Is Human Breeding possible? Where African slaves bred during their captivity? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14792230
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree with LV's implied argument that slavery is bad, and that those people who are arguing that slavery was a good thing are wrong.


Who is arguing that slavery was a good thing? Slavery was/is. Like everything else it has positives and negatives. Slavery financed the early U.S. largely through the export of tobacco and cotton.
#14792231
SolarCross wrote:I'll politely ignore the fact that you sound like a toddler


Lol at irony.

and point out that slavery is "bad" from the perspective of slaves and those that genuinely sympathise with them. It presumably looks "good" from the perspective of the slaver. By analogy you probably think eating meat is "good" but I am not sure the animal you are eating would agree. Value, as ever, is subjective.


Okay, so those who argue that slavery was good for the slave are wrong. Got it. This is still consistent with LV's implied claim.
#14792234
I'll politely ignore the fact that you sound like a toddler and point out that slavery is "bad" from the perspective of slaves and those that genuinely sympathise with them. It presumably looks "good" from the perspective of the slaver. By analogy you probably think eating meat is "good" but I am not sure the animal you are eating would agree. Value, as ever, is subjective.

Indeed. PoD claims to be a 'Marxist', but most of his reasoning seems to be based on moralistic liberalism rather than any sort of Marxist theory that I've ever come across. Marx devoted a great deal of time to debunking this sort of moral universalism. Marx did not oppose capitalism because he thought it was morally bad, but because he had reasoned that it would become a fetter on the further expansion of the forces of production and would have to be superseded, just as feudalism had been. This is why Marx supported the industrial-capitalist North against the agrarian slave-owning South during the Civil War.
#14792240
I am not sure if I am a Marxist. It might be more correct to say I was raised by Marxists in a Marxist household. Most Marxists come to Marxism through university or reading Marx, so their understanding of Marxism is more intellectually rigourous than mine. I like to believe that I approach it through a more practical path.

Having said that, I am not arguing that slavery was morally wrong. I am pointing out that those who claimed it was good for the slave are almost certainly incorrect according to their own actions, if we take into account their own reluctance to be slaves.
#14792244
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. PoD claims to be a 'Marxist', but most of his reasoning seems to be based on moralistic liberalism rather than any sort of Marxist theory that I've ever come across. Marx devoted a great deal of time to debunking this sort of moral universalism. Marx did not oppose capitalism because he thought it was morally bad, but because he had reasoned that it would become a fetter on the further expansion of the forces of production and would have to be superseded, just as feudalism had been. This is why Marx supported the industrial-capitalist North against the agrarian slave-owning South during the Civil War.


He will wave a red flag around but I am not sure that I have ever seen him explicitly claim to be a marxist. He certainly doesn't drop marxian quotes at all so at the very least he does not seem well versed in the literature.

I am not unsympathetic to the kind of secularised Christianity of moralistic liberalism but indeed there is nothing arising out of nature to require it. Nature is just fine with predators and is just fine with slavery. We are all predators of someone, no one is without sin in that regard. I can't even begin to count the numbers of animals I have eaten... I am really fine with that too even though I am, more or less, a buddhist.
Last edited by SolarCross on 31 Mar 2017 22:27, edited 1 time in total.
#14792247
Slaves were bred. There were several classes of slaves in the South, (and in the North) field hands, house servants and skilled workers, to name a few. While field hands were bred for strong backs, house servants and skilled works such as black smith and ferries need to be smart a presentable. Many of the house servants had quite a bit of White blood. Sally Hemmings, who was the property and mistress of Thomas Jefferson, was probably 3/4ths White. Benjamin Franklin had a couple of slaves who carried him around in a sedan chair after he came down with the gout.
#14792248
Suntzu wrote:Slaves were bred. There were several classes of slaves in the South, (and in the North) field hands, house servants and skilled workers, to name a few. While field hands were bred for strong backs, house servants and skilled works such as black smith and ferries need to be smart a presentable. ....


I doubt any of this is true.
#14792257
I am not sure if I am a Marxist. It might be more correct to say I was raised by Marxists in a Marxist household. Most Marxists come to Marxism through university or reading Marx, so their understanding of Marxism is more intellectually rigourous than mine.

I came to Marxism relatively late in life, having been brought up in a household which was ignorant of even basic politics and in a society which was fundamentally hostile to Marxism. I therefore took, at least initially, a rigorously theoretical approach to it. My 'conversion' to Marxism was an intellectual one rather than a moral one.

I like to believe that I approach it through a more practical path.

Praxis requires a dialectical balance between theory and practice, PoD. Too much emphasis on either side of that dialectical dyad can be a bad thing. Taking a 'practical path' means running the risk of ending up being a bourgeois liberal while wearing a Che t-shirt. A rigorous understanding of the theory is necessary.

Having said that, I am not arguing that slavery was morally wrong. I am pointing out that those who claimed it was good for the slave are almost certainly incorrect according to their own actions, if we take into account their own reluctance to be slaves.

SolarCross is not claiming that slavery was good for the slave (though I'm not sure about SunTzu). Clearly, it was and is very bad for the slave, just as being slaughtered and eaten by humans is very bad for animals. This evening, I had a meal of chicken and roast potatoes. And very tasty it was too. But an animal died so that I could eat that meal. Was this a good thing or a bad thing? It was a good thing for me, but a bad thing for the chicken. I'm fine with that, and the chicken isn't around any more to express an opinion. This is the nature of things, PoD.
#14792264
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt any of this is true.


"Sarah "Sally" Hemings (c. 1773 – 1835) was an enslaved woman of mixed race owned by President Thomas Jefferson. Most historians believe she was the mother of six children fathered by him, of whom four survived to adulthood; and were given freedom by Jefferson. Hemings was the youngest of six siblings by the widowed planter John Wayles and his mixed-race slave Betty Hemings; Sally and her siblings were three-quarters European and half-siblings of Jefferson's wife, Martha Wayles Skelton."
#14792270
Potemkin wrote:I came to Marxism relatively late in life, having been brought up in a household which was ignorant of even basic politics and in a society which was fundamentally hostile to Marxism. I therefore took, at least initially, a rigorously theoretical approach to it. My 'conversion' to Marxism was an intellectual one rather than a moral one.


And this is common, and there is nothing wrong with it. It makes sense that people who rigourously study history, social sciences, and/or economics eventually come to agree with what Marxists say.

Praxis requires a dialectical balance between theory and practice, PoD. Too much emphasis on either side of that dialectical dyad can be a bad thing. Taking a 'practical path' means running the risk of ending up being a bourgeois liberal while wearing a Che t-shirt. A rigorous understanding of the theory is necessary.


What is it with Che t-shirts? I last wore one in 1998, which I got as a gift in Cuba. I was in a bar when a frat boy asked me where I got it. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot.

I agree that practice has to be married to a theoretical understanding, and while I do not use Marxist terminology, rest assured that my parents taught me to analyse situations through the lens of class interest, corporate greed, and verifiable historical fact.

SolarCross is not claiming that slavery was good for the slave (though I'm not sure about SunTzu). Clearly, it was and is very bad for the slave, just as being slaughtered and eaten by humans is very bad for animals. This evening, I had a meal of chicken and roast potatoes. And very tasty it was too. But an animal died so that I could eat that meal. Was this a good thing or a bad thing? It was a good thing for me, but a bad thing for the chicken. I'm fine with that, and the chicken isn't around any more to express an opinion. This is the nature of things, PoD.


Yes, but I think LV was addressing those who were claiming that slavery was good for the enslaved.

---------------

Suntzu wrote:"Sarah "Sally" Hemings (c. 1773 – 1835) was an enslaved woman of mixed race owned by President Thomas Jefferson. Most historians believe she was the mother of six children fathered by him, of whom four survived to adulthood; and were given freedom by Jefferson. Hemings was the youngest of six siblings by the widowed planter John Wayles and his mixed-race slave Betty Hemings; Sally and her siblings were three-quarters European and half-siblings of Jefferson's wife, Martha Wayles Skelton."


This is not the part of your post that I claimed was not true.
#14792277
Came across this looking for slaves that were skilled craftsmen:


Thomas Day: A Master Craftsman, With Complications








Listen· 5:39
5:39

Queue
Download
Embed



Transcript



Facebook



Twitter




Google+



Email




July 29, 2010·4:45 PM ET

Heard on All Things Considered






Fred Wasser





Enlarge this image




This bold, curving newel post at the house of a prominent North Carolina politician was one of Thomas Day's design trademarks.

Tim Buchman









In the decades before the Civil War, it was a mark of distinction and prestige for a wealthy tobacco farmer to own furniture made by a North Carolinian named Thomas Day. Now, there's renewed interest in this master craftsman's legacy and personal history — in part because of the quality of his work, and in part because he was a black man who appeared to own slaves.

Day's fine woodwork still adorns North Carolina buildings today — including the Bartlett Yancey House in the Caswell County town of Yanceyville.

"Bartlett Yancey was a congressman and also a state legislator in North Carolina," says historic preservationist Jo Leimenstoll — "a very prominent political figure here."

Leimenstoll is the co-author of a new book about Thomas Day, whose workshop produced sofas, dressers, bookcases, tables and chairs, plus heaps of architectural ornamentation: fireplace mantels and scrollwork along doors and moldings. The newel post — serpentine, handsome, strong — in the center hall of Yancey's homestead is a fine example of his work.










Enlarge this image




No photos of Thomas Day are known to exist -- though this advertisement for his business, published in the Milton Gazette & Roanoke Advertiser in March 1827, does survive.

North Carolina Office of Archives and History









"Very bold, very chunky, very fluid, very energetic in form with a sweeping handrail leading up to the landing of the staircase," Leimenstoll says, admiring it. "Suggesting that the gentility continues even onto the second floor."

Yancey wasn't Day's only prominent customer; he did work on commission for a former governor, and filled a big order from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Day's method was to take designs that were popular up North and add his own touches — such as that S-shaped newel post.

"He was an entrepreneur, in that he took advantage of every opportunity that was presented to him," says Pat Marshall, who co-wrote the new book on Day and curated an exhibition at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh, where some of Day's woodwork is on display through May of next year.

A Successful, Complicated Entrepreneur




Enlarge this image




In 1857, Thomas Day was awarded the prize for "Best Centre Table" at the annual state fair in Raleigh, N.C. It was likely similar to this table, which is currently in a private collection.

NC Museum of History









Day's success is that much more remarkable because it was the antebellum South and he was black. Mixed race, technically: light-skinned, and not a slave. But a free black man who nevertheless had to live with danger and uncertainty about the future. The laws changed all the time, though his influential white customers protected him to a point.

In 1857, the economy collapsed, and Day's business went bankrupt. As a black man, he wasn't able to collect from his white customers when their accounts became delinquent. But Day and his son reorganized, and to some extent his business was able to recover.

Then there's the other twist to his story. Even though some of his workers were paid journeymen, Day also owned slaves — 14 of them, according to the 1850 census.

"There was a small percentage of free people who did own slaves during that time," says Marshall. "It was not unheard of. But it was not common."

It was complicated, says Peter Wood, who taught American history at Duke University for four decades. And sometimes it was a ruse.

"I think there's a great misunderstanding about what it means for people to own slaves. If you are an African-American opposed to slavery but engaged in business with wealthy white planters in North Carolina, the best 'cover,' if you will, for the workers that you have with you is to call them slaves," Wood says.

Sometimes it was a way of keeping a family together — yours or someone else's.

"Very often, blacks purchased other blacks as a way either to buy their freedom or to assure their safety until freedom arrived in some other form," says Wood.




Enlarge this image




Carolyn Boone, Day's great-great-great-granddaughter, sits in the pews of the Milton Presbyterian Church, which were built by her ancestor.

Fred Wasser









Some say that Day was a secret abolitionist. Others say he owned slaves simply because it was good business. Even though he was black, the argument goes, he still had furniture to turn out — and slave labor fueled the South's economy. Either way, there's a lot of debate among scholars right now about Day's role as a businessman and slave owner.

The Family's Story

"He was in the business of rescuing slaves. And I want to clarify that," says Carolyn Boone, great-great-great-granddaughter of Thomas Day.

She's standing in front of the Union Tavern in Milton, N.C. Day bought it in 1848 and turned the building into his workshop and his home. Many of his workers lived here, too. Boone believes that Day treated his slaves like family — that his tailors made their clothes; that they all sat down to the dinner table together, and prayed together. In her view, many of the answers about the enigmatic Thomas Day are embedded in the stories that were passed down in her family.

"There's a lot of conversation going on about him being a black slave owner and what that meant — a lot of conjecture about why he owned slaves," says Boone. "And without really knowing — without having anything in writing — it's difficult to determine. But oral history is very potent and very important, especially when you're dealing with families of color, because often that's all there is. If he wanted to be in the practice of using slaves, he could have had hundreds. He only had a few. And according to our family lore, he purchased these slaves to rescue them."
#14792281
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, but I think LV was addressing those who were claiming that slavery was good for the enslaved.


Even if he was then it remains that his basic assumption, cut whole cloth from Christianity, that people should care about other humans, even those of exceedingly remote lineage as Africans are to Europeans, as they care for themselves is bogus.

I know some very sweet young people that have taken the Brotherhood of Mankind moral ideology and extended it to encompass all animals...a fraternity of Animalkind I suppose. They are of course animal rights vegans. The poor things are half hysterical at the unrelenting horror show of casual criminality they witness all around them as regular folks chow down on burgers and steaks, casually sell their pets offspring at garage sales as chattel goods and even neuter them without permission. My heart really bleeds for them, they really suffer, having to live in a world with so much sin, where literally everyone looks like a monster. They would think you are monster too and they would be right to think so.

In the end though nature doesn't care and half the animals for whom they shed salty tears are predators themselves.

Did you know that the son of the first known Black slave in the British American Territories was born free and in due course owned slaves himself?

John Punch, an African indentured servant, is sentenced to lifetime slavery after his third attempt to run out on his contract. He is considered the first known black slave in British North America, although his son, John Bunch, was born free and owned land and slaves himself. Punch's descendants include former US president Barack Obama.
#14792282
Suntzu wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:


As usual, you are unable to support your claims.

-------

SolarCross wrote:Even if he was then it remains that his basic assumption, cut whole cloth from Christianity, that people should care about other humans, even those of exceedingly remote lineage as Africans are to Europeans, as they care for themselves is bogus.

I know some very sweet young people that have taken the Brotherhood of Mankind moral ideology and extended it to encompass all animals...a fraternity of Animalkind I suppose. They are of course animal rights vegans. The poor things are half hysterical at the unrelenting horror show of casual criminality they witness all around them as regular folks chow down on burgers and steaks, casually sell their pets offspring at garage sales as chattel goods and even neuter them without permission. My heart really bleeds for them, they really suffer, having to live in a world with so much sin, where literally everyone looks like a monster. They would think you are monster too and they would be right to think so.

In the end though nature doesn't care and half the animals for whom they shed salty tears are predators themselves.

Did you know that the son of the first known Black slave in the British American Territories was born free and in due course owned slaves himself?


I have no idea if LV's argument was based on that. Nor do I care. In fact, if people actually believe that slavery was good for the enslaved, the idea of Christian charity would actually support the institution of slavery.
#14792295
Suntzu wrote:You might want to look up the definition of "any" in your Funk and Wagnal.


...and you might want to look more carefully at the text from your post that I quoted when I wrote that post.

Specifically, I doubt your claim that different slaves were bred for different purposes, and I doubt that you will provide evidence for this claim.
#14792297
"Slaves were bred. There were several classes of slaves in the South, (and in the North) field hands, house servants and skilled workers, to name a few. While field hands were bred for strong backs, house servants and skilled works such as black smith and ferries need to be smart a presentable. Many of the house servants had quite a bit of White blood. Sally Hemmings, who was the property and mistress of Thomas Jefferson, was probably 3/4ths White. Benjamin Franklin had a couple of slaves who carried him around in a sedan chair after he came down with the gout."

To which you replied, "I doubt that any of that is true."

I posted the information about Sally Hemming. Do you understand English?
#14792299
Suntzu wrote:"Slaves were bred. There were several classes of slaves in the South, (and in the North) field hands, house servants and skilled workers, to name a few. While field hands were bred for strong backs, house servants and skilled works such as black smith and ferries need to be smart a presentable. Many of the house servants had quite a bit of White blood. Sally Hemmings, who was the property and mistress of Thomas Jefferson, was probably 3/4ths White. Benjamin Franklin had a couple of slaves who carried him around in a sedan chair after he came down with the gout."

To which you replied, "I doubt that any of that is true."

I posted the information about Sally Hemming. Do you understand English?


Please note that I did not ask about Ms. Hemming. I asked about your claim that slaves were bred.

This is the third time I ask for evidence. And as I correctly predicted, you have not done so.
#14792416
SolarCross wrote:In the end though nature doesn't care and half the animals for whom they shed salty tears are predators themselves.

So because animals are incapable of thinking in abstraction and developing moral theories or ideologies you expect humans to be amoral, too? I'm happy we live in a world where humans are held to a higher standard than dogs and cats.

You may be interested in Jainism. Jains have the most extreme interpretation of 'Thou shalt not kill' that I have encountered.
#14792436
AFAIK wrote:So because animals are incapable of thinking in abstraction and developing moral theories or ideologies you expect humans to be amoral, too? I'm happy we live in a world where humans are held to a higher standard than dogs and cats.

You may be interested in Jainism. Jains have the most extreme interpretation of 'Thou shalt not kill' that I have encountered.


The point is that moral theories and ideologies are fictions.

And if you eat meat you can sincerely shut the fuck up about your imaginary moral superiority over any herbivore.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
The Evolution Fraud

Attempting to elude abiogenesis is ... "I[…]

People's Republic of California

http://PeoplesRepublicOfCalifornia.wordpr[…]

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation F = G*m1m2/[…]

@Godstud Look in the mirror and ask yourself if […]