Slave revolts

[BH]

At times in the past slaves would revolt against their masters.

Since slaves were kept ignorant, not even being taught to read, was it rational of them to revolt since they would not have been able to run a society effectively? They did not have the education skill set or managerial experience and more than likely everything would have gone to crap after they took over for a long time before they or at least some of them became skilled enough to see to it society became prosperous again.

I just got finished reading Frederick Douglass's autobiography and am reading a few other slave life narratives. The rapes, breaking up of families, abuse and whippings make me think things were so bad it would have been worth it. Problems afterwards not withstanding.

I've also read that roman masters would sometimes just kill a slave for no reason than to cause fear in the others and one time when a slave killed his master the Roman state killed all the slaves he owned in punishment.

 

[Politesse]

Yes.

Because it is not rational to want to be kept as someone else's property. You can learn how to read. If you aren't a slave. Taking away someone's ability to maintain healthy society, then claiming that their continued state of subjection is itself a justification for doing so, ignores the fact that they are better off being free and perhaps miserable for a generation, then enslaved and miserable in perpetuity.

Take the situation of Haiti, the closest thing to a real life example of a successful slave revolt becoming an independent country. Haiti is a struggling nation, absolutely. But it was a struggling nation when it was a slave state, too, if you count the slaves themselves as part of humanity. Life expectancy for a person of African descent in Haiti today is 63 years, low for a modern nation. But under slavery, life expectancy for a person of African descent was 2-3 years once they arrived on the island. Which would you prefer?

 

[prideandfall]

i think that's an apples to oranges comparison, because as far as i'm aware (and someone please correct me if i'm wrong) the populations from which slaves were being pulled weren't at industrial level mass civilization yet, they were a scattered tribal society.

if they had successfully revolted and escaped en masse i doubt they would have immediately moved to try and operate on a large scale urban level, they likely would have made for the hills are resumed their tribal societies.

 

[Politesse]

i think that's an apples to oranges comparison, because as far as i'm aware (and someone please correct me if i'm wrong) the populations from which slaves were being pulled weren't at industrial level mass civilization yet, they were a scattered tribal society.

Nonsense, West Africa was brimming with cities, art, and technology in the late medieval era. Dahomey, wherefrom or by the largest number of slaves were garnered, was one of the wealthiest royal houses on the planet at the time, in part because the slave trade itself was very lucrative. Industrialized, not so much, but neither were the Europeans when the slave trade began; the development of industrialized labor practices were largely a result of the Transatlantic slave trade, an imitation of and improvement on the plantation system, and it changed the economies of Europe and Africa concurrently.

 

[Trausti]

I don’t imagine any slave gave much thought to the slave’s ability to run a society efficiently before rebelling. “This sucks” is good enough rational.

 

[prideandfall]

Nonsense, West Africa was brimming with cities, art, and technology in the late medieval era. Dahomey, wherefrom or by the largest number of slaves were garnered, was one of the wealthiest royal houses on the planet at the time, in part because the slave trade itself was very lucrative. Industrialized, not so much, but neither were the Europeans when the slave trade began; the development of industrialized labor practices were largely a result of the Transatlantic slave trade, an imitation of and improvement on the plantation system, and it changed the economies of Europe and Africa concurrently.

and to my understanding the largest proportion of people actually bonded into slavery were the result of tribal warfare or ethnic conflicts resulting in the conquered being sold - i said that the populations from which the slaves were being pulled were largely tribal, not that africa's entire population was tribal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's rational because they are unaware of their ignorance.

For an example of how it really goes, look at Africa. There's a lot of similarities between slave revolts and kicking out the colonial powers--and note that in almost every case the people ended up worse off after kicking out the colonials. They didn't get freedom, they traded a competent dictator for an incompetent one.

 

[Politesse]

Nonsense, West Africa was brimming with cities, art, and technology in the late medieval era. Dahomey, wherefrom or by the largest number of slaves were garnered, was one of the wealthiest royal houses on the planet at the time, in part because the slave trade itself was very lucrative. Industrialized, not so much, but neither were the Europeans when the slave trade began; the development of industrialized labor practices were largely a result of the Transatlantic slave trade, an imitation of and improvement on the plantation system, and it changed the economies of Europe and Africa concurrently.

and to my understanding the largest proportion of people actually bonded into slavery were the result of tribal warfare or ethnic conflicts resulting in the conquered being sold - i said that the populations from which the slaves were being pulled were largely tribal, not that africa's entire population was tribal.

The numbers don't really agree with you, and what's wrong with being from a tribe anyway? Tribal societies are, if anything, a lot more stable than empires as a general rule. One reason why tribal identities have persisted while regime after regime has risen and fallen like mayflies in West Africa.

 

[Politesse]

It's rational because they are unaware of their ignorance.

For an example of how it really goes, look at Africa. There's a lot of similarities between slave revolts and kicking out the colonial powers--and note that in almost every case the people ended up worse off after kicking out the colonials. They didn't get freedom, they traded a competent dictator for an incompetent one.

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was? Yes, Europe thought her colonies were fantastic, wonderful places and they were... for the European upper classes. They were not so great for the people expected to be the workforce creating all that wealth, whether for indigenous folks or the exported European lower classes.

 

[prideandfall]

The numbers don't really agree with you

and what numbers would those be?

and what's wrong with being from a tribe anyway? Tribal societies are, if anything, a lot more stable than empires as a general rule. One reason why tribal identities have persisted while regime after regime has risen and fallen like mayflies in West Africa.

what in the literal actual fuck are you even on about?

the OP asked how slaves would be able to run society if they successfully revolted, the wording of which suggesting that in context 'society' meant large scale urban civilization - as implied by pointing out they weren't taught to read, for example.
i said that in the case of a successful slave revolt this wouldn't be relevant since being from more tribal societies they would likely resume that lifestyle.

how the hell did you so thoroughly lose the point of this conversation after 4 posts?

 

[TSwizzle]

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was?

Zimbabwe.

 

[Trausti]

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was?

Zimbabwe.

 

[Politesse]

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was?

Zimbabwe.

Alright, make the case. Why is it worse to be an African resident of modern Zimbabwe than it was for African residents of the colony of Southern Rhodesia? Named, as you know, for businessman and instigator of genocide Cecil B. Rhodes, and strictly subdivided by a racial system known as the Colour Bar that kept Black people in crowded ghettoes with no hope of economic advancement, which they could leave only as servants of aristocratic White families. Do you feel that most people in Zimbabwe would return to a system of British oppression if they could? Why not, if as you say, their condition as a wholly subjugated and oppressed people was inherently and quantitatively better than it is as enfranchised citizens of a modern nation?

 

[Politesse]

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was?

Zimbabwe.

I see a video of a Chinese envoy trying to sell a Congolese man on the merits of being an neocolonial client state, and a Congolese man who clearly isn't buying a single word of it, perhaps very rightly questioning the motives of his interlocutor. If life was so much better as an oppressed underclass, why isn't the Congolese representative in this conversation overflowing with nostalgia for the era when he had no rights? Under one of the most brutal and merciless of the African colonial powers, the Belgian Congo, which considered the wholesale extermination of entire villages, forced enslavement, and ritualized severing of hands to be an acceptable form of labor negotiation? Why isn't he beggining to return to such a state, when White people had a nice railroad they could use to efficiently reach the interior and fucking murder everyone? I assume you are saying that you, yourself, would strongly prefer to be treated in such a fashion, but why doesn't this man?

 

[Trausti]

Bullshit. Name one case in which the post-colonial situation of an African state is worse for Africans than being colonial subjects was?

Zimbabwe.

Alright, make the case. Why is it worse to be an African resident of modern Zimbabwe than it was for African residents of the colony of Southern Rhodesia? Named, as you know, for businessman and instigator of genocide Cecil B. Rhodes, and strictly subdivided by a racial system known as the Colour Bar that kept Black people in crowded ghettoes with no hope of economic advancement, which they could leave only as servants of aristocratic White families. Do you feel that most people in Zimbabwe would return to a system of British oppression if they could? Why not, if as you say, their condition as a wholly subjugated and oppressed people was inherently and quantitatively better than it is as enfranchised citizens of a modern nation?

This is all OT but British and French colonies were a boon for Africa. Before most of their colonies had no writing, schooling, or (obviously) modern medicine. By the time of colonization, the British and French were on a crusade to end slavery; which many tribes were reluctant to stop due to the profit. Roads, rail, running water. The Europeans put in place modern infrastructure and attempted to educate the native people on how to run it. No accident that many of those in the various independence movements (and the first post-colonial presidents) went to schools set up by the British and French. They also tried to introduce a cash economy so the colonies could pay for themselves. The colonies were mostly a drain on the treasury rather than money makers.

 

[Politesse]

and what numbers would those be?

The details aren't well known exactly, but most European slaves were prisoners of war from other African states.

what in the literal actual fuck are you even on about?

the OP asked how slaves would be able to run society if they successfully revolted, the wording of which suggesting that in context 'society' meant large scale urban civilization - as implied by pointing out they weren't taught to read, for example.
i said that in the case of a successful slave revolt this wouldn't be relevant since being from more tribal societies they would likely resume that lifestyle.

how the hell did you so thoroughly lose the point of this conversation after 4 posts?

Just because Society = Imitation of Europe to you does not mean that everyone on earth is obliged to agree, especially not a body of recently liberated slaves. Society is a much older phenomenon than any modern power, European or otherwise, and all cultures employ some form of social organization. Tribal societies aren't necessarily inferior to nation-states, though they are different. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that being under a certain form of government would preclude literacy, I know plenty of people who belong to modern tribes and are perfectly literate, even hold advanced degrees.

I haven't lost the point of the thread, you just know shit-all about African history. Can you even name the major powers of early colonial era West Africa without Googling?

 

[Trausti]

I see a video of a Chinese envoy trying to sell a Congolese man on the merits of being an neocolonial client state, and a Congolese man who clearly isn't buying a single word of it, perhaps very rightly questioning the motives of his interlocutor. If life was so much better as an oppressed underclass, why isn't the Congolese representative in this conversation overflowing with nostalgia for the era when he had no rights? Under one of the most brutal and merciless of the African colonial powers, the Belgian Congo, which considered the wholesale extermination of entire villages, forced enslavement, and ritualized severing of hands to be an acceptable form of labor negotiation? Why isn't he beggining to return to such a state, when White people had a nice railroad they could use to efficiently reach the interior and fucking murder everyone? I assume you are saying that you, yourself, would strongly prefer to be treated in such a fashion, but why doesn't this man?

Chinese guy wasn’t saying that the Congolese should want a return of colonization. He very obviously was observing that the Belgians bequeathed the Congolese modern infrastructure and the Congolese failed to maintain it.

 

[Politesse]

Alright, make the case. Why is it worse to be an African resident of modern Zimbabwe than it was for African residents of the colony of Southern Rhodesia? Named, as you know, for businessman and instigator of genocide Cecil B. Rhodes, and strictly subdivided by a racial system known as the Colour Bar that kept Black people in crowded ghettoes with no hope of economic advancement, which they could leave only as servants of aristocratic White families. Do you feel that most people in Zimbabwe would return to a system of British oppression if they could? Why not, if as you say, their condition as a wholly subjugated and oppressed people was inherently and quantitatively better than it is as enfranchised citizens of a modern nation?

This is all OT but British and French colonies were a boon for Africa. Before most of their colonies had no writing, schooling, or (obviously) modern medicine. By the time of colonization, the British and French were on a crusade to end slavery; which many tribes were reluctant to stop due to the profit. Roads, rail, running water. The Europeans put in place modern infrastructure and attempted to educate the native people on how to run it. No accident that many of those in the various independence movements (and the first post-colonial presidents) went to schools set up by the British and French. They also tried to introduce a cash economy so the colonies could pay for themselves. The colonies were mostly a drain on the treasury rather than money makers.

Let's ignore your ignorant claims about the nature of pre-colonial African society for the moment, and just focus on the main thrust of your argument.

So what you're claiming is that:

a. it is more important and more valuable to be allowed to ride third-class on a railroad built primarily for the benefit of your bosses, and work as a servant in houses that have running water (even though yours does not), than it is to have political independence, the possibility of economic betterment, and legal right to redress if you are violently treated, raped, etc? You would, yourself, gladly give up all of those rights if you were occasionally allowed to ride in the back of a train, in return?

b. the only way a person can build a road, learn to read, receive medical treatment, end slavery, adopt currency, etc, is to be treated as an oppressed subject of an empire for several generations. Without the oppression part, for instance, there is no way to just, say, purchase these commodities, or trade for them, or just read about them on the internet.​

Correct?

 

[Trausti]

Alright, make the case. Why is it worse to be an African resident of modern Zimbabwe than it was for African residents of the colony of Southern Rhodesia? Named, as you know, for businessman and instigator of genocide Cecil B. Rhodes, and strictly subdivided by a racial system known as the Colour Bar that kept Black people in crowded ghettoes with no hope of economic advancement, which they could leave only as servants of aristocratic White families. Do you feel that most people in Zimbabwe would return to a system of British oppression if they could? Why not, if as you say, their condition as a wholly subjugated and oppressed people was inherently and quantitatively better than it is as enfranchised citizens of a modern nation?

This is all OT but British and French colonies were a boon for Africa. Before most of their colonies had no writing, schooling, or (obviously) modern medicine. By the time of colonization, the British and French were on a crusade to end slavery; which many tribes were reluctant to stop due to the profit. Roads, rail, running water. The Europeans put in place modern infrastructure and attempted to educate the native people on how to run it. No accident that many of those in the various independence movements (and the first post-colonial presidents) went to schools set up by the British and French. They also tried to introduce a cash economy so the colonies could pay for themselves. The colonies were mostly a drain on the treasury rather than money makers.

Let's ignore your ignorant claims about the nature of pre-colonial African society for the moment, and just focus on the main thrust of your argument.

So what you're claiming is that:

a. it is more important and more valuable to be allowed to ride third-class on a railroad built primarily for the benefit of your bosses, and work in houses that have running water, than it is to have political independence, the possibility of economic betterment, and legal right to redress if you are violently treated, raped, etc? You would, yourself, gladly give up all of those rights if you were occasionally allowed to ride in the back of a train, in return?

b. the only way a person can build a road, learn to read, receive medical treatment, etc, is to be treated as an oppressed subject of an empire for several generations. Without the oppression part, there is no way to just, say, purchase these commodities, or trade for them, or just read about them on the internet.​

Correct?

I’m simply stating that British and French colonies benefited for colonization. Period. This is not about applying 21st Century morality to the past.

 

[Politesse]

I see a video of a Chinese envoy trying to sell a Congolese man on the merits of being an neocolonial client state, and a Congolese man who clearly isn't buying a single word of it, perhaps very rightly questioning the motives of his interlocutor. If life was so much better as an oppressed underclass, why isn't the Congolese representative in this conversation overflowing with nostalgia for the era when he had no rights? Under one of the most brutal and merciless of the African colonial powers, the Belgian Congo, which considered the wholesale extermination of entire villages, forced enslavement, and ritualized severing of hands to be an acceptable form of labor negotiation? Why isn't he beggining to return to such a state, when White people had a nice railroad they could use to efficiently reach the interior and fucking murder everyone? I assume you are saying that you, yourself, would strongly prefer to be treated in such a fashion, but why doesn't this man?

Chinese guy wasn’t saying that the Congolese should want a return of colonization. He very obviously was observing that the Belgians bequeathed the Congolese modern infrastructure and the Congolese failed to maintain it.

Okay, so one Chinese agent thinks it's bad that the central railroad was closed between 1997-2003. I think most people would agree, given that the reason for the closure was the uncertainty created by a bloody civil war, but that's not the same thing as proving that life is better under oppression than under freedom.