How did slaveholders rationalize the bondage and abuse of their own brothers, cousins, and sons?
>>880328
Well they paid for them.
>>880328
the negro is a pack animal
t. slaveholder
>>880328
People back then would beat their white family members too for disobedience.
But to answer your question more directly: enslaved children of masters would often be house servants and live under the same roof as their dad. Masters almost always denied their kinship with these slaves, but often privately recognized them and gave them privileges not afforded to other slaves. A few even freed them and bought them land out on the frontier or in the North. However if the slave ever tried to assert their relationship to their master they could be disowned or beaten for damaging the master's honor since sleeping with your slaves was considered trashy by polite society.
>>880328
Well they didn't enslave their brothers, cousins, or sons.
Although once you look at history you realize that 'freedom' really is a spook. A Greek slave might have more autonomy than many people stuck in office jobs today.
The reason the blacks had to beaten more than the Greeks is because the Greek slaves already understood the nature of civilization and what their role was. Black slaves had a very weak concept of civilization, you beat them for the same reason you would beat a mule, it can understand force.
>>880328
One drop blood racialism.
Next question.
>>880328
They didn't really abuse slaves related to their family any more than they disciplined white people. DESU, being a high yellow house slave would be a pretty comfy life.
>>880443
The old south never believed in the one drop rule. Many light skinned slaves were freed and melded into the white populace. It was an open secret that Jefferson Davis's own wife was part black. Even when the banned interracial marriage they never included a one drop rule until the 20th century.
>"It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of... colored blood...It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed" - George D. Tillman
>>880328
Jesus and biological determinism.
>>880390
>The reason the blacks had to beaten more than the Greeks is because the Greek slaves already understood the nature of civilization and what their role was. Black slaves had a very weak concept of civilization, you beat them for the same reason you would beat a mule, it can understand force.
That's what they say but then again one political was nearly lynched for having a vocabulary to "complicated" so you can say that everyone but the upper class landed gentry is an uncivilized brute.
>>882048
>It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of... colored blood
Ah yes, the good old "you hate nig nongs so much you're probably part nig nog" speech that liberals like to dish out. Sure it comes in different forms like "you hate the gays so you're a closeted homosexual", but it's all the same bullshit.
>>882103
Lol George Tillman was not a Liberal, he was just pointing out the obvious. Here's the full quote.
>“If the law is made as it now stands respectable families in Aiken, Barnwell, Colleton, and Orangeburg will be denied the right to intermarry among people with whom they are now associated and identified. At least one hundred families would be affected to my knowledge. They have sent good soldiers to the Confederate Army, and are now landowners and taxpayers. Those men served creditably, and it would be unjust and disgraceful to embarrass them in this way. It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of… colored blood. The pure-blooded white has needed and received a certain infusion of darker blood to give him readiness and purpose. It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice and greed; to statements on the witness stand that the father or grandfather or grandmother had said that A or B had Negro blood in their veins. Any man who is half a man would be ready to blow up half the world with dynamite to prevent or avenge attacks upon the honor of his mother in the legitimacy or purity of the blood of his father.”
>>880328
Chattel slavery basically. Understanding that blacks were essentially livestock and not human beings
ITT apparently all slaveholders were white and all slaves black
>>882155
Look at the OPs image. He was talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade.
>>882188
No, he was talking about slavery in America. The majority of slaves moved in the Atlantic Slave Trade went to Brazil and the rest of Central/South America.
>>882188
It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
Moral opposition to slavery became widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese.
>>882204
Uh, you know they were held in rationalized bondage and died in much higher proportions than north American slaves, right?
>>880390
>A Greek slave might have more autonomy than many people stuck in office jobs today.
Honestly, the best advocates of freedom don't advocate corporal autonomy. If they aren't arguing that freedom is a radical and primordial state of mind, I don't have much time for the argument.
>>882214
Racism as an ideology was largely a tool both to control black slaves AND white poor. The Civil War was all about money. Rich slave owners wanted a few more decades of being rich and they were willing ot sacrifice millions of lives for that.
>>880328
capitalism
>>882253
They aren't from the same person, you smug dismissive prick. I'm noticing you don't seem to have an actual response to my point about Brazil, though.
>>880328
>How did slaveholders rationalize the bondage and abuse of their own brothers, cousins, and sons?
The same rationalization that every racist institution has. In-group out-group and black and white thinking, coupled with a dehumanization of groups that does not have similar traits as yourself.
>>882305
What's your point? Nothing I said is mutually exclusive to the posts you are linking to.
The point is that slavery can come about through purely biologically racist means(e.g black people are subhuman because they are not as smart as whites), or it can come through cultural and religious means(Allah says it is okay to enslave the infidel).
Both of these things are dehumanization of the Other, doesn't matter of what specific kind it is.
>>882078
Being civilized isn't binary.
A slave from some barely functional tribe is going to understand he complexities of life worst than an illiterate hill billy, who is going to understand it less than someone from a more educated and culturally elite background.
As example of how to persude them. The black slave can only understand physical force. The hilly billy can understand appeals to emotions and only has a superficial grasp on things like state-craft, economics, and other large scale things. The more educated person can understand the complex things and accept complex answers involving philosophy or economics.
There are of course exceptions, such as the many college educated kids who still don't have a clue how economics work, a hill billy that may have been particularly bright and self-educated, etc.
Again you need to realize that the black slave's understanding is far less complicated than even the ancient Greek slaves, who could be tasked with doing something as complicated as running part of their master's business, doing paper work, and managing inventory. The black slave came out of a culture where such things are far beyond anything he had seen, hell even the writing would be above him.
>>882314
Slavery was just an efficient means of the economic.
You need to look at history and realize black slavery was a unique case. The Greeks or Romans did not dehumanize their slaves. However the blacks were arguably the biggest losers in history, no writing, no real culture. Hell they were not even the decent blacks that managed to put togeather some sort of civilization, the slaves were the loser blacks that were captured and enslaved by the more successful blacks.
>>882253
Nope. You need more than that to accuse anons of samefaggotry.
>>882326
>As example of how to persude them. The black slave can only understand physical force. The hilly billy can understand appeals to emotions and only has a superficial grasp on things like state-craft, economics, and other large scale things.
Were are you getting that? Hillbillies were considered degenerate stock, violent and reclusive. Blacks were stereotyped as very emotional beings, prone to musicality and slaves to fleeting urges like children.
>>882340
>The Greeks or Romans did not dehumanize their slaves.
You're fucking trolling right?
The act of owning a person as property is *literally* the utmost expression of dehumanization you dimwit, which is the whole point, you need to actually be learned to treat a specific subset of the population as less human and less valuable than yourself and people in your social group in order to even be able to own them.
>>882314
>The point is that slavery can come about through purely biologically racist means(e.g black people are subhuman because they are not as smart as whites)
Read those fucking posts. This is not the traditional rational for slavery. The Arabs and Euros took the slaves as slaves, not the black people as slaves.
>or it can come through cultural and religious means(Allah says it is okay to enslave the infidel)
Or neither. Or endless more common and practical reasons beyond your egalitarian anachronisms. You don't even separate justifications from causes.
>Both of these things are dehumanization of the Other, doesn't matter of what specific kind it is.
Ironic jargon.
>>882343
The point is that you are trying to view things in a binary term. The aristocratics viewed themself as beign the civilized ones and the hill billies and slaves as being gnats you say.
I am saying the caste system has more than two levels. A hill billy is between a slave and an aristocrat.
I'm also telling you that this measurement isn't arbitrary but based on how complex of ideas they can understand. The hill billy can understand more complex things than the slave, and the aristocrat more than the hill billy.
The same process still exists today although it's not as formalized. The life forms that are less complicated sort fall into lower economic brackets. Very uneducated lower class (the new slaves), slightly educated upper class (the new hill billies), and more educated and successful upperclass (the new aristotcratics).
This is not a result of a conspiracy but simply because more complex life forms naturally dominate simpler life forms. I am not saying I am for or against this, just that it's how the universe works out. All ending slavery did was change the way in which this law expresses itself.
>>882362
>Or endless more common and practical reasons beyond your egalitarian anachronisms.
Like what faggot?
>>882389
Nothing in either of those posts challenge my view that slavery requires dehumanization.
If you are an aristocrat in Rome, it means you just by being in that social category alone, you would consider a slave essentially equal in value to a horse or a mule, and to do so requires a structure and social climate wherein it is considered normal to treat people in such a way.
>>882401
Things being different literally makes them unequal. The very fact that there are people in different economic situations means they cannot be thought of as equal.
Dehumanization is Precociously trying to treat everyone as equal. Inequality is a natural human state. The statement "treating them different is inhuman" is backwards logic.
>>882412
But you aren't treating them "different".
You are treating them less than the people in your social category, to the point of considering it normal to have your way with them sexually and violently.
This is not anywhere *near* being analogous to me being different to Bill Gates just because he is rich.
>>882401
I don't think it is required, and I don't think a man like George Washington dehumanized his slaves. Rather, there are some who treat servants and slaves like people, and there are some who treat servants and slaves like chattel.
99% of retards here are not realizing what OP asked. HOW SLAVEHOLDERS (WHICH HAD SONS WITH SLAVES, OR WHOSE PARENTS HAD SONS WITH SLAVES) RATIONALIZED THE ABUSE OF THEIR BROTHERS, COUSINS AND SONS.
>>882432
It was fun bawss.
>>882432
You are correct. Upon second reading, OP is incomprehensible.
>>882432
They had dark skin. Even the one's with a soul understood the reality of their soulless society. They wouldn't be accepted anywhere else, so best just to keep him there as a slave, maybe under the radar of the community, and simply treat the child or wife better than the other slaves.
>>882421
>to the point of considering it normal to have your way with them sexually
Stop getting your information about slavery from shitty liberal hugbox sources. It was considered extremely poor character to rape a slave. It was also considered wrong to beat them more than was necessarily.
Things like 7 years a slave are not supposed to be historically accurate. They are supposed to make you feel sad or guilty.
And yes society DOES treat you different than Bill Gates, you don't get to be on the news, or to live in a large house.
>You are treating them less than the people in your social category
A slave is not in the same social catgeory as a mastery. And even slaves were not treated the same, the ones that showed more intellicent might have been taught to write in order to do more complex tasks, the ones that were seen as better at organization might have been given minor leadership positions.
Caste systems, whether formal or not are a part of life, because each person is going to have different capabilities. The one's that can handle more complex tasks naturally fall into higher positions, even when there is no official rule about caste systems people still end up sorting themself out.
>>882461
>Things like 7 years a slave are not supposed to be historically accurate. They are supposed to make you feel sad or guilty.
I haven't even seen that movie.
>And yes society DOES treat you different than Bill Gates, you don't get to be on the news, or to live in a large house.
Yes, but no matter how rich or how many times Bill Gates goes on TV, he can't rape or beat an employee at Microsoft.
>Caste systems, whether formal or not are a part of life, because each person is going to have different capabilities.
You are conflating a natural competence between human beings with an institution of master and slave.
There is a difference between giving an extremely smart individual more attention so that he can use his abilities to better humanity, and having millions of people being born as Untouchables and never being able to move out of that social caste simply because they were born into it, you fucking moron.
>loaded moralistic terms like "dehumanised" applied retrogressively
Why
>>882473
>Yes, but no matter how rich or how many times Bill Gates goes on TV, he can't rape or beat an employee at Microsoft.
Are you even reading what you reply to?
doubt you've taken any college level classes on history or ethics.
>>882473
What the hell are you even talking about? You ignored the central premis of my post and started ranting.
This guy see's it too
>>882479
You already had the issue of slaves being raped addressed, it wasn't something seen as socially acceptable.
>There is a difference between giving an extremely smart individual more attention so that he can use his abilities to better humanit
Again you are missing the point. You don't 'give smart people more attention so they can be unitarian' Smart people receive more attention because they can do more complex tasks. They than use this attention for whatever the fuck they want. The point is that there are innate caste systems built into our natural system. Part of this means that not everyone can be communicated to in the same way. Some people can only understand things when it's taken as a physical threat, or out of fear while others can understand things as being part of a greater social structure.
Your comment about the Hindu caste also shows that you really don't understand shit about history. You keep trying to view history through modern, egalitarian ethics. This downright BIGOTED and INTOLERANT view refuses to acknowledge that there are different ethical systems in the universe other than your own (an untouchable was understood to be an atma in the best spiritual state they can manage, it wasn't a state of shame but nessary for their spiritual advancement across their multiple lives). But hey fuck religious tolerance, that ancient tradition doesn't conform to my 21st century ethics code so it's wrong.
And hey fuck the idea that the Hindu's organizing their people into specialized social castes was an economic necessity to advance their society. Why can't ancient civilizations confirm to the same social dynamic as the 21st centuary.
This type of thinking is narrow minded, bigoted, and has no respect for the past.
>>882527
>it wasn't something seen as socially acceptable.
[citation needed]
>The point is that there are innate caste systems built into our natural system.
[citation needed
>But hey fuck religious tolerance, that ancient tradition doesn't conform to my 21st century ethics code so it's wrong.
Yup, pretty much. Religious morality is almost always disgusting and unhealthy to people.
>And hey fuck the idea that the Hindu's organizing their people into specialized social castes was an economic necessity to advance their society.
If it's such a necessity, why didn't other places on the planet evolve the same system?
>>882706
But your preferred moral system is actually the more religious, closer to judeo-christian interpretations of the world. Some say it's the latest iteration of it (like the nations that export it).
>>882727
Fuck off Evolafag.
>>882432
THEY DIDN'T, they actually treated their house slaves and mixed kin pretty well.
>>883356
"Only having to eat one shovel of shit instead of two" is not "pretty well" a house slave is still a slave and was treated less than a white in every way. It shows the rank hypocrisy of the antebellum south that they said they were the "civilized" people when they were raping women and then keeping their own offspring from the union as slaves. If that is not barbarity then nothing is.
>>882267
Because it had nothing to do with the question being discussed you mongrel
>>880328
Money.
>>882706
>If it's such a necessity, why didn't other places on the planet evolve the same system?
You really are showing that you don't know shit about history? All the nations of ancient Hindu's time had similar caste systems. The egyptions had a heirachy with peasents, priests, and lords. So did the Babylonians. Even their legal books say the punishment is going to vary according to one's rank in society. Where the hell are you getting this ridiculous idea that social castes were not the norm?
>[citation needed]
No dude YOU are the one making the claim that slave rape was socially acceptable. It is up to YOU to back up that.
>Religious morality is almost always disgusting and unhealthy to people.
This isn't an arguement, it's just fedora-tipping. Saying you personally do not like religious does not change the socio-economic reality which necessitated the life styles of the past. Nor does it negate the idea that each society is going to have it's own moral code, rather than your own humanist one. Wanting to say everyone SHOULD be treated equal at all points in history is just day-dreaming and being upset that reality hasn't conformed to some comfortable idea you thought up.
>>882103
No, it's because literally all Europeans are mixed in some small degree
>>880358
....no.
>>880390
No.
>>882048
No.
>>882103
>>882124
That's South Carolina where my family begins, to this day SC has the blackest black population and the blackest White population.
>>882214
You're conflating absolute numbers with those benefiting from slave labor.
The slave owners, their wives, their children, white overseerers and white men who rented out slave labour obviously benefited from it. Of course those men who owned businesses around say cotton manufacturing, rice manufacturing, sugar manufacturing, indigo manufacturing, etc... Also clearly benefitted, the entire south benefited from the slave labour and money from said labour.
You are also ignoring the difference between Mulattos and Blacks, few blacks were slave owners and those that were "owned" their wives, children, parents, etc.... Mulatto in South Carolina and Louisiana for example lived very different lives and we're held by the black and white populations very differently. Many mixed race people in South Carolina became legally white through their social ties to White people for example.
The slave systems of West Africa were not plantation based, neither was it chattel slavery, they were incorporated culturally within the framework of a given culture and were not discriminated against because of their skin color for future generations. Their ability to assimilate after their indentured period was not hindered by racialized laws.
Don't lie about these things to mollify north American slavery.
>>883356
No.
>>884625
>African slavery wasn't as bad as when whitey did it
Nigger nationalist detected. Sorry but American slavery wasn't a 24/7 torture chamber, nor was it any more inhumane than medieval feudalism.
>>884625
>The slave systems of West Africa were not plantation based, neither was it chattel slavery, they were incorporated culturally within the framework of a given culture
>It's okay when a bunch of nigs in West Africa do it, it's "culture"
Oh man, dumbest shit I've read all week, right behind
>No.
