This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Slavery never caught on in the British isles because they had population in excess; the same time that the US was still using slave labor had the British loosing children in mining accidents.
And despite eliminating the slave trade in the early 1800s, they didn't manumit slaves in the Caribbean holdings till around the 1840s.
If you want to be very, very cynical, the British anti-slave movement was a mix of virtue signaling and economic tactics to try and neuter an up and coming economic super-power.
Please excuse the lack of sources. It's early morning for me and I'm being lazy.
I learned something new looking this up, that Scotland still had slaves in the coal mines until 1799, but my understanding is that England (and by extension Ireland and Wales) didn’t use slaves domestically simply because it hadn’t been accepted under common law since the 12th century.
It didn't stop them in the Caribbean, though.
Also, minor correction on my part. The British manumitted their slaves in 1838 - it was the French that kept them until 1848 before it was abolished. My apologies - it's been a while since I've cracked open those books.
That said, I'm perhaps being very cynical. But if I'm sure the British had required the manpower, they would have worked some legal and/or financial shenanigan out.
This is all pure supposition on my part, however, so feel free to ignore it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know anything about the economics of slavery, so I'm just trying to understand. But why does having population in excess make slavery less enticing? I understand you can get lots of cheap labor if you have excess population. But at the same time, slavery is free labor, and wouldn't having excess population mean you have more people to enslave?
Slaves are not 'free'. Intial purchase, maintenance, oversight - all costs. Then there's the social aspects - slaves in the South were, ironically enough, treated very well compared to thier brethern that went elsewhere. It's why you get twisted situations such as the Irish Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana, that was so named due to all the Irish immigrants that died during it's construction in 1830s.
Why didn't they use slave labor? Because immigrant labor was much, much cheaper.
More options
Context Copy link
It's cost of labor vs wages, something I've been wanting to talk about recently. Slaves have huge fixed and variable costs, especially if you have to do it individually and can't take advantage of coordinated/socialized investments like the county militia Catch'uh Freeman team
You need some pretty weird conditions for slavery or serfdom to coexist with widespread wage labor iirc. Lots of war captives in Rome, ways to stop serfs bailing to go work for cash in Russia, etc. (i still don't know how that second one worked tbh, anyone have a clue?)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link