logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Confederate Memorials, Should they be removed?
entspeak
post Oct 11 2017, 07:53 PM
Post #1


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



There have been two white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville recently and the past few months have been filled with discussions about the removal of memorials honoring Confederate military and government figures.

Should memorials erected to honor the acts and individuals who fought for the Confederacy be taken down (and, possibly, moved to places like museums?)

Why/Why not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 67)
AuthorMusician
post Feb 15 2018, 07:56 PM
Post #61


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,327
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 15 2018, 10:06 AM) *
Racism created the institution of slavery as it worked in this country; racism created the confederacy; racism created the heroes of the confederacy; racism is why those statues were put up in the first place, decades after the civil war. And what do you think keeps those statues up? Let me guess, a love of history!! w00t.gif

Let me take a play out your playbook... I'm not saying that everyone that wants the confederate statues to stay up or think we should take our time pulling them down are racist individuals, I'm just saying racism is the determining and most relevant factor that keeps those statues up.


I'm still pondering the part I put in bold. I see another logical step that might fit before: Capitalism created the need for cheap labor, and that meant some people have to be made worth less than others. How about talking up how inferior one group is versus another? Do it so people could see differences as defects? Do it enough that the target group can be treated exactly like horses?

And so slavery happens after racism is established, and since the targets can be considered animals, the markets determine how they'll be used. For example, give just enough food and rest to keep them productive. Barn-like shelters, minimal clothing to protect investment and meeting social norms. No clothing on the auction block? Sure, makes perfect business sense.

No, I'm not a communist, but I do think that's exactly how business minds thought during the slave decades, and I do believe this thinking prompted the writings that became foundations of communism.

I'm also thinking about parallels in today's economics. Racism has become something else in this context, such as it's perfectly okay that a corporation does bankruptcy but a shameful thing if an individual does -- I guess because the corporations get stiffed?

Well, I'm pretty much in agreement otherwise. The Confederate statues are racist because the Confederacy was racist -- and so was a lot of the North too. Behind all that Minnesota nice borrowed from Canada? Seething hatred for anyone different. But I think that's been fading for a while as younger generations get the hell out or mellow out or grow up, or just get used to lots of different, equal races all mixed up by proximity and genetics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Feb 15 2018, 09:32 PM
Post #62


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 15 2018, 02:56 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 15 2018, 10:06 AM) *
Racism created the institution of slavery as it worked in this country; racism created the confederacy; racism created the heroes of the confederacy; racism is why those statues were put up in the first place, decades after the civil war. And what do you think keeps those statues up? Let me guess, a love of history!! w00t.gif

Let me take a play out your playbook... I'm not saying that everyone that wants the confederate statues to stay up or think we should take our time pulling them down are racist individuals, I'm just saying racism is the determining and most relevant factor that keeps those statues up.


I'm still pondering the part I put in bold. I see another logical step that might fit before: Capitalism created the need for cheap labor, and that meant some people have to be made worth less than others. How about talking up how inferior one group is versus another? Do it so people could see differences as defects? Do it enough that the target group can be treated exactly like horses?

And so slavery happens after racism is established, and since the targets can be considered animals, the markets determine how they'll be used. For example, give just enough food and rest to keep them productive. Barn-like shelters, minimal clothing to protect investment and meeting social norms. No clothing on the auction block? Sure, makes perfect business sense.

No, I'm not a communist, but I do think that's exactly how business minds thought during the slave decades, and I do believe this thinking prompted the writings that became foundations of communism.

I'm also thinking about parallels in today's economics. Racism has become something else in this context, such as it's perfectly okay that a corporation does bankruptcy but a shameful thing if an individual does -- I guess because the corporations get stiffed?

Well, I'm pretty much in agreement otherwise. The Confederate statues are racist because the Confederacy was racist -- and so was a lot of the North too. Behind all that Minnesota nice borrowed from Canada? Seething hatred for anyone different. But I think that's been fading for a while as younger generations get the hell out or mellow out or grow up, or just get used to lots of different, equal races all mixed up by proximity and genetics.

Notice I say "Racism created the institution of slavery as it worked in this country" Slavery has always been about economics. About powerful humans using that power to enforce others to labor for them freely and against their will. That is the nature of slavery, so we are not in disagreement. However, basing servitude on race is what made ours racist. In its earliest form in the colonies one could point to the indentured servitude and see it was not all race based. But as our country was formed the idea that the inferiority of the Black made us perfect candidates for slavery is what made our system of slavery to be based on racism . They told that poor White... you can be poor, uneducated, penny-less, but you'd still be better than a Black slave if you stick with us. And the poor White bought off then... they bit off during Jim crow, and they bite off now (well those that do "if shoe fit")

So i got what you are saying, i definitely respect the economic part of the equation. But there were plenty of poor Whites to enslave, british born Whites, but in order to sell freedom and slavery i guess you needed a system that divided some humans into a subcategory based on race.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Yesterday, 04:55 AM
Post #63


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,217
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Just giving a heads up that I'll be able to finish a new round of replies within a couple days, it's been busy busy but I've almost got my current replies in two threads finished up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Yesterday, 04:11 PM
Post #64


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,327
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 15 2018, 05:32 PM) *
So i got what you are saying, i definitely respect the economic part of the equation. But there were plenty of poor Whites to enslave, british born Whites, but in order to sell freedom and slavery i guess you needed a system that divided some humans into a subcategory based on race.

There were a lot of indigenous people too. The story I've come across is they made bad slaves because they'd stop eating and die. It's a lot more likely to me that they killed the whites whenever the opportunity arose, basically that it's a lot harder to enslave people who haven't been entirely defeated.

So that makes me think of the slave ships. I know how cold capitalism-think can get, so the horrid trip over ensured that the stock (thinking capitalism here) would be sapped of all resistance strength. Perfect slave material.

As for Europeans becoming enslaved, capitalism could only go so far -- vilify if possible (Irish, Chinese, et al), otherwise a deal had to be made -- indentured servitude to start, employment to follow. Another part of this is the Europeans had to be sold on the idea of relocating to the colonies and later-day states. In contrast, slaves from Africa were the things being bought and sold, so no need to sell them on relocation. Like widgets from the factory, they had no choice.

The formula: Lower Choice + Lower Power = Cheaper Labor

Maybe what's unique to the USA is the emphasis on skin color differences, but I suspect that's a situation around the globe and deep in human DNA. An individual can be too dark, too light, wrong color hair, too small, too large, wrong shape of facial features, and I'm not sure where this list would end.

I was once told, and in a serious manner, that I have too much hair for my age. Huh. Suppose I could shave it all off to appease the critic, but screw that. The critic has a problem, which is obviously hair loss while aging. I do grow my freak flag long, but that's so it's easier for Lydia to hack off ever so many months. Just grab the tail and slice it halfway up.

But you can't change skin color so easily, and it's a lot harder to hide than, say, a branding tattoo.

In capitalistic-think, product identification is therefore immediate. No wonder racists hate the idea of mixed marriages -- it messes with product branding rolleyes.gif And the racists think it's simply right, the correct way to be, filled with hatred toward others who are different -- which is necessary for the system to work.

But most racists, in fact all of them I've met along the way, never think it through. It's just who they are, and they have a right to be who they are, and it's not at all morally wrong to discriminate against their targets of hatred, since they have a right to be who they are, and so there. Deal with it.

The problem for these people caught in a vicious circular justification is that when you discriminate too much, it comes back in your face as something bad -- welfare state, violence, civil upheaval, devil's music on the radio, children talking back, no respect, no cool, no sex, no fun, blah poo icky fud-tud, world's going to hell, dam gubmnt!

But hey, there's Jesus and the Rapture, so . . .

We are the galaxy's masters of self-deception and earned crappy karma. It's probably what's preventing First Contact with alien civilizations that have figured it out a long time ago.

Anyway, I do see that racism has a limited shelf life. It depends on the races not mingling cultures and genes, and it is a losing battle to fight against this -- it is deeper in our DNA to sexually and culturally mix it up. It is the entire point of sexual reproduction, speaking from a biological POV: Mix it up, get stronger, reproduce more.

It is virtually impossible to stop and getting harder to slow down as new generations enter the world we've built, take a look around, and say, "Screw this. You've got problems I'll inherit, but that doesn't mean we won't fight to change it for the better."

Then the fun begins. But that's just me talking, and I really enjoy fighting to change it for the better. That's also DNA. Some even make it their careers, which I admire. Me, I opted for the frustrations of tech, the discipline of writing, and making something happen with music. Mileage varies, of course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Yesterday, 06:55 PM
Post #65


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,394
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Capitalism

wikipedia: is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.

dictionary.com: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth



Authoritarian

Wikipedia: Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude characterized by belief in absolute obedience or submission to someone else's authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one's subordinates.

dictionary.com: exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others

-----

Reading your last post it appears you are using the word "capitalism" incorrectly. If you substitute the word "authoritarian" it reads easier and makes sense.

Capitalism is based upon voluntary exchange. As slavery is not a voluntary exchange, without a doubt...slavery is not an aspect of capitalism.

It seems you may think that any sort of exchange between people means it is capitalism. This is not true. Capitalism has specific parameters and is not simply an exchange made between people.

Let us say the government mandates citizens may only buy green or blue socks. A citizen has multiple businesses who sell the blue socks and the citizen buys a pair of blue socks. The citizen made a choice. Is this capitalism? No. This is collectivism, authoritarian, and fascism. It is not capitalism. Making a choice or agreeing to make an exchange does not make the economic system capitalism. You have to know the entire market forces before knowing if it is capitalism.

Having slaves is not capitalism. It is authoritarianism.

Slavery is not a valid reason to dislike capitalism. Capitalism is a reason to not like slavery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Yesterday, 10:42 PM
Post #66


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



And the conversation gets muddier and muddier. Whether or not slavery was an aspect of capitalism or authoritarianism is utterly irrelevant to the topic.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Yesterday, 10:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Today, 12:43 AM
Post #67


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,327
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(entspeak @ Feb 16 2018, 06:42 PM) *
And the conversation gets muddier and muddier. Whether or not slavery was an aspect of capitalism or authoritarianism is utterly irrelevant to the topic.

Yet somehow human beings became commodities in the slave markets of the 16th-19th centuries, thereabout. From that, somehow the Jim Crow laws arose to keep the former commodities in the slave markets in their places.

I do agree that pure capitalism has to do with how money is handled in an economy, in this case, free markets versus highly regulated. I agree that stuff exchanges hands via the use of money, whether gold or fiat paper or computer blips.

The big ugly about slavery is that people become the stuff that exchanges hands. And why are people worth it?

Cheap labor.

I also agree that it's not restricted to capitalistic systems, but the capitalistic system has nothing built into it that prevents slavery from occurring. Slavery did indeed occur and was highly valued by those in this country, and before it became a country, who had the means to participate in the slave markets.

Later, there was an attempt to turn employees into slaves, and that led to the unionizing of the USA.

Anyway, I see a logical progression here and clear reasons why it all happened. So I'm probably wrong. However, I might not be, and that makes statuary in the South a bit easier to understand, even though I think it's promoting racism rather than an historically accurate representation of what it was.

I understand a lot of things that are quintessentially horrid mrsparkle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Today, 12:30 PM
Post #68


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



And now you seem to be attempting to try to fit a square peg in a round hole. You€™ve already stated that you believe that the statues commemorate racism because the Confederacy was racist. The capitalism argument - as interesting as you may think it is - is irrelevant. The statues don’t commemorate capitalism.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Today, 12:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 17th, 2018 - 07:55 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.