It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Slavery on the Way Out?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe


So these southern conservatives were the ones to end the filibuster and push the Civil Rights Act through....not the progressives as everyone always gives credit.....the majority were against it. Both sides had opposition, but it was the Democratic party that lead the way in hindering rights for all....


You're too smart to be saying nonsense like this.


Here is Mark Levin speaking about it all...and every point is correct.


Why not say, "here is Mark Levin, conservative talk radio host, Edwin Meese's former chief of staff and member of the Reagan administration to back up this myth?"

Though the shift began somewhere in the mid-1870's, it really became apparent in 1896, after the People's Party merged into the Democratic Party and the renowned progressive orator William Jennings Bryan ("The Great Commoner") was chosen as the party's candidate in the 1896 (and then again in 1900 and also in 1908). This is despite the Democrats having won the presidency twice with "Bourbon Democrat" Grover Cleveland, the last wholly conservative leader of the Democratic Party, in two of the three past elections (1884 and 1892). Thought Bryan didn't win the presidency, he was highly regarded and extremely influential in his party (similar to Goldwater's influence over the GOP in the 1960's).

When the Democrats finally took back the White House (Woodrow Wilson) and also took a congressional majority, they passed a slew of progressive legislation based in large part on Bryan's platform.

Adamson Act - 8 hour work day and overtime pay for railroad workers
Federal Trade Commission Act
Clayton Antitrust Act
Keating-Owen Act - attempt to curtail child labor

etc etc..

Then we get to the 30's, FDR and the New Deal. Would you refer to the New Deal as conservative? Then in 1948, the schism among southern Democrats and the rest of the party over segregation became so severe that a group of southern Democrats jumped ship and formed the extremely short-lived States' Rights Democratic Party aka the "Dixiecrats."

Meanwhile, over at the GOP, there were also strongly opposing factions, chiefly those who supported the New Deal (mostly from the Northeast and led by Dewey, later to evolve into the "Rockefeller Republicans" and these days RINOs) and those who had not and did not (mostly in the Midwest and led by Taft aka "Mr. Republican") and fought to repeal portions of it in the 40's with the help of southern Democrats. Once the GOP controlled Congress, you start to see passage of undeniably conservative and anti-labor legislation such as the Taft-Hartley (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947) which:


prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns.


This is getting a bit long so I'm going to wrap it up with the breakdown of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by party and region (excerpt from Wikipedia)


The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


As you can see, only 8 yeas from southern congressmen, period. Also note that such prominent conservatives as Goldwater and William F. Buckley, Jr. were against the act. Consider also what MLK had to say about the make up of the parties and their support of civil rights:

"Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights"

Finally, look at some of the changes in party affiliation of politicians following in the 60's and 70's such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms becoming Republicans and Byrd becoming an independent. Here's a list of party changes.


That is not a very unbiased opinion either. Nor can you describe voting records by cut and pasting history foe over 120 years.

Wilson didn't think women should vote and was a known racist. A lot of progressives also adhered to the eugenic principles at the time. Rockefeller talks a lot in his own words about the politicians at the time who were progressives that believes in his eugenic principles. Even planned parenthood can be tied to eugenics.

The Republicans voted to have blacks in public service when democrats wouldn't touch the bill. Yes there were plenty of republican (Roosevelt progressives) but the pubs until Eisenhower were much more consistent in actually voting for black rights first through public service jobs.

When the Christian right was forming and forcing Nixon as Eisenhower's VP and later battled Kennedy was a major change in Republican ideology.

Looking at who switched parties after the civil rights bill is not the o ly indicator as the mood of the public was changing they also voted some of these democrats out (also for their party stabbing them in the back).

If you look at the southern vote and who they voted for after the civil rights bill its a better indication of who changed (in public not just politicians). The south lost its democratic majorities and many states never voted that way again.

You can cut and paste me all you want but I actually took classes in this subject and had discussions led by history and philosophy professors. You can't always extract things from history and understand them without a clear picture of the whole of what was going on.

Progressives early on were not snuggly people. In many cases they were extremely upper class out of touch people who had ideas of how to change human behavior.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I gave you a star for pointing out that Wilson was a racist. I don't think that is said about him enough. He was a first class asshole and his administrations policies and direction are largely blamed for the reemergence of the KKK which had all but died out by the time his Presidency started.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
History has proven that slavery wouldn`t have lasted. The same thing that has killed many American jobs would have killed slavery, GREED.
Even in the 1860`s greed was rearing it`s ugly head. In the North European immigrants were the main workforce for in the factories and were working for slave wages in horrible conditions.
It wouldn`t have been long until some southern plantation owner discovered that he could increase profits by getting rid of his slaves and replacing them with low paid immigrants.
The disadvantage that slavery had,and the thing that would have killed it was that owning slaves was expensive. the owner was responsible for providing everything for the slaves, food, clothes, shelter, medical care etc. A low paid immigrant that was paid a dollar a week was responsible for paying for their own food, clothes, shelter, medical care etc, out of their wages.
In another 30-40 years Greed would have killed slavery.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How illuminating.


I actually took classes in this subject and had discussions led by history and philosophy professors. You can't always extract things from history and understand them without a clear picture of the whole of what was going on.


Clearly, congratulations are in order for a job well done! Bravo sir, bravo!

I'm sorry if you feel that my one post summation of a century of American politics lacked nuance but frankly, the informational content of your response seems a bit lacking so excuse me if I don't take too seriously the criticisms of a person who feels that the following is some sort of revelation:


I think you are confused. Words meant different things back then. Liberalism used to be very conservative. John Locke and the enlightenment movement created the term. Look it up. The real definition is much more like a libertarian today. A progressive is not liberal by the old definition. Progressives were not always very progressive. Like Woodrow Wilson who didn't think women should vote or their tie to eugenics.


Do you imagine that everyone is ignorant of the Progressive era intelligentsia's love affair with eugenics? You know what might be more of a gotcha? Revealing the role of eugenics in the modern anti-immigration movement popular among many conservatives, TODAY.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: luthier

How illuminating.


I actually took classes in this subject and had discussions led by history and philosophy professors. You can't always extract things from history and understand them without a clear picture of the whole of what was going on.


Clearly, congratulations are in order for a job well done! Bravo sir, bravo!

I'm sorry if you feel that my one post summation of a century of American politics lacked nuance but frankly, the informational content of your response seems a bit lacking so excuse me if I don't take too seriously the criticisms of a person who feels that the following is some sort of revelation:


I think you are confused. Words meant different things back then. Liberalism used to be very conservative. John Locke and the enlightenment movement created the term. Look it up. The real definition is much more like a libertarian today. A progressive is not liberal by the old definition. Progressives were not always very progressive. Like Woodrow Wilson who didn't think women should vote or their tie to eugenics.


Do you imagine that everyone is ignorant of the Progressive era intelligentsia's love affair with eugenics? You know what might be more of a gotcha? Revealing the role of eugenics in the modern anti-immigration movement popular among many conservatives, TODAY.


Hmm seems a bit hostel on your part. Exactly how are conservatives eugenicists today? For not wanting illegal immigration? For wanting to make sure there aren't wackos walking over the boarder who don't belong here or are they actually writing manifestos on the subject of racial superiority?

My post lacking content? You mean because I didn't just cut and paste excerpts I don't understand the broad scope of? Would that be better?

Conservatives today are progressives. They want to mold people into an idea they have of what people should be just like the liberal progressives. There was a time when a lot more politicians were actually just trying to protect peoples liberties.

I don't like conservatives any more than "liberals".

Do you think clintons mandatory drug sentencing was progressive? Or him privatizing wellfare? How about telecom or campaign buttons with the confederate flag? I fully admit the neocons are what they are, but the left is in no way better politically speaking. Where are the inner city job training and placement programs and education support? Nah just trickle them a few dimes and take them away when they try to help themselves get out.

Its a joke and both sides are to blame but the past was different.

Jfk is one of my favorites despite his mangling of vietnam. I would vote for sanders in a second if the republican running as democrat wasnt going to beat him out.

So what wasnt true? Republicans were not the first advocates for black rights? They didnt pioneer blacks being able to hold public service jobs in the 20th century helping chip away at racism after the civil war? Or that democrats wouldnt touch the civil rights legislation including fdr until JFK wrote the bill and Johnson passed it?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Slavery is still kicking.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I often wonder , if it was the steam engine that ended slavery, the traction engine, was making slavery non economic, to the point where it was becoming uneconomical. If your of that mind where it was nice to own, human beings, it would have always have been a wrench, when they were no longer there. But life on a plantation , being nice to "Massa" because he owned you. Then finding that you had to work in the industrial north and compete for jobs, where kissing the bosses a#@#@ was the same thing. Might have been a chalice as poisoned, as life on the plantation. As a slave you had worth, you were an expensive asset, which had to fed, and housed , if not you would have become an uneconomic liability, not a good thing when you had cost many dollars. To say Lincoln freed the slaves is a bit rich freed them for what? how free are we now?.

The whole of the USA started on slavery, white bonded servitude, was the thing before, black slavery, where Africans were rounding up other Africans to sell. Romans were rounding up any one they could. Its been endemic with humanity until the steam engine started the Industrial revolution. I'm saying it was cheaper to not have slaves than to have them purely because of technical innovations, not for some morality driven crusade . It was cheaper to let them find a job, than to feed and house them, scary but true.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I often wonder , if it was the steam engine that ended slavery, the traction engine, was making slavery non economic, to the point where it was becoming uneconomical. If your of that mind where it was nice to own, human beings, it would have always have been a wrench, when they were no longer there. But life on a plantation , being nice to "Massa" because he owned you. Then finding that you had to work in the industrial north and compete for jobs, where kissing the bosses a#@#@ was the same thing. Might have been a chalice as poisoned, as life on the plantation. As a slave you had worth, you were an expensive asset, which had to fed, and housed , if not you would have become an uneconomic liability, not a good thing when you had cost many dollars. To say Lincoln freed the slaves is a bit rich freed them for what? how free are we now?.

The whole of the USA started on slavery, white bonded servitude, was the thing before, black slavery, where Africans were rounding up other Africans to sell. Romans were rounding up any one they could. Its been endemic with humanity until the steam engine started the Industrial revolution. I'm saying it was cheaper to not have slaves than to have them purely because of technical innovations, not for some morality driven crusade . It was cheaper to let them find a job, than to feed and house them, scary but true.


Well crap what will we do when automation and robotics take over the majority of the jobs left?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Hostile? Hardly. Snarky maybe but entirely appropriate given your condescension.


Exactly how are conservatives eugenicists today? For not wanting illegal immigration? For wanting to make sure there aren't wackos walking over the boarder who don't belong here or are they actually writing manifestos on the subject of racial superiority?


Since when have American immigration laws been about "wanting to make sure there aren't wackos walking over the boarder [sic] who don't belong here?" Was that the purpose of the Chinese Exclusion Act? How about the Immigration Act of 1917 (ironically vetoed by Wilson) which along with various ethnic groups, also banned anyone who was "mentally or physically defective" including gays, epileptics, illiterate adults, etc etc. Then there was the Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924 which according to the Office of Historian, had the sole purpose of preserving "the ideal of U.S. homogeneity." In fact, the use of national origins formulas was part of every 20th century immigration law until the mid-60s.

Today we have groups like FAIR and NumbersUSA behind legislation like Arizona SB 1070. Then there's the favorite of GOP politicians, the Heritage Foundation and Fox News, CIS. What do those three organizations have in common? John Tanton, who founded FAIR, was the employer of Roy Beck when he (Beck) supposedly founded NumbersUSA (with Tanton funding) and who raised the funding for CIS when it spun off from FAIR in 1985.

Tanton is also the founder of ProEnglish and Social Contract Press. From 1965-1971 he held various positions with Planned Parenthood and in 1975 he wrote a paper, "The Case for Passive Eugenics" (does that qualify as a manifesto?) — maybe he was inspired by Sanger or was already deep into eugenics and saw PP as a vehicle for advancing a population control and eugenics agenda (fair enough given its founder's views and history) and wanted to get involved. He also started the now defunct, Society for the Advancement of Genetic Education (you can guess). He was a close friend of (the now deceased) Harry Weyher, former president of the Pioneer Fund, from which FAIR received millions in funding. The Pioneer Fund also funded much of the research used in the The Bell Curve, written by Richard J. Herrnstein and... Charles Alan Murray.

It goes on and on and on. There's a couple charts from a few years ago at Mother Jones showing the relationships between various organizations, PACs, politicians and John Tanton.


Conservatives today are progressives.


Do you think clintons mandatory drug sentencing was progressive?


No. The Clintons and the Bushes are neoliberal birds of a feather. The modern American "left" is actually pretty far to the right compared to other countries and to the American left at other times in history. Similarly, the "right" is always blabbering about smaller government, but when was the last time the Republicans actually did anything but grow government? What they really mean when they say smaller government is cutting social welfare funding so they can spend it elsewhere.


fully admit the neocons are what they are, but the left is in no way better politically speaking. Where are the inner city job training and placement programs and education support? Nah just trickle them a few dimes and take them away when they try to help themselves get out.


In my opinion neither party has an actual solution. The GOP has been pushing supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics nonsense since that fateful lunch date with Laffer, Rummsfeld and Cheney. Meanwhile, the Democrats don't have anything approaching a meaningful strategy either and they just seem to be hoping that nobody will notice because they'll be too busy focusing on what douche bags the conservatives are on social issues.


Jfk is one of my favorites despite his mangling of vietnam. I would vote for sanders in a second if the republican running as democrat wasnt going to beat him out.


Well damn, we might actually have more in common that it would have seemed because I agree with everything above 100%. I believe JFK and RFK were sincere in their support of the Civil Rights movement (unlike LBJ) and Bernie is the only candidate that I have any real interest in voting for currently.


So what wasnt true? Republicans were not the first advocates for black rights? They didnt pioneer blacks being able to hold public service jobs in the 20th century helping chip away at racism after the civil war? Or that democrats wouldnt touch the civil rights legislation including fdr until JFK wrote the bill and Johnson passed it?


I think where the confusion is coming in here is that what I was responding to originally is this myth that the GOP has been pushing in recent years that the modern Republican party is this ideological continuation of a monolithic platform stretching back to Lincoln and clearly, they are not. If you took the modern GOP and transported them back to 1964 and recorded their votes, there'd be a lot more nays.
edit on 2015-6-25 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: luthier

Hostile? Hardly. Snarky maybe but entirely appropriate given your condescension.


Exactly how are conservatives eugenicists today? For not wanting illegal immigration? For wanting to make sure there aren't wackos walking over the boarder who don't belong here or are they actually writing manifestos on the subject of racial superiority?


Since when have American immigration laws been about "wanting to make sure there aren't wackos walking over the boarder [sic] who don't belong here?" Was that the purpose of the Chinese Exclusion Act? How about the Immigration Act of 1917 (ironically vetoed by Wilson) which along with various ethnic groups, also banned anyone who was "mentally or physically defective" including gays, epileptics, illiterate adults, etc etc. Then there was the Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924 which according to the Office of Historian, had the sole purpose of preserving "the ideal of U.S. homogeneity." In fact, the use of national origins formulas was part of every 20th century immigration law until the mid-60s.

Today we have groups like FAIR and NumbersUSA behind legislation like Arizona SB 1070. Then there's the favorite of GOP politicians, the Heritage Foundation and Fox News, CIS. What do those three organizations have in common? John Tanton, who founded FAIR, was the employer of Roy Beck when he (Beck) supposedly founded NumbersUSA (with Tanton funding) and who raised the funding for CIS when it spun off from FAIR in 1985.

Tanton is also the founder of ProEnglish and Social Contract Press. From 1965-1971 he held various positions with Planned Parenthood and in 1975 he wrote a paper, "The Case for Passive Eugenics" (does that qualify as a manifesto?) — maybe he was inspired by Sanger or was already deep into eugenics and saw PP as a vehicle for advancing a population control and eugenics agenda (fair enough given its founder's views and history) and wanted to get involved. He also started the now defunct, Society for the Advancement of Genetic Education (you can guess). He was a close friend of (the now deceased) Harry Weyher, former president of the Pioneer Fund, from which FAIR received millions in funding. The Pioneer Fund also funded much of the research used in the The Bell Curve, written by Richard J. Herrnstein and... Charles Alan Murray.

It goes on and on and on. There's a couple charts from a few years ago at Mother Jones showing the relationships between various organizations, PACs, politicians and John Tanton.


Conservatives today are progressives.


Do you think clintons mandatory drug sentencing was progressive?


No. The Clintons and the Bushes are neoliberal birds of a feather. The modern American "left" is actually pretty far to the right compared to other countries and to the American left at other times in history. Similarly, the "right" is always blabbering about smaller government, but when was the last time the Republicans actually did anything but grow government? What they really mean when they say smaller government is cutting social welfare funding so they can spend it elsewhere.


fully admit the neocons are what they are, but the left is in no way better politically speaking. Where are the inner city job training and placement programs and education support? Nah just trickle them a few dimes and take them away when they try to help themselves get out.


In my opinion neither party has an actual solution. The GOP has been pushing supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics nonsense since that fateful lunch date with Laffer, Rummsfeld and Cheney. Meanwhile, the Democrats don't have anything approaching a meaningful strategy either and they just seem to be hoping that nobody will notice because they'll be too busy focusing on what douche bags the conservatives are on social issues.


Jfk is one of my favorites despite his mangling of vietnam. I would vote for sanders in a second if the republican running as democrat wasnt going to beat him out.


Well damn, we might actually have more in common that it would have seemed because I agree with everything above 100%. I believe JFK and RFK were sincere in their support of the Civil Rights movement (unlike LBJ) and Bernie is the only candidate that I have any real interest in voting for currently.


So what wasnt true? Republicans were not the first advocates for black rights? They didnt pioneer blacks being able to hold public service jobs in the 20th century helping chip away at racism after the civil war? Or that democrats wouldnt touch the civil rights legislation including fdr until JFK wrote the bill and Johnson passed it?


I think where the confusion is coming in here is that what I was responding to originally is this myth that the GOP has been pushing in recent years that the modern Republican party is this ideological continuation of a monolithic platform stretching back to Lincoln and clearly, they are not. If you took the modern GOP and transported them back to 1964 and recorded their votes, there'd be a lot more nays.


I agree with most of what you said and will check out your links to passive eugenics.

However, illegal immigration over a porous border is something no country even the most liberal (Norway, Sweden, etc) allow. Its dangerous. Sure we should have a faster track to legal work permits. But we dont. I also think the GOP actually likes illegal immigration (cheap labor) as much as democrats (votes).

I wanted to point Republicans at one time were decent (up until Eisenhower IMO) and democrats were the bad guys (pretty much everyone except JFK, and Carter). I would say FDR but, i dont like his approach at all foe passing legislation and he was very over reaching). That said he had good ideas. Of course senators and congressman are different they run the gammut of viewpoint across the regions but generally speaking. I think post Reagan dems are pretty much republican light and fairly spineless. I loved dennis K but they redistricted him out of a job. I also like R paul despite some possible shady subjects. I think his civil rights talk was mostly extreme libertarian view of government intervention in private bussiness not necesarrily racism (i am aware of his j birch stuff and possible ties to other racisits) however he has always used mlk as an isnspiration even in the 70's. I think it was great to watch him tear up his opponents in presidential debates but, i still am slightly weary of some things he says. Then again i am that way with most politicians.

Anyhow I apologise if I was heavy handed. I just have heard a lot of left propaganda in my early life when i lived in the NE. Most dont want to admit the history of the party in the south and think of the clintons as saviours.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Funny you should ask that question. I remember having a conversation with some "Well too do type" back in the sixties. It went a bit like. Wasn't it great that all the goods will be made by Robots, and we will end up with lots of leisure time . The response to my statement was, "They would then get rid of the working class." Scary but somehow that scenario, makes more sense, than having a lot of useless feeders , using up limited resources , when they are basically redundant . You can actually see, that resource availability is decreasing, for great swathes of society. Job availability is decreasing.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: luthier

Funny you should ask that question. I remember having a conversation with some "Well too do type" back in the sixties. It went a bit like. Wasn't it great that all the goods will be made by Robots, and we will end up with lots of leisure time . The response to my statement was, "They would then get rid of the working class." Scary but somehow that scenario, makes more sense, than having a lot of useless feeders , using up limited resources , when they are basically redundant . You can actually see, that resource availability is decreasing, for great swathes of society. Job availability is decreasing.



Are you famiar with Bucky Fuller? The guy spent his life trying to tell the world we have enough resources to take care of the world at a higher standard of living then currently available. His whole plan was to build everything with the efficiency of aircraft technology. Light weight structures in tension with efficient manufacturing. He is best known for the geodesic dome.

He also said we have a choice to fail or succeed as a species but we need to choose.

Oops. We didnt choose
edit on 25-6-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Historically speaking, is a bit like working out the form on racehorses, if a runner has never failed, then you would be stupid not to bet on it. In this case , it sadly looks like the working classes only existed to service their masters , and put up with it.They could have been slaves, or living in meagre tenements, scraping out what they could. Dying off when their usefulness, and their bodies had worn out. If society hasn't conquered poverty by now, then it seems to be an endemic condition of the human psych, to use it as a form of control. Which works well as the working classes, are more cruel to their own when , competing for resources, than to those that are manipulating them. Saying that the socially advanced countries like Sweden, and Norway seemed to have cracked it, where their is a fairer share out of resources, but you can't just pack up and move there. Even Communism was a con job, as party members just took the place of the capitalist upper middle classes. Their was a light after the second world war, when education health and housing, were priorities but then that got hijacked. Which showed that especially Britain, a bankrupt nation, could do wonders if the will was there . I think we are in dangerous territory now, and the power brokers, haven't really got a clue or the will to change inevitable consequences that are developing.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I often wonder , if it was the steam engine that ended slavery, the traction engine, was making slavery non economic, to the point where it was becoming uneconomical. If your of that mind where it was nice to own, human beings, it would have always have been a wrench, when they were no longer there. But life on a plantation , being nice to "Massa" because he owned you. Then finding that you had to work in the industrial north and compete for jobs, where kissing the bosses a#@#@ was the same thing. Might have been a chalice as poisoned, as life on the plantation. As a slave you had worth, you were an expensive asset, which had to fed, and housed , if not you would have become an uneconomic liability, not a good thing when you had cost many dollars. To say Lincoln freed the slaves is a bit rich freed them for what? how free are we now?.

The whole of the USA started on slavery, white bonded servitude, was the thing before, black slavery, where Africans were rounding up other Africans to sell. Romans were rounding up any one they could. Its been endemic with humanity until the steam engine started the Industrial revolution. I'm saying it was cheaper to not have slaves than to have them purely because of technical innovations, not for some morality driven crusade . It was cheaper to let them find a job, than to feed and house them, scary but true.


exactly! in the north workers were a dime a dozen,if you didn`t want to work in those conditions there were 100 other people who would, and you had to pay for everything yourself. Slaves were an expensive luxury item and not a good investment if you were trying to maximize profits. Todays marketplace is a perfect example of why slavery was doomed to failure.
if slavery was still legal how many employers would own slaves? and have to pay for clothes, food ,housing , medical care etc for those slaves, when they can just hire someone for minimum wage and make the employee pay for all those things out of their minimum wage salary?
You can buy toilet paper ( which is made of cotton) from Wal-Mart for 12 cents a roll, how much would it cost if slaves were still picking the cotton? about $5 a roll.

If the slave owners didn`t eventually figure out themselves how uneconomical slave owning was the government would have regulated slave owing into an unaffordable endevour.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: luthier

Funny you should ask that question. I remember having a conversation with some "Well too do type" back in the sixties. It went a bit like. Wasn't it great that all the goods will be made by Robots, and we will end up with lots of leisure time . The response to my statement was, "They would then get rid of the working class." Scary but somehow that scenario, makes more sense, than having a lot of useless feeders , using up limited resources , when they are basically redundant . You can actually see, that resource availability is decreasing, for great swathes of society. Job availability is decreasing.



Are you famiar with Bucky Fuller? The guy spent his life trying to tell the world we have enough resources to take care of the world at a higher standard of living then currently available. His whole plan was to build everything with the efficiency of aircraft technology. Light weight structures in tension with efficient manufacturing. He is best known for the geodesic dome.

He also said we have a choice to fail or succeed as a species but we need to choose.

Oops. We didnt choose


Because we are cowards, choosing means we have to take responsibility for our choice, by not choosing we can make excuses and pass the blame if we fail.
edit on 26-6-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: luthier

Funny you should ask that question. I remember having a conversation with some "Well too do type" back in the sixties. It went a bit like. Wasn't it great that all the goods will be made by Robots, and we will end up with lots of leisure time . The response to my statement was, "They would then get rid of the working class." Scary but somehow that scenario, makes more sense, than having a lot of useless feeders , using up limited resources , when they are basically redundant . You can actually see, that resource availability is decreasing, for great swathes of society. Job availability is decreasing.



or maybe the useless working class would get rid of the useless bottom feeders at the top, after all there are more useless working class than there are useless bottom feeding upper class.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

The thing was, in Rome Slaves were in most part used as booty and pay for the Legions . You couldn't get any more working class than a Roman soldier. Then they were sold in Rome on the open market, bought by those with the money. But in most cases after that, the main turmoil was over . Your were actually fed in a nice house, and after a while were treated as part of the family. The burial vaults tell a different story than the usual misery of the slave, slaves were usually buried in the family's vaults. The Options were limited as they are now, a life as a slave with an educated master, who would have you taught, and possibly given your freedom was more the norm than the rare event. In the domestic situation, human relationships cant help but develop between the occupants of the house.

But wasn't it only a few years ago that the concentration camps existed, that was slavery, no doubt a few guards broke the rules, and befriended the inmates . But in an industrial system it would have been an exception. The Gulag was slavery, see how it never seems to end, now we have sexual slavery. What's happening in the Chinese work camps?, if your a prisoner you work for free, their is no question about it, that surely is slavery. The goods they make are sold in the West. So we are still using slave labour, what's changed ?.The dumber you are the more likely you are going to be considered somebody else's human resource. I can see that the dumbing down is leading somewhere.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join