"It's all about the money". Didn't the Dutch start the Slave Triangle? Slavery has existed throughout all history. It's even addressed in the OT on how to treat slaves.

Peasants and serfs are treated like slaves. Their overlords could kill them, beat them or tax them with impunity.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Actually, any ignorance here is yours. You are correct that the fur trade went too far and nearly exterminated not just beaver, but otter, mink, ermine, fox. The French contributed heavily to the wanton trapping. You're probably aware that the French hailed from Europe and were not indigenous, although we can't ascertain anything about your woeful mental database. You've also no doubt heard of the Hudson Bay Company? Again, Europeans.

Next item of bigotry I can dispel for you?

I never claimed it was only the native Americans doing it, my point was to show that they were far friendlier the nature loving people they are made out to be

 

[Tinkerpeach]

“A buffalo jump, or sometimes bison jump, is a cliff formation which Indigenous peoples of North America historically used to hunt and kill plains bison in mass quantities. The broader term game jump refers to a man-made jump or cliff used for hunting other game, such as reindeer.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buf...mp, or sometimes,other game, such as reindeer.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

“A buffalo jump, or sometimes bison jump, is a cliff formation which Indigenous peoples of North America historically used to hunt and kill plains bison in mass quantities. The broader term game jump refers to a man-made jump or cliff used for hunting other game, such as reindeer.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buf...mp, or sometimes,other game, such as reindeer.

Now prove they ran an entire herd of hundreds and only took one leaving the rest to rot, Tink.

Look up buffalo runs where they would drive hundreds of buffalo off a cliff just to get one and leaving the others to rot...

 

[Cypress]

"It's all about the money". Didn't the Dutch start the Slave Triangle? Slavery has existed throughout all history. It's even addressed in the OT on how to treat slaves.

Peasants and serfs are treated like slaves. Their overlords could kill them, beat them or tax them with impunity.

I'm not sure about the Dutch. The Caribbean sugar economy seems to me to have been mostly French, British, Spanish.

Serfs were treated badly, but being a serf was better than being a chattel slave.

My opinion about slavery in antiquity is that almost exclusively we only have the writings of wealthy, literate, and important people. Exactly the type of people with a vested interest in the slave economy.

So we really only have a very tiny slice of the opinions humans had about slavery.

Peasants and slaves virtually never wrote anything, and when they did they didn't appear to appreciate the argument about the natural order of slavery. Epictetus was a former slave who spoke against slavery.

There certainly were enough slave and serf rebellions to suggest a lot of people didn't buy the argument that slavery was perfectly natural.

My guess is that in antiquity, just as in the antebellum South, it was only people benefiting from slavery who were able to turn a blind eye to any moral arguments, and instead declare slavery was the natural order of things.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not sure about the Dutch. The Caribbean sugar economy seems to me to have been mostly French, British, Spanish.

Serfs were treated badly, but being a serf was better than being a chattel slave.

My opinion about slavery in antiquity is that almost exclusively we only have the writings of wealthy, literate, and important people. Exactly the type of people with a vested interest in the slave economy.

So we really only have a very tiny slice of the opinions humans had about slavery.

Peasants and slaves virtually never wrote anything, and when they did they didn't appear to appreciated the argument about the natural order of slavery. Epictetus was a former slave who spoke against slavery.

There certainly were enough slave and serf rebellions to suggest s lot of people didn't buy the argument that slavery was perfectly natural.

My guess is that in antiquity, just as in the antebellum South, it was only people benefiting from slavery who were able to turn a blind eye to any moral arguments, and instead declare slavery was the natural order of things.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66076562
Dutch King Willem-Alexander apologises for country's role in slavery

The country became a major colonial power after the 17th Century, holding territories across the globe, and Dutch slave traders trafficked more than 600,000 people...

...During the 17th Century the Netherlands conquered large swathes of territory in regions that now make up Indonesia, South Africa, Curaçao and West Papua, and became a key player in the transatlantic slave trade.

Thousands of people were trafficked from Africa to Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and South America - amounting to around 5% of the entire transatlantic slave trade - before the practice was banned in 1863....

...The Netherlands generated huge wealth from the slave trade, and in the western province of Holland alone a Dutch Research Council study found that 40% of economic growth between 1738 and 1780 could be attributed to the trade.

Agreed being a Serf was step up from being a chattel slave. Not a big step, but a step.

Slavery is only "natural" in that humans are brutal animals with the unique ability to plan ahead.

 

[Cypress]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66076562
Dutch King Willem-Alexander apologises for country's role in slavery


Agreed being a Serf was step up from being a chattel slave. Not a big step, but a step.

Slavery is only "natural" in that humans are brutal animals with the unique ability to plan ahead.

Didn't know the Dutch were such prolific slave traders!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Didn't know the Dutch were such prolific slave traders!

They kick started it all. They were also the original European owners of Manhattan....which brings up the clash of cultures and perspectives. The Dutch, like all Westerners, believed in buying and owning things. The Native Americans in the region of NY didn't believe anyone can own land, IIRC. So when the Dutch offered to buy Manhattan from them, they didn't really get it. Just the fact the Dutch would give them a bunch of stuff to live on the island.

 

[Cypress]

They kick started it all. They were also the original European owners of Manhattan....which brings up the clash of cultures and perspectives. The Dutch, like all Westerners, believed in buying and owning things. The Native Americans in the region of NY didn't believe anyone can own land, IIRC. So when the Dutch offered to buy Manhattan from them, they didn't really get it. Just the fact the Dutch would give them a bunch of stuff to live on the island.

At one time, the King of Spain outlawed the enslavement of indigenous people in the Americas because the Dominican priests had been complaining to him about the abusive practices of the Spanish settlers. But in practice, this royal decree was never really enforced.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

At one time, the King of Spain outlawed the enslavement of indigenous people in the Americas because the Dominican priests had been complaining to him about the abusive practices of the Spanish settlers. But in practice, this royal decree was never really enforced.

All for show, like Trump standing in front of a church with a Bible? LOL

 

[Cypress]

All for show, like Trump standing in front of a church with a Bible? LOL

Yes, the Spanish government probably didn't want to devote resources to enforce a royal decree that was supposed to protect brown people on the opposite side of the planet. Not a high priority.

Slavery was practically non-existent in Europe from the fall of the western Roman empire, to the dawn of the transatlantic commercial economy. That's about a thousand years with no measurable slavery in Europe.

That suggests to me that in European Christendom, slavery was vaguely recognized as immoral, rather than a perfectly natural and desirable state of affairs.

Slavery was generally a shock to the moral conscience, and only managed to sneak in when the profit motive of sugar and tobacco cultivation in the tropics and subtropics of the New World became to tempting to ignore for the mercentilists.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Yes, the Spanish government probably didn't want to devote resources to enforce a royal decree that was supposed to protect brown people on the opposite side of the planet. Not a high priority.

Slavery was practically non-existent in Europe from the fall of the western Roman empire, to the dawn of the transatlantic commercial economy. That's about a thousand years with no measurable slavery in Europe.

That suggests to me that in European Christendom, slavery was vaguely recognized as immoral, rather than a perfectly natural and desirable state of affairs.

Slavery was generally a shock to the moral conscience, and only managed to sneak in when the profit motive of sugar and tobacco cultivation in the tropics and subtropics of the New World became to tempting to ignore.

They had class systems which was slavery

 

[Cypress]

They had class systems which was slavery

No, you didn't get appointed to redefine words.

Peasants and serfs were treated unfairly, but they were better off than the standards of chattel slavery.

Serfs were not put in chains, they were able to keep part of what they produced off the land they cultivated, they had the freedom to marry and their families were not generally ripped apart by the landlord selling the children and wives off.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No, you didn't get appointed to redefine words.

Peasants and serfs were treated unfairly, but they were better off than the standards of chattel slavery.

Serfs were not put in chains, they were able to keep part of what they produced off the land they cultivated, they had the freedom to marry and their families were not generally ripped apart by the landlord selling the children and wives off.

There are many different types of slavery you know

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, the Spanish government probably didn't want to devote resources to enforce a royal decree that was supposed to protect brown people on the opposite side of the planet. Not a high priority.

Slavery was practically non-existent in Europe from the fall of the western Roman empire, to the dawn of the transatlantic commercial economy. That's about a thousand years with no measurable slavery in Europe.

That suggests to me that in European Christendom, slavery was vaguely recognized as immoral, rather than a perfectly natural and desirable state of affairs.

Slavery was generally a shock to the moral conscience, and only managed to sneak in when the profit motive of sugar and tobacco cultivation in the tropics and subtropics of the New World became to tempting to ignore for the mercentilists.

Who said slavery was "a perfectly natural and desirable state of affairs"? Agreed most Christians didn't seem to see slavery as moral but times change. Royalty made do with serfs, peasants and other commoners.