Slave revolts

[Trausti]

Did Roman colonization benefit Britain? Ah, yes.

 

[Politesse]

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.

So basically, you think that all you have to do here is prove that there was some kind of long-term benefit to being a former colony? If so, than you aren't supporting the central argument that slave revolts are a bad idea, since those benefits exist whether or not there is a slave population, and are in fact much more available to non-slaves than to slaves. Slaves were not allowed to just hop on trains and wander around the country, you know. If riding the train is the thing that makes life worthwhile - more than freedom, more than family, more than political, religious, and economic autonomy - then people are still better off as free men than they ever were as slaves. Because they get to ride the trains now.

People valued their freedom, family, religion, and so forth in 1790 as well, so I'm not sure why you think wanting those things is "applying 21st Century morality to the past".

You're trying to justify one of the most heinous systems of abuse ever devised by human beings by saying "hey at least the trains ran on time", so I'm not particularly inclined to let it go unremarked.

 

[Trausti]

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.

So basically, you think that all you have to do here is prove that there was some kind of long-term benefit to being a former colony? If so, than you aren't supporting the central argument that slave revolts are a bad idea, since those benefits exist whether or not there is a slave population, and are in fact much more available to non-slaves than to slaves. Slaves were not allowed to just hop on trains and wander around the country, you know. If riding the train is the thing that makes life worthwhile - more than freedom, more than family, more than political, religious, and economic autonomy - then people are still better off as free men than they ever were as slaves. Because they get to ride the trains now.

People valued their freedom, family, religion, and so forth in 1790 as well, so I'm not sure why you think wanting those things is "applying 21st Century morality to the past".

You're trying to justify one of the most heinous system of abuse ever devised by human beings by saying "hey at least the trains ran on time", so I'm not particularly inclined to let it go unremarked.

Dude, did you not see my first post in this thread regarding slave revolts? You brought up colonization, which is irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Politesse]

Did Roman colonization benefit Britain? Ah, yes.

So....


It would be inappropriate for me to apply 21st century CE social philosophy to the interpretation of 18th CE century politics (though of course in fact I did not), but for your own part you think it relevant to apply 1st century BCE standards to the situaiton?

 

[Trausti]

Did Roman colonization benefit Britain? Ah, yes.

So....


It would be inappropriate for me to apply 21st century CE social philosophy to the interpretation of 18th CE century politics (though of course in fact I did not), but for your own part you think it relevant to apply 1st century BCE standards to the situaiton?

What are smoking? That ought to be illegal.

 

[Politesse]

So basically, you think that all you have to do here is prove that there was some kind of long-term benefit to being a former colony? If so, than you aren't supporting the central argument that slave revolts are a bad idea, since those benefits exist whether or not there is a slave population, and are in fact much more available to non-slaves than to slaves. Slaves were not allowed to just hop on trains and wander around the country, you know. If riding the train is the thing that makes life worthwhile - more than freedom, more than family, more than political, religious, and economic autonomy - then people are still better off as free men than they ever were as slaves. Because they get to ride the trains now.

People valued their freedom, family, religion, and so forth in 1790 as well, so I'm not sure why you think wanting those things is "applying 21st Century morality to the past".

You're trying to justify one of the most heinous system of abuse ever devised by human beings by saying "hey at least the trains ran on time", so I'm not particularly inclined to let it go unremarked.

Dude, did you not see my first post in this thread regarding slave revolts? You brought up colonization, which is irrelevant to the OP.

Loren Pechtel was the one who brought up colonialism, explicitly as evidence in favor of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. You didn't seem to think it was off-topic before I revealed your point to be both completely illogical and morally repugnant.

 

[Trausti]

So basically, you think that all you have to do here is prove that there was some kind of long-term benefit to being a former colony? If so, than you aren't supporting the central argument that slave revolts are a bad idea, since those benefits exist whether or not there is a slave population, and are in fact much more available to non-slaves than to slaves. Slaves were not allowed to just hop on trains and wander around the country, you know. If riding the train is the thing that makes life worthwhile - more than freedom, more than family, more than political, religious, and economic autonomy - then people are still better off as free men than they ever were as slaves. Because they get to ride the trains now.

People valued their freedom, family, religion, and so forth in 1790 as well, so I'm not sure why you think wanting those things is "applying 21st Century morality to the past".

You're trying to justify one of the most heinous system of abuse ever devised by human beings by saying "hey at least the trains ran on time", so I'm not particularly inclined to let it go unremarked.

Dude, did you not see my first post in this thread regarding slave revolts? You brought up colonization, which is irrelevant to the OP.

Loren Pechtel was the one who brought up colonialism, explicitly as evidence in favor of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. You didn't seem to think it was off-topic before I revealed your point to be both completely illogical and morally repugnant.

I did write that it was OT. Scroll up.

 

[Politesse]

Did Roman colonization benefit Britain? Ah, yes.

So....


It would be inappropriate for me to apply 21st century CE social philosophy to the interpretation of 18th CE century politics (though of course in fact I did not), but for your own part you think it relevant to apply 1st century BCE standards to the situaiton?

What are smoking? That ought to be illegal.

Not a thing. You're one who brought up fucking Rome. Do you really want me to analyze the Roman situation in Britain, or were we just supposed to nod and go "Ah yes, clearly the ancient Roman situation is exactly like the 18th century European colonial system, despite being almost entirely different in just about every meaningful respect". I'm not "bringing in" anything, so far everything I've addressed has been in direct response to a stated question or claim by another poster, aside from my own initial response to the OP.

 

[Trausti]

What are smoking? That ought to be illegal.

Not a thing. You're one who brought up fucking Rome. Do you really want me to analyze the Roman situation in Britain, or were we just supposed to nod and go "Ah yes, clearly the ancient Roman situation is exactly like the 18th century European colonial system, despite being almost entirely different in just about every meaningful respect". I'm not "bringing in" anything, so far everything I've addressed has been in direct response to a stated question or claim by another poster, aside from my own initial response to the OP.

It’s an interesting discussion, even if OT.

 

[TSwizzle]

Did Roman colonization benefit Britain? Ah, yes.

What have the romans ever done for us?

 

[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.

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?

Zimbabwe is on the brink of manmade starvation with close to 60% of the population now food insecure, a UN envoy has said. “The people of Zimbabwe are slowly getting to a point of suffering a manmade starvation,” said Elver. “More than 60% of the population of a country once seen as the breadbasket of Africa is now considered food insecure, with most households unable to obtain enough food to meet basic needs due to hyperinflation.” About 5.5 million rural Zimbabweans and a further 2.2 million in urban centres face food insecurity. “These are shocking figures and the crisis continues to worsen due to poverty and high unemployment, widespread corruption, severe price instabilities, lack of purchasing power, poor agricultural productivity, natural disasters, recurrent droughts and unilateral economic sanctions,” Elver said.

TehGruaniad

This is just a small part of the actual decay and it is getting worse.

 

[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?

Zimbabwe is on the brink of manmade starvation with close to 60% of the population now food insecure, a UN envoy has said. “The people of Zimbabwe are slowly getting to a point of suffering a manmade starvation,” said Elver. “More than 60% of the population of a country once seen as the breadbasket of Africa is now considered food insecure, with most households unable to obtain enough food to meet basic needs due to hyperinflation.” About 5.5 million rural Zimbabweans and a further 2.2 million in urban centres face food insecurity. “These are shocking figures and the crisis continues to worsen due to poverty and high unemployment, widespread corruption, severe price instabilities, lack of purchasing power, poor agricultural productivity, natural disasters, recurrent droughts and unilateral economic sanctions,” Elver said.

TehGruaniad

This is just a small part of the actual decay and it is getting worse.

Those are fairly bad problems, though most of them are fully or in part caused by the legacy of colonialism. There's no evidence in the historical record that inflation was a major problem before the Colonial era, for instance, nor soil productivity.

But in any case you've only done half the job here. By showing that there are now some problems. Can you establish that the problems in question were less of a problem for colonized Africans under Rhodesian rule? Were droughts less dangreous to the subjugated population when the British ruled? Was the land more productive (and if so, why?). Was inflation under control, and did native Africans control enough of that currency for them to meaningfully benefit from slower inflation if so? Show your work, please.

 

[TSwizzle]

Was the land more productive (and if so, why?).

Yes. White farmers were turfed off the farms by Mugabe and the farms given to Africans who have no clue about farming and fucked the whole industry up. Zimbabwe is a basket case nation.

 

[Politesse]

Was the land more productive (and if so, why?).

Yes. White farmers were turfed off the farms by Mugabe and the farms given to Africans who have no clue about farming and fucked the whole industry up. Zimbabwe is a basket case nation.

Prove it. Prove that soil productivity was higher in Rhodesia than in modern Zimbabwe. And explain why and how.

 

[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.

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.

All African nations other than Botswana.

They didn't get freedom, they just exchanged dictators.

I was in several African nations in 1982 and there was a very obvious pattern: The later they got independence the better off they were. Progress stopped. The infrastructure I saw was the infrastructure at independence. Note that after the people that came to power at that time died off things have gotten better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

You can't just convert a large urban civilization to a tribal lifestyle unless you kill most of the people first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

You mean a country that fucked their economy so badly that their currency ended up wiped from existence?

Just looking at what I saw in 1982:

Infrastructure maintenance stopped at independence. The water was still safe to drink in the capital, but everywhere else the system had degraded too much and it was bottle/boil/treat like basically everywhere in the third world. They had been the only nation in the tsetse fly zone that could support livestock because they had put up barriers after a natural event (I forget the details by now) killed enough of the wild animals that the tsetse fly died out. The barriers had failed by the time we were there, the tsetse fly was reclaiming the land and now, 40 years later, it still holds most of the country. I have never seen roads so empty other than in pictures from North Korea.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So basically, you think that all you have to do here is prove that there was some kind of long-term benefit to being a former colony? If so, than you aren't supporting the central argument that slave revolts are a bad idea, since those benefits exist whether or not there is a slave population, and are in fact much more available to non-slaves than to slaves. Slaves were not allowed to just hop on trains and wander around the country, you know. If riding the train is the thing that makes life worthwhile - more than freedom, more than family, more than political, religious, and economic autonomy - then people are still better off as free men than they ever were as slaves. Because they get to ride the trains now.

People valued their freedom, family, religion, and so forth in 1790 as well, so I'm not sure why you think wanting those things is "applying 21st Century morality to the past".

You're trying to justify one of the most heinous system of abuse ever devised by human beings by saying "hey at least the trains ran on time", so I'm not particularly inclined to let it go unremarked.

Dude, did you not see my first post in this thread regarding slave revolts? You brought up colonization, which is irrelevant to the OP.

Loren Pechtel was the one who brought up colonialism, explicitly as evidence in favor of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. You didn't seem to think it was off-topic before I revealed your point to be both completely illogical and morally repugnant.

The question was revolting against a colonial power, not whether they would have been better off without the colonial power in the first place. You're moving the goalposts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Zimbabwe is on the brink of manmade starvation with close to 60% of the population now food insecure, a UN envoy has said. “The people of Zimbabwe are slowly getting to a point of suffering a manmade starvation,” said Elver. “More than 60% of the population of a country once seen as the breadbasket of Africa is now considered food insecure, with most households unable to obtain enough food to meet basic needs due to hyperinflation.” About 5.5 million rural Zimbabweans and a further 2.2 million in urban centres face food insecurity. “These are shocking figures and the crisis continues to worsen due to poverty and high unemployment, widespread corruption, severe price instabilities, lack of purchasing power, poor agricultural productivity, natural disasters, recurrent droughts and unilateral economic sanctions,” Elver said.

TehGruaniad

This is just a small part of the actual decay and it is getting worse.

This got me to thinking--a simple check: The population of Zimbabwe shows an inflection at the time of independence. It's still going up but not nearly as much as nearby nations. That says a lot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those are fairly bad problems, though most of them are fully or in part caused by the legacy of colonialism. There's no evidence in the historical record that inflation was a major problem before the Colonial era, for instance, nor soil productivity.

Anything to deflect the blame from where it belongs. Mugabe royally fucked the country. That's why it's a mess. It's exactly the problem the OP was asking about--can the successful revolters actually run a country. Zimbabwe is an example of them not running the country at all well.

But in any case you've only done half the job here. By showing that there are now some problems. Can you establish that the problems in question were less of a problem for colonized Africans under Rhodesian rule? Were droughts less dangreous to the subjugated population when the British ruled? Was the land more productive (and if so, why?). Was inflation under control, and did native Africans control enough of that currency for them to meaningfully benefit from slower inflation if so? Show your work, please.

When your economy is in decent shape and you have a drought you import food. Famine in modern times is the result of fucked-up government, not natural events. There are multiple countries completely incapable of feeding themselves and they are not harmed by it because they have decent government.