site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29327 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That the slave population grew from a high birth rate does not indicate in any fashion that their labor wasn’t disposable,

Perhaps, but the fact that is was not disposed of does imply that it was not so disposable after all, does it not. It doesn't prove it, obviously, but it is certainly evidence in that direction. Note also that slave labor was disposed of more often in the Caribbean, though there were lots of differences between the Caribbean and the South, not least of which was the fact that most owners in the Caribbean were absentees, and the plantations there were managed by hired overseers whose performance was often measured by the current year's output, creating a clear principal-agent problem. There are many documents in which slave owners complain about overseers mistreating slaves.

The expenses of a slave are not in their upfront cost but in their cost to employ, which was significantly less inexpensive than those who could compete in the marketplace and demand higher wages.

  1. Even if true -- how do you know that it was significantly less expensive, given that slave owners were responsible for providing room, board, health care, and de facto retirement benefits for slaves -- this undermines your claim that slaves could have been easily replaced by white immigrants.

Few of those immigrants migrated to the South because a very interesting thing occurred post-Civil War called industrialization, which changed the American economy considerably. Additionally, the end of slavery did not entail the end of black people laboring in fields for little pay.

? But, you literally said that slaves "and were indeed replaced" by immigrants. Now you are saying that they weren't, which is correct, as shown by the data in the link I provided, and by the fact that, yes, slavery did not entail the end of black people laboring in the fields for little pay. Remember, the question is about the role of slaves in the economy, not the role of black people.

Caribbean islands also had a much higher mortality rate due to disease, no? https://www.virgin-islands-history.org/en/history/slavery/illness-and-death-among-the-enslaved/

Even in the Caribbean, the idea that it would be more cost efficient to work a slave to death and replace him with a new one is probably erroneous, because there are training costs associated with the work, and a young slave who is trained to perform a particular task will have increased productivity in his 20s when kept alive.

Plantation owners would also be responsible for providing room/board/food in the form of pay. The crucial difference between a slave and a citizen is that a citizen has bargaining power, and a slave does not. A plantation owner can provide the bare minimum. Unless you believe that the conditions of a slave were greater than the conditions that a citizen would expect as adequate compensation for his labor.

Slaves were indeed replaced by immigrants in the economy in the North.

You just seem to be throwing out half-sensed ideas hoping one would stick… but surely you know such things as “slaves did not have bargaining power” and “the West Indies had unique disease”. Remember that the argument is “were slaves some crucial ingredient without which America would not be built”, or a topic similar to this — whether we should say slaves built America, when we clearly do not say the same about Irish slaves in Tunisia or Russian slaves in the Ottoman Empire. I’m arguing that they were used because of their cheapness, because any reasonable employer would choose the cheapest option. What is your argument exactly against this?

Caribbean islands also had a much higher mortality rate due to disease, no?

Yes, they did. They were worse in many respects.

Even in the Caribbean, the idea that it would be more cost efficient to work a slave to death and replace him with a new one is probably erroneous

For owners, perhaps not. For overseers, perhaps so. See my reference to the principal-agent problem. There is a decent amount of literature on this precise topic, IIRC.

I’m arguing that they were used because of their cheapness, because any reasonable employer would choose the cheapest option. What is your argument exactly against this?

I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against your original, and more extreme claim, that "It is not even correct to say it about the South, regardless of the North. Slaves were mostly (but not entirely) disposable labor."

To go back to the very first point of discussion, why do you believe it is correct to say that “slaves built the South”, versus “Slavs built the Ottoman Empire”?

I don't. See my first response to you, as well as my post ridiculing the work of Edward Baptist.

The crucial difference between a slave and a citizen is that a citizen has bargaining power, and a slave does not.

Materially, the position of American slaves was far, far superior than that of notionally free Chinese. What use is bargaining power if people are literally starving to death within a month if fired ? That was how things were in 19th century China.

The crucial difference between a slave and a citizen is that a citizen has bargaining power, and a slave does not.

That's not actually true. Slaves could - and did! - slack on the job, assist in minor sabotage efforts, and rebel/escape. Overseers, particularly on large estates, understood that they were a tiny minority of the labor-force, could not be everywhere or keep up omni-directional surveillance, and could be overwhelmed. They also understood that they were responsible for the levels of output the plantation produced. Far easier to set up a complicated system of carrots and sticks to try to incentivize collaboration and productivity than to just try to literally whip everything into good morale.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats