Slaves Counted as 3/5

[jimboston]

Here's the f*cking definition:

racism –noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
===

The policy of slavery is racist by definition.

Not necessarily; not all slaves in human pasts were based on race. Some were based on gender (ottomans and their harems); some were based on finances (bonded servants).

Even African slaves began by being conquered by neighboring villages or warriors traveling from other clans; then selling their captives. If a black man enslaves a black man (such as this) or a white man enslaves a white man (such as the bonded servants) - is that racist?

Not really.

This thread is not a discussion about slavery in general.

Nor is it about african people preying on other african people.

The thread is specifically about slavery in the US South at the time the Constitution was being written.

In that context... slavery is racist.

I could have written "slavery in the US during the forming of this country" or I could have written "slavery"... I chose the later since it's clear the thread is specifically about .

The policy of counting slaves as less-than equal to non-slaves is a subset of slavery.

Therefore the policy is racist.

There may have many reasons why the policy came to be... but the policy itself it by definition racist. There is no f*cking debate here.

No. The policy of counting slaves as less-than-equal to non-slaves could be seen as a policy of counting non-voters as less-than-equal to voters; not necessarily racist.

It wasn't about counting "non-voters" less than voters... since (presumably) white women and children (who could not vote) where counted as whole people.

Hence yes... racist.

HOW IS ANYONE HERE ARGUING IT WASN'T RACIST???

[Army of GOD]

jimbo, I'm not going to quote your post because it's a giant buttfuck, but the first part of your post is so contradicting. You quote a dictionary, and then claim "zomg! 'course I wuz talkin' 'bout slavery during late 18th century America!!" I'm pretty sure the dictionary writers didn't have 18th century America in mind when defining slavery as a whole (which, obviously isn't true considering civilizations throughout the course of human history enslaved people of the same race as them).

It was very racist though. The forefathers back then cared more about uniting the country than freeing the slaves.

[jimboston]

jimbo, I'm not going to quote your post because it's a giant buttfuck, but the first part of your post is so contradicting. You quote a dictionary, and then claim "zomg! 'course I wuz talkin' 'bout slavery during late 18th century America!!" I'm pretty sure the dictionary writers didn't have 18th century America in mind when defining slavery as a whole (which, obviously isn't true considering civilizations throughout the course of human history enslaved people of the same race as them).

It was very racist though. The forefathers back then cared more about uniting the country than freeing the slaves.

I quote a dictionary to define the word racism... Greek likes definitions, and we want to make sure we are all on the same page. I don't want someone to say it's "not racist" because they simply don't understand the term.

I said actually that I don't need to specify the fact that we are talking about 18th Century America... because the Poll and initial post of the thread clearly states the topic. The topic of the thread is clearly, specifically, and solely related to 18th Century America, because it is about the forming of the Constitution of the US.

Apology Accepted in Advance.

[Phatscotty]

Just curious, since we are dominated by racism in the 17th and 18th century.

Was the slave trade based out of Africa because the people there are black skinned? Or did the slave trade base out of Africa because Africans were completely unable to defend themselves or fight back, or further because they were easily tricked and actually sold other Africans into slavery from rival tribes?

[Army of GOD]

jimbo, I'm not going to quote your post because it's a giant buttfuck, but the first part of your post is so contradicting. You quote a dictionary, and then claim "zomg! 'course I wuz talkin' 'bout slavery during late 18th century America!!" I'm pretty sure the dictionary writers didn't have 18th century America in mind when defining slavery as a whole (which, obviously isn't true considering civilizations throughout the course of human history enslaved people of the same race as them).

It was very racist though. The forefathers back then cared more about uniting the country than freeing the slaves.

I quote a dictionary to define the word racism... Greek likes definitions, and we want to make sure we are all on the same page. I don't want someone to say it's "not racist" because they simply don't understand the term.

Because you think slavery IS racist no matter what?

[stahrgazer]

Just curious, since we are dominated by racism in the 17th and 18th century.

Was the slave trade based out of Africa because the people there are black skinned? Or did the slave trade base out of Africa because Africans were completely unable to defend themselves or fight back, or further because they were easily tricked and actually sold other Africans into slavery from rival tribes?

None of the above.

The MAIN slave trade was based out of Africa because the various tribes in Africa continued to make it a policy to enslave those they captured - like Ghengis Khan did, like Romans did, like...

Sometimes they sold slaves to other tribes. When Spanish and European traders arrived on the continent, they had goodies that some of those tribes wanted more than what they could get by selling their captives to other African tribes; so, they began selling to the Spanish and European traders. Liking those goodies, they began selling more.

Now, back then, it was ALSO a policy that any otherwise-free person could sell himself or herself into bondage, usually a contracted period, and not called slaves, but "imbonded servants" but still, having no rights during the terms of the bondage contract.

Thus, slavery itself was never racist. That's a label that came later, because so MANY African tribes sold their rivals into slavery, and because so MANY Americans (primarily, but not only, in the south) bought them.

But the idea of "born in slavery, die in slavery" was not a southern American concept. Look up why Moses went to the mount and why God sent plagues to Egypt (hint: so Pharoah would let the Hebrew slaves go.)

This thread is not a discussion about slavery in general.

Nor is it about african people preying on other african people.

The thread is specifically about slavery in the US South at the time the Constitution was being written.

In that context... slavery is racist.

You need to recheck your history books. The quantity of African-slavery in the south came about BECAUSE African people preyed on other African people. In that context, it was NOT 'racist' - it was the way some of the world was still operating.

Edit:
Let me try explaining History.

Farming land required labor; inexpensive labor. The cheapest labor was imbonded labor/slavery.

So landowners (north, south, and midwest) wanted imbonded labor/slaves, and of their choices, it just happened that the slaves that traders had purchased from conquering African tribesmen were CHEAPER than other sorts. So, it wasn't "racist" it was "economics."

Now, once that labor was purchased, folks who owned them did pretty well; and in many cases, the slaves/imbonded themselves were better off. But. Not in all cases (and it's those horrid cases people speak of, which were a minority... these were valuable property and smart people treated them as valuable.)

Now, the North v. South thing came about because the North was industrialized, so didn't NEED the imbonded labor, so could AFFORD having a different morality (not all northerners had that other morality, though.)

Of course those who needed the labor they'd purchased would resist!

It wouldn't have mattered what color the imbonded labor was, and THAT is why it isn't "racist."

Racism came about after the slaves were freed, yet were treated as second class citizens.

So, you see, slavery, in and of itself, isn't racist. It's conquerism, and it's economics, but not "racist." Treating free people differently based on race... THAT is racism.

[jimboston]

Just curious, since we are dominated by racism in the 17th and 18th century.

Was the slave trade based out of Africa because the people there are black skinned? Or did the slave trade base out of Africa because Africans were completely unable to defend themselves or fight back, or further because they were easily tricked and actually sold other Africans into slavery from rival tribes?

It started because of the later... but was easily continue because of the former.

Though this racism-vs-power question is unrelated to the initial question posed by the thread initiator.

I suggest you ask this question as a new thread.

[Phatscotty]

Just curious, since we are dominated by racism in the 17th and 18th century.

Was the slave trade based out of Africa because the people there are black skinned? Or did the slave trade base out of Africa because Africans were completely unable to defend themselves or fight back, or further because they were easily tricked and actually sold other Africans into slavery from rival tribes?

It started because of the later... but was easily continue because of the former.

Though this racism-vs-power question is unrelated to the initial question posed by the thread initiator.

I suggest you ask this question as a new thread.

nah nah its cool. I read what you guys wrote and I changed it back. I guess what I was originally getting at was the mere fact that the 3/5's existed was evidence there were plenty of founding fathers who fought tirelessly for that language, who were obviously not racists.

[jimboston]

Because you think slavery IS racist no matter what?

No. Slavery of African Americans, and the counting of them as 3/5ths of a person is racist.

Slavery itself is not racist.

... but Slavery in the US in the 18th century was perpetuated by racism. That brand of slavery is what this thread is about.

Child-slavery in the 21st century has nothing to do with race whatsoever.

I believe there are other forms of slavery, now and in the past, that have had nothing to do with slavery.

... again though, those other instances of slavery are not what this thread is about.

Apology Accepted AOG.

[jimboston]

Just curious, since we are dominated by racism in the 17th and 18th century.

Was the slave trade based out of Africa because the people there are black skinned? Or did the slave trade base out of Africa because Africans were completely unable to defend themselves or fight back, or further because they were easily tricked and actually sold other Africans into slavery from rival tribes?

It started because of the later... but was easily continue because of the former.

Though this racism-vs-power question is unrelated to the initial question posed by the thread initiator.

I suggest you ask this question as a new thread.

nah nah its cool. I read what you guys wrote and I changed it back. I guess what I was originally getting at was the mere fact that the 3/5's existed was evidence there were plenty of founding fathers who fought tirelessly for that language, who were obviously not racists.

Whether the Founding Fathers who opposed slavery were racist or not is an entirely different question. Likely a very interesting one.

You can be opposed to slavery and still be racist. Just you would maybe be more mild in your views. It's entirely possible that some of the FF's who opposed slavery would still never want to educate, befriend, marry, etc. an African.

You can be pushing for a higher ration than 3/5th's, or can be pushing for a lower ratio than 3/5th's... and your motivation may be based on things unrelated to your being racist or not.

I have not been talking about motives at all in this thread.

Just the simple fact that counting a slave (a black slave in the US during the 18th century) as only 3/5's a person... is by definition a racist policy.

[jimboston]

You need to recheck your history books. The quantity of African-slavery in the south came about BECAUSE African people preyed on other African people. In that context, it was NOT 'racist' - it was the way some of the world was still operating.

Edit:
Let me try explaining History.

So, you see, slavery, in and of itself, isn't racist. It's conquerism, and it's economics, but not "racist." Treating free people differently based on race... THAT is racism.

The foundations of slavery were not wholely based on race.... the policy of continuing slavery in the late 18th century was. There were no white slaves in the south... and indentured servitude was either gone or in decline.

The policy of counting slaves as 3/5th's a person was based entirely on race... since only black people in the south were counted in this manner.

I don't disagree with the rest of the history you reference.... but it is moot to the question.

(Oh... and yeah the Southerners wanted slaves to make more money... I get that... it was economic... but it was primarily racist, because the only slaves were black. They had to keep black people down and uneducated... hence they made it illegal to teach blacks to read... etc.)

[Phatscotty]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

[jimboston]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

It started because they couldn't fight back.

It became racist.

You all suck.

I am leaving this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

If you don't think southern slavery had to do with color and racism, then you have not only not studied history, you have to have gone well out of your way to find history that matches your pre-concieved notions.

The FACTS are that slaves being black allowed southerners to justify slavery as OK or even, in some cases as "beneficial" to the race. Even today, some southerners still argue that blacks lack true souls, that "mxing" is "against God" and "polluting", etc. (no longer as common a view, but not gone, either)

I think you are mistaking the fact that racism could extend even to people who we now would consider to be simply "white". Remember signs like "no Irish need apply" and such? Nevermind Italiens! But, while the fact that they were largely white made transition away from those views easier, those were still racist ideas.

[Phatscotty]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

It started because they couldn't fight back.

It became racist.

You all suck.

I am leaving this thread.

we agree. Why would you leave? I thought we were just getting somewhere

[Phatscotty]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

If you don't think southern slavery had to do with color and racism, then you have not only not studied history....

No, Player, no. NO! Fail fail.

Nobody has ever mentioned "southern" slavery. I am talking Portugeuse boats landing in the ports of Morrocco here, the initial imprisonment.

Your conclusion jumping is a tragedy.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

If you don't think southern slavery had to do with color and racism, then you have not only not studied history....

No, Player, no. NO! Fail fail.

Nobody has ever mentioned "southern" slavery. I am talking Portugeuse boats landing in the ports of Morrocco here, the initial imprisonment.

Your conclusion jumping is a tragedy.

Doesn't matter. It is still racism. That is the point. Those people saw the other tribes as different, inferior, races.

[Phatscotty]

I don't think it was so much they did it because they were black, but more they did it because they were unable to fight back.

If you don't think southern slavery had to do with color and racism, then you have not only not studied history....

No, Player, no. NO! Fail fail.

Nobody has ever mentioned "southern" slavery. I am talking Portugeuse boats landing in the ports of Morrocco here, the initial imprisonment.

Your conclusion jumping is a tragedy.

Doesn't matter. It is still racism. That is the point. Those people saw the other tribes as different, inferior, races.

Did they have any reason to think that? Or was it just a fallacy based on skin color?

[PLAYER57832]

Doesn't matter. It is still racism. That is the point. Those people saw the other tribes as different, inferior, races.

Did they have any reason to think that? Or was it just a fallacy based on skin color?

Reason? Of course they have "reasons" It was "obvious" that those people were just inferior! Just look at how they lived!!! The fact that they were so easily defeated, their customs barbaric.... etc. etc etc.
Or, to paraphrase... "they are different and different is, of course, bad". Or... racism.

Oh, and there were gradations in color as well...

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPIOqsjfLXw

Glenn Beck vs. Chris Mathews on 3/5ths!!