this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
717 points (97.0% liked)
Greentext
4825 readers
1250 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Much people forget before black slavery there was white slavery... So its just good if there is none slavery.
Are you saying white slavery was as systemic and width spread as black slavery in America? If so I’ve missed a big part of the American slave history.
No, I'm just saying what I wrote. It is not meant to be an equality or anything else but just a statement that it is good without any slavery no matter what origin, skin color and (even if I am an atheist and despise any religion) religious affiliation. It was also not referring to Americans but a general statement.
Sure, but the image is about a game taking place in American history. I agree that no slavery is good but you comment doesn’t add much to the historical context. If anything removes nuance.
Would be good without modern slavery right? Penal labor. But well affected are black white whatever.
But I could have expressed myself more directly
There is a certain type of whataboutism where people are just super eager to remind people that "well, actually, white people were slaves too" when referring to slavery in America. It's likely why they appear to be more on guard about what you're saying.
what is it that drives the desperate need you have to bring it up in this context?
the vast majority of people who know history know about indentured servitude. but it's a footnote compared the the millions of people systematically stolen (not indentured, note), taken to another part of the planet and bred for labor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth
Yes ok then say that you are happy that slavery of black people has stopped and that you don't care about any other form of slavery. < That's what the statement suggests because you're not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves...
pfft that's the most 13-year old racist edgelord shit I've heard in ages.
No, that's not what that says, you silly twat, lol... ok so there's this thing called context. And the context in which slavery was introduced, in this thread, was regarding the protagonist in the game going after slavery supporters.
AND YOU HAD TO FUCKIN' CHIME IN BUT BUT NOT ALL SLAVES-
motherfucking couldn't resist the urge. So answer the fucking question: what is it, inside you, that is so desperate that you need to reply with that specious bullshit?
TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF RDR2, the history of the US, it's referring to the human stain of racists enslaving black people for their entire lives, and the lives of their children in perpetuity. a very different thing compared to what irish indentured servants experienced.
The nice thing is that even population groups elsewhere on earth who never had anything to do with slavery condemn all slavery and also that it is good if slavery is generally ended. Without differentiating whether black or white because slavery is to be despised whether black or white. Do you think a black slave would have sought a difference to a white slave and vice versa? No...after all, both would have experienced the same fate... It is those who are not affected who want to differentiate as if one slavery is worse than the other... those who are affected would not do that...
bzzt wrong. Portuguese slave traders worked out deals with african tribal leaders in the 1400s. Unless you're going to relabel feudalism as slavery.
There was slavery before Portugal or feudalism were things. I'd wager slavery might even predate the homo sapien species and probably came soon after a species was able to communicate orders and threats.
ok, keep going, you're almost there: if you follow that back to the Olduvai gorge,, like you say, to the earliest humans - where were those hominids who were enslaving each other? come on, you can do it....
were they white people?
This idiotic statement:
Much people forget basic grammar too, apparently.
No, there's always some idiot who has to bring up that some white people (maybe even their ancestors) were also slaves, so he shouldn't have to XYZ. Or that people of color might have ancestors who enslaved each other, so XYZ. It's all silly bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth
I was just responding to what you said, not the overall line of argument. I was going to add stuff about not being able to determine the colour of those first slaves and it not really being relevant either way, but it felt like it was getting rambly so I cut it back to the main point.
Not comparable
Slavery is slavery no matter who does it or whom it's done to.
Not even close. Chattel slavery is much worse.
"White slavery" was white people that were slaves. Black slaves literally weren't viewed as people! Thus, no one cared if you beat them, starved them, raped them, tortured them, and/or killed them. Which we as a country did. That's the difference.
"viewed as people" is meaningless unless it confers some special rights afforded to people.
White slaves didn't have any more rights than black slaves, largely because skin-color based distinction is a rather modern invention (compared to the institution of slavery) and the defining traits of both black and white slaves were that they're slaves. And slaves were universally treated poorly. Even the most benevolent slave owners in antiquity were cruel, because why wouldn't you be? The damn thing might start getting uppity if you didn't remind it you're in control. Just imagine it might cause damage to someone else, and you'd be dragged to court over it!
A crime against your slave was a crime against your household (assuming you're the head of the household), which you were entitled to drag the other party to court for. But there was literally no legal framework that would allow any kind of prosecution for anything you did to your own household. You could also beat them, kill them, rape them, literally anything. They had no defense. The only person empowered to prosecute on their behalf would be the one beating them.
So no, "white people that were slaves" weren't people in any meaningful sense, because oppression and supremacy in much of the pre-modern world didn't care about skin color. The romanticism around white slavery is bullshit, because owning other humans has never been anything but cruel.
I don't think it was about "white vs black" as much as it was about "America can take any system, good or bad, and turn it into something so much worse".
Try again
This argument is fucking stupid. And racist.
The argument that chattle slavery and ye olde roman slavery are wildly different is stupid and racist? Cool story.
They're both two types of slavery. They're in the same category. They can be compared.
Of course they are comparable, just that the statement is a little strange in the context of American history.
Well sure anything can be compared in a literal sense. For example, based on your responses, I think you are either more racist or more ignorant than the average individual. However, the literal comparability of the two types of slavery is not exactly the point anyone is making here.
I must've misunderstood, sorry.