[Albert]

Just never make your slaves into soldiers or you get Mamluks.

The mamluk was an "owned slave", distinguished from the garya and ghulam, or household slaves. After thorough training in various fields such as martial arts, court etiquette and Islamic sciences, these slaves were freed. However, they were still expected to remain loyal to their master and serve his household.[22] Mamluks had formed a part of the state or military apparatus in Syria and Egypt since at least the 9th century, during the Tulunid period.[23] Mamluk regiments constituted the backbone of Egypt's military under Ayyubid rule in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, beginning with Sultan Saladin who replaced the Fatimids' African infantry with mamluks.[24] Each Ayyubid sultan and high-ranking emir had a private mamluk corps.[25] Most of the mamluks in the Ayyubids' service were ethnic Kipchak Turks from Central Asia, who, upon entering service, were converted to Sunni Islam and taught Arabic.[24] They were highly committed to their masters, who they often referred to as "father", and were in turn treated more as kinsmen than as slaves by their masters.[24] Sultan as-Salih Ayyub (r. 1240–49), the last of the Ayyubid sultans, had acquired some 1,000 mamluks (some of them free-born) from Syria, Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula by 1229, while serving as na'ib (viceroy) of Egypt during the absence of his father, Sultan al-Kamil. These mamluks became known as the "Salihiyyah" (singular "Salihi").

Then they became rulers over Egypt and Levant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate_(Cairo)

[Sivad]

The black guys on bloggingheads: What was Kanye trying to say about slavery?

[Godstud]

Yes, what Kanye said was based in complete ignorance. The people, however, who think that slavery was a choice, are completely uneducated, and complicit in the ignorance of Kanye. If that's you, then maybe you shouldn't be such a maroon.

Slaves weren't simply individuals enslaved. Whole families were, and when one slave was punished, they'd often punish others, as well. We're not talking about humane slavers, after all. You rebel/misbehave etc., and they'd have your daughter/wife/mother raped and beaten. Where's the choice?

What if you did temporarily get your freedom? Where would you go? Who would help you? The Underground Railroad? Would that protect your friends and family when you escaped? How would you get weapons for such an escape? How would you fight back against firearms... with farm tools? Would it simply be suicide if you did?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The black guys on bloggingheads: What was Kanye trying to say about slavery?

Why Kanye likes Trump, explained.

Really like their conversations.

[Rich]

My father was a slave and I'm glad that he chose slavery.

He chose to go into captivity as a prisoner of war rather than die, allowing me to have this incarnation. Its often asked why we dropped the atomic bombs at the end of WWII. Part of the reason is that we British and Americans were a bunch of pansies compared to the Japanese and they scared the shit out of us, by their willingness to die, by their refusal to surrender. Most people choose life over honour and dignity. Life's not like the movies. The 300 are the exception of history. Most acts of bravery, most acts of resistance, most heroic deaths are completely unremembered.

[Sivad]

Why Kanye likes Trump, explained.

Really like their conversations.

I do to. They're insightful and honest, which is pretty rare in general these days and vanishingly rare in the area of race commentary.

[Sivad]

Slaves weren't simply individuals enslaved. Whole families were, and when one slave was punished, they'd often punish others, as well. We're not talking about humane slavers, after all. You rebel/misbehave etc., and they'd have your daughter/wife/mother raped and beaten.

If your daughter/wife/mother are the property of inhumane slavers then they're likely going to be raped and beaten anyway.

Where's the choice?

Only the strong have a choice, and many strong men and women down through history have made that choice to resist enslavement at all costs. Unfortunately that kind of strength isn't common among human beings, and that's why slavery is a viable institution. By claiming there is no choice you're denying those individuals who chose to resist the recognition and admiration they deserve.

[Rich]

The Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands and the Japanese occupation of Attu and Kiska, showed that British and American people are no different to anyone else and just as susceptible to domination. Even the minority who are wiling to die rather than surrender, will normaly give way if members of their family are threatened with death and torture. Not only can communities will to resist be broken, you can if ruthless enough quite easily get the subjugated community to police itself. The reason we Liberals have such difficult suppressing guerrilla opponents is that we are not willing to be sufficiently ruthless.

[Sivad]

The Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands and the Japanese occupation of Attu and Kiska, showed that British and American people are no different to anyone else and just as susceptible to domination. Even the minority who are wiling to die rather than surrender, will normaly give way if members of their family are threatened with death and torture. Not only can communities will to resist be broken, you can if ruthless enough quite easily get the subjugated community to police itself. The reason we Liberals have such difficult suppressing guerrilla opponents is that we are not willing to be sufficiently ruthless.

I don't know about that last bit, the phoenix program and all the other counterinsurgency dirty war tactics were ruthless as fuck.

[One Degree]

The Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands and the Japanese occupation of Attu and Kiska, showed that British and American people are no different to anyone else and just as susceptible to domination. Even the minority who are wiling to die rather than surrender, will normaly give way if members of their family are threatened with death and torture. Not only can communities will to resist be broken, you can if ruthless enough quite easily get the subjugated community to police itself. The reason we Liberals have such difficult suppressing guerrilla opponents is that we are not willing to be sufficiently ruthless.

Human weakness is not a justification for humans not choosing to be strong. The only reason your examples were successful is because humans have demonstrated their willingness not to resist. The only reason to attempt to conquer others is based upon the assumption they will be weak in their resistance. This is a trait overcome by strong societal standards. Our refusal to promote resistance at all costs is the only thing that allows the domination to continue being attempted. Slavery has been pretty well eliminated because humans refuse to accept it. Humans can eliminate war and domination the same way. If enough humans are strong enough to prevent it from being successful, others will quit attempting it. Should we not try to promote standards to overcome our weaknesses?

[B0ycey]

Rich's point is poignant and very accurate of human nature. Your logic has no foundation to reality. You believe people had a choice of freedom when they didn't. The only choice available was death through pain or live and be a slave. The option of freedom was never avaliable unless the master gave it to you. How does this not get through to you?

[One Degree]

Rich's point is poignant and very accurate of human nature. Your logic has no foundation to reality. You believe people had a choice of freedom when they didn't. The only choice available was death through pain or live and be a slave. The option of freedom was never avaliable unless the master gave it to you. How does this not get through to you?

The same way it does not get to you that choosing death is a viable option. You are basing your view on what is best for the individual. I do not believe this is the view we should have. We should willingly sacrifice ourselves to help stop it from continuing. Otherwise you are accepting it and encouraging it. What kind of sense does it make to guarantee a future of violence for my descendants just so I can live a little longer?

[B0ycey]

The same way it does not get to you that choosing death is a viable option. You are basing your view on what is best for the individual. I do not believe this is the view we should have. We should willingly sacrifice ourselves to help stop it from continuing. Otherwise you are accepting it and encouraging it. What kind of sense does it make to guarantee a future of violence for my descendants just so I can live a little longer?

Well the question in this thread is "Was staying in slavery a choice? By dying you haven't prevented slavery, you have only eliminated the time you have spent within it. That is if you die of course. Death isn't your choice btw. Beatings due to rebellion doesn't always result in death I'm afraid. In fact usually it doesn't as Japanese POW camps prove. And once you do die the next person takes your place meaning your action isn't even a factor. If anything it would be a deterrent as it would show the consequence of rebellion. And as such finally proves slavery remains and was not a choice for anyone.

[One Degree]

Well the question in this thread is "Was staying in slavery a choice? By dying you haven't prevented slavery, you have only eliminated the time you have spent within it. That is if you die of course. Death isn't your choice btw. Beatings due to rebellion doesn't always result in death I'm afraid. In fact usually it doesn't as Japanese POW camps prove. And once you do die the next person takes your place meaning your action isn't even a factor. If anything it would be a deterrent as it would show the consequence of rebellion. And as such finally proves slavery remains and was not a choice for anyone.

This just takes us back to arguments that have already been made. I see no sense in repeating them.

[Suntzu]

Do you figure someone could enslave you? I don't think anyone could hold me a slave . . . for long.

[One Degree]

Do you figure someone could enslave you? I don't think anyone could hold me a slave . . . for long.

There is at least a 90% chance I would die first, but we humans are easy to confuse. Our fight or flight response can force us in a direction we don’t want to go and the momentum can get us in pretty deep by rationalizing our behavior. This is why a strong cultural taboo is necessary to protect us against ourselves.

[Steve_American]

OK, I read all the replies.
Very few noted my main point.
It is not necessary to be racist at all. We can look at slavery in ancient Rome. Mostly whites enslaving whites.
How many successful slave revolts in Roman history? None I know of.
Did firearms make it harder or easier to revolt? I think obviously, harder.
So, under the Romans there were no successful revolts and firearms made it harder.
So, the choice was between being a slave, death by suicide, or death by torture.
Or, maybe we can include escaping in some cases.
So, did Blacks choose slavery and were they complicit in slavery? NO.! Why? In the law there is the fool's choice exception to binding contracts. If you signed with a gun to your or your daughter's head, then the signature is not binding, it's invalid.

So, yes, the slaves needed to be freed by some outside force. In the Civil War it was white Northerners. Racism has nothing to do with this conclusion. It was also true in Roman times.

One Degree, are you calling for all people to murder their families and commit suicide to avoid the slavery if slavery seems like a 90% probability? A 60% chance. How many people do you think can do that? Masada comes to mind though. So, it does happen.

And, I get it that it was really 235 or less years not 400 years. It has been 165 yeas since the Civil War. And the conditions for revolts [more slaves than whites] didn't start in 1616 when the 1st slaves were landed. It would take about 40 years or many more before that condition was reached. His whole argument fails because he started with a lie.

[One Degree]

One Degree, are you calling for all people to murder their families and commit suicide to avoid the slavery if slavery seems like a 90% probability? A 60% chance. How many people do you think can do that? Masada comes to mind though. So, it does happen.

No, it just requires a strong cultural commitment to the future over our present lives. There are many ways to resist both violently and nonviolently. The only factor is willingness to accept your sacrifice as a contribution rather than a meaningless death or punishment. You simply refuse to cooperate with your slavery and accept the consequences.
It was not that long ago that the majority would prefer to see their daughters dead as to submit to rape. I don’t use this example to condone it, but to point out slavery can be successfully fought with a similar cultural imperative. If everyone is willing to die, then it becomes less likely slavery will succeed or that you need to actually die. Slavery can not exist without the cooperation of the slaves.
Again, this is not an indictment of American slaves. They did not have the cultural imperative. This does not place blame on them, it simply points out their culture lacked the cultural imperative, or ability to communicate their joint imperative, necessary for successful resistance.

[Godstud]

There is no future if you're dead. Your whole mentality about slavery is fucked up from the get-go. Slavery is never a choice, and while dying is, it doesn't leave any room for hope for a better future. Your whole argument borders on insanity.

[One Degree]

There is no future if you're dead. Your whole mentality about slavery is fucked up from the get-go. Slavery is never a choice, and while dying is, it doesn't leave any room for hope for a better future. Your whole argument borders on insanity.

Your whole argument is based upon the idea that the individual is more important than future generations. I consider this illogical because our short life span makes the individual’s importance dependent upon his contributions to the future. You think what happens to you is of utmost importance. I believe what happens to me is meaningless compared to the future. Both our views are based upon ‘cultural imperatives’. Your cultural imperative is susceptible to slavery. Mine is not.