re: Slavery and the destruction of world history, you Ok with this?

There’s a poster on here that is big into the confederate statues being taken down. He has Chalmette in his username, which is the city named after a slave owner. He has yet to change his username.

quote:

---

Pyramids (Built by those who used slave labor)

---

Actually, this is incorrect.

(no message)

quote:

---

Not to mention I think UCLA, Harvard and other universities people of color wanting to do a separate graduation

---

It’s crazy how we give all these new rights to people of color and gays and whatnot. When’s the last time normal people got new rights?

quote:

---

and there's arguments from both side to what took place,

---

Not really. The vast majority of Egyptologist agree it wasn’t save labor that built the pyramids.

quote:

---

but are you gonna deny Jews were slaved by Egyptians?

---

Not at all. But I will deny the use of slavery to build the pyramids as there are a plethora of articles and studies that show this to be the case.

quote:

---

Regardless, structures within Egypt were built by slaves helping out.

---

But that isn’t what you claimed. You claimed a specific “building” was built by slaves, when in fact, it has been decided otherwise by people who have PhDs in the topic and understand it far better than we can, that it was not built using slave labor.

quote:

---

Weather the Jews dug ditches, pulled stones, got water, etc... these Jews were slaved. The Jews not actually doing the skilled labor parts is a moot point.

---

Then why not just say the Egyptians used slaves? Why lie and now try to backtrack?

quote:

---

Example: If a farmer drives the equipment to plow a field while slaves grab the debris off the fields plowed by owner. Sure the owner made the fields, but that doesn't change the fact that slaves were involved in making field too. Does it?

---

Now you’re just trying to argue semantics because you got called out.

(no message)

quote:

---

but are you gonna deny Jews were slaved by Egyptians?

---

At all? No, I won't do that. In any appreciable number? Yes, I have and will continue to do so :

LINK

quote:

---

But... I'm asking you to defend the structures praising him, that many are OK with today, while wanting to tear down others historical structures at same time.

---

As for my personal opinion, I don't think any of it should be torn down. As someone who loves art and appreciates cultural history, it would be a travesty to destroy any work of art from any time period. Once it's gone, it can't be replaced.

With that said, I'm sympathetic to moving statues that no longer reflect public sentiment from public squares and into museums. If the piece in question can't safely be relocated, then I think we need to take it on a case by case basis (and again, from my personal perspective, unless it's something built by Hitler himself to celebrate genocide, I'm probably going to fall on the side of "leave it the frick alone").

quote:

---

What are you referring to?

---

That the binding influence of the religion fostered art, science, architecture, and culture to such a degree that, taken from a purely objective and utilitarian perspective, are a historical net positive. Said more simply, if you gave me a big red button that, were I to push it, would go back in time stop Islam from ever existing, I wouldn't press it.

Now, if that same button would simply mean it would stop existing going forward, I would give it some very serious thought...

quote:

---

For most of mankind, the choice for the victors in a skirmish, battle, or war was this-slavery or slaughter.

---

This is a sad fact of human evolution. For better or worse, it exists until some enlightened culture begins to 'see the moral blight' and work to eradicate it from the future.

quote:

---

chattel slavery

---

To me - this is the great flaw of the USA at its founding, and becomes a rational reason for opposing the southern slave-based economy. However, to be fair, the "north" and all those 'pure' European countries could have easily brought slavery in the USA to an abrupt end by refusing to purchase products from slave labor. It would have made the cost of cotton to increase significantly - so their continued purchase of these goods was MORE of an incentive for slave labor than was the southern plantations who merely responded to the demand.

This 'complicit acquiescence' to moral outrages continues to this day - with consumers across the world demanding cheap products that can only be obtained by 'sweat shop' conditions - and in some places outright slavery. We accept it because we don't want to pay the real cost of producing things without these moral outrages. People will wear Nikes while they tear down a statue that has stood mute and unnoticed for over 100 years, while videoing the event with their iPhones produced in China under appalling conditions, and spreading their 'bravery' on BigTech platforms that have employees existing on welfare.

Chattel slavery was an abomination - but the blame for it should not be borne solely by the entity that responded to the economic demand from the rest of the world. To expect a small minority of people to unilaterally have the 'moral insight'
to reject an ages old institution and subject themselves in poverty rather than meet the demands for a product under the economic rules imposed by the very people who would later blame them for all the worlds ill, is a bit too much. Nothing short of the Christian religion in all of human history has ever approach such instant moral clarity.

A great Civil War was fought to a bloody conclusion and the issue was settled. The two sides agreed (with GREAT INFLUENCE by the very same Confederate Generals whose statue are being torn down today) to live in peace. Those DEMOCRAT Confederate Generals could have resorted to promoting'resistance' tactics - much like less principled DEMCRATs are doing today. They could have incited the rabble to engage in riots, assassination attempts, harassment, vandalism, constants protests to hamper the reconstruction efforts - just like less principled DEMOCRATs are doing today.

Instead, they devoted the remainder of their lives to healing the wounds, rejecting any 'resistance' movements, pleading FOR unity and restructuring the south to accept their defeat as final resolution of the issue. Quire UNLIKE the DEMOCRAT agenda today.

In fact, if the modern day 'progressives' where really honest with themselves in relation to what they profess to want, it should be THEY who are heralding those Confederate Generals who after the war did so much to heal the nation and set it on a course for ultimate healing fo the historical wounds. Indeed these Generals conducted themselves and the most honorable citizens this Nation has produced.

The acceptance of these Confederate Generals' leadership after the war shows there was NO WIDESPREAD RACIAL HATRED in the south. The overwhelming majority of southerners fought the war not because they were motivated to keep blacks in slavery - they were merely following the age-old human tradition of defending their territory and their fealty to their STATE rather than the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

America as a whole paid the terrible price of having not earlier ridded themselves of the scourge of chattel slavery - the North and the South paid in blood for their ancestors' sins of 'kicking the can down the road.'

quote:

---

In the case of black Americans, if slavery destroyed their sense of family, how does one account for the health of intact black families up until 1960?

---

To be sure, the black population had a rough row to hoe because of the non-existence opportunities they were historicaly denied to enrich themselves and establish a truly American culture. The black population made a long, slow, steady advance toward equally in opportunity. This was led exclusively by the black family unit - each generation imploring their children to succeed rather than wallow in resentment. Then, just as the black family was poised to claim the ultimate prize of shedding historical oppression, and claim their place as equal citizens under the same law, LBJ steps in to make sure they could be subjugated back to a dependent position where their 'masters' would be responsible for their welfare, and treat them like pet gerbils rather than equal citizens, responsible for their own future.

The legacy of LBJ is the modern equivalent of Simon Degree.