What if animal slavery became sinful?

Good point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol

this is the take alot of vegans have

What argument? You don't have one.

I am a descendant of a POW held by the British. Does that mean that my stage roles playing British people were in some way demeaning to me or glorifying the British rule over America?

And saying "if anyone did a particular thing that is unacceptable now, they were bad people" is the very definition of presentism. While we have to acknowledge the fact that people in history accepted things as normal that would horrify us today, that doesn't mean that we have to blanketly judge them as nothing more than terrible people.

It is quite possible that people of the future will feel the same way about things that most of us accept today, even though there are some who disagree. Eating meet is the first example that springs to mind, though it might be something even less controversial in current society.

In before "Garick equates non-vegetarianism to slavery." My point is not that they are the same, but that the future may have different ideas about what is unacceptable, and them blanketly judging all 20th century folks as "nothing more than evil carnivores" would be inappropriate.

privileged white guy on an internet forum -> "I have similarities to slaves"

It seems like one of the people itt isn't very smart

I would like to wager my net worth on the over, sir.

I would like to wager mine as well, but it’s not that much. Instead I will wager Rob’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you saying that slave owners didn’t know what they were doing was wrong? Or that it was socially acceptable and therefore not as bad. Is that correct?

And just to clarify you have taken the position that there is no argument where you’re incorrect here.


I don’t think who is smarter affects the arguments we are having but what do I know?

Also I didn’t say they were nothing more than terrible people. That’s what you’re saying. I’m saying they are bad people for what they did. Could still be good leaders or good parents etc

That’s cool. I had family die in the revolutionary war. Rip John Hicks. My dads sides of the family are Aztec and Spanish. I had a whole bunch of my people killed by the same sorts of people that enslaved African Americans.

I don’t think my background has an impact on my arguments. But I do think you should note that you have an extremely biased and privileged experience in this country. Maybe you aren’t aware of that. I dunno what they teach you guys in PhD programs

im actually in awe at the arguments garick is making in support of slavery

I definitely think smart people are way better than dumb people.

Gmightbeoktomakedumbpeopleslaves?thisissueissoconf usingG

But you can't have a play about them that includes black and brown people, and if you do you are glorifying the bad things that they did?

Listen, slavery was clearly awful. I don't think that's open for debate. I'm simply saying that despite our imaginings, it was not the dominant social issue (except for its victims, obviously) of most of the era during which it was legal. The horrors of slavery only became a hotly debated issue in the core society (as opposed to then fringe groups like the Quakers) in England in the ~1820s and in the United States in ~1840s.

It is important for us to understand the society of the time, and to accept that the founders were not the "All-American Heroes" that the traditional American Exceptionalism narrative would have us believe. But it is also inappropriate for us to demonize them for not being enough ahead of their time (with the exception of Benjamin Franklin) to be abolitionists in a time when those were very rare. "Terrible people" is a lazy and presentist judgement, and it is definitely one that you made.

It's more complicated than that. Jefferson, for example, was against slavery in the abstract, but kept slaves himself. He rationalized it, as so many people do when they participate in things they consider "generally wrong." Washington had dentures partly made from the teeth of black people, who were likely slaves, as free blacks were not common in Virginia at the time, though there's no record either way. But he paid them for the teeth. Does that make it fine? No. But it's less bad than just taking them since the victims were likely his property under the laws of the era.

Nuance is harder than staking out a claim of hero or villain, but it's much more valuable than a bumper sticker view of history.

As for Hamilton, the play actually makes slavery more of a point of contention than it really was in the era, and that's sad. Sad that the history is inaccurate in the play and even sadder that slavery just wasn't that controversial yet.

The Bible says slavery is bad and it’s pretty clear. Or am I wrong on that too?

Yeah it was difficult for them to realize that enslaving men to do backbreaking labor for free while treating them like **** and raping women was bad.

They didn’t have google so how were they supposed to know

Red herring

Thank god we all have a really good handle on what will be considered right and wrong 500 years from now and act accordingly.

Git'snotacoincidencethatwe'realldoingthesameasever yoneelse,it'sjustthatweasasocietyhave*finally*figu reditout!patsonthebacksforeverybody!G

ok thats 2 for anti slavery and 2 pro slavery

its all tied up

The future will thank us for the hard work all we're putting in today.

GIjusthopeIdon'tlooklikethe"crazyone"inthehistoric algroupphotoG

What would Jesus do?

Yes.

Probably ask his dad?

GcluelesstheologynoobG

in be4 garick is like



"A little known historical fact is that Jesus owned many slaves, both of Hebrew and Palestinian descent blah blah blah"

Only if I can wager sabr’s?