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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I know that slavery was integral to the economy of the southern states, but when people say "slavery built America", it seems like they're implying that it was integral to the northern states, too. My biases, which I am actively seeking to counteract, tell me that anyone who says slavery built America is ignoring history.. but y'know, I don't actually know that much about history. I just remember learning in high school that the southern economy was agricultural and sustained by unpaid labor, while the north wasn't agricultural and didn't have any financial need for slavery.
How important was slavery to the north, financially speaking? If the textile factories weren't able to get cotton from the south, would they have ceased to be, or would they have just gotten cotton elsewhere? (Like from overseas?)
It is not even correct to say it about the South, regardless of the North. Slaves were mostly (but not entirely) disposable labor who were brought over because they were inexpensive to purchase and had a +10 racial stat for heat resistance useful for the hot Southern summers. While it is true that intelligent slaves were often tasked with sophisticated skilled labor, and sometimes rose to great heights and were superior to white competitors, the cohort as a whole were brought over specifically to fulfill the most unskilled labor possible. They definitionally did not build anything, and in the absence of slavery they would have been replaced (and were indeed replaced) with poor European immigrants and Chinese workers.
(Today, globalism has replaced the exploitation of American slaves — by this I mean that we can outsource our exploitation to the poor African cobalt and lithium miners whose quality of life is worse than a mid-19th century slave in America. And we outsource our clothing to factories of questionable living standards and who even knows where China gets some of its materials. We pat ourselves on the back for our moral triumph, while we praise Apple execs for building the iPhone, before tweeting to the ancestors of the downtrodden white middle class that they built nothing and belong nowhere.)
The argument is obviously not that they literally built things, but rather that their labor enabled the growth of GDP, the accumulation of capital, etc. Obviously, there was some truth to that, since slaves made up a substantial portion of the labor force. But only some truth.
Perhaps in the Caribbean, but not in the US, as is evidenced by the fact that the slave population continued to grow after the importation of slaves was banned in 1808. There were 1.2 million slaves in the US in 1810 and 4 million in 1860; note also that the data in that link shows that the growth rate did not slow after importation was banned. Which makes sense, since only about 400,000 slaves were imported from Africa to North America; the vast majority went to the Caribbean and Brazil. Moreover, slaves were not cheap; prices apparently typically ranged from about $400 to $800, a pretty penny in those days.
Very few of those immigrants settled in the South. See here.
If the argument is that they labored, then don’t make a video shouting fervently that they built America. They built America like Slavic people built the Ottoman Empire, the Canaanites built the Temple Mount, and Irish people built modern day Tunisia.
That the slave population grew from a high birth rate does not indicate in any fashion that their labor wasn’t disposable, only that reproduction is cheaper than sailing to Africa. This is not surprising.
The expenses of a slave are not in their upfront cost but in their cost to employ, which was significantly less expensive than those who could compete in the marketplace and demand higher wages. Some were seen as an investment as their children would be slaves as well.
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.
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.
? 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?
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link