Whenever the topic of video games as a distinct medium comes up, I jump at the chance to highlight what they can offer that other media (such as film, books, etc.) cannot.
>No one wants to grapple with the very high likelihood that not only you would have been holding the whip but also ridiculing anyone who argued otherwise as a daft imbecile
Interesting. Shall we also talk about how the ancestors of most black Americans would have happily sold off their tribal enemies as slaves if they had been on the winning side of whatever conflict they ended up losing?
Shall we talk about how, without Europeans, the African and arab slave trades would likely still exist, and that principled opposition to slavery is mostly a white person thing, historically?
> Shall we also talk about how the ancestors of most black Americans would have happily sold off their tribal enemies as slaves if they had been on the winning side of whatever conflict they ended up losing?
I already talked about how the transatlantic slave trade operated above. Did you see that part?
> Shall we talk about how, without Europeans, the African and arab slave trades would likely still exist, and that principled opposition to slavery is mostly a white person thing, historically?
Citation needed? Slavery was a universal practice and didn't really start to die off until the beginning of the industrial revolution. I have no idea how you pin abolition on being a "white person thing" given how many white persons enthusiastically engaged in the practice.
I would prefer to hear Jason's own perspective, but I can speculate.
I think he's referring to the European rejection of slavery within Europe, and the British war against the slave trade - not matched by a contemporaneous widespread internal nor external rejection of slavery inside Africa or within the Arabic slave trade.
Let's distinguish two threads of opposition to slavery. One is internal - a nation deciding not to practice slavery themselves, often based on moral reasoning, albeit becoming dominant mostly after the economic imperatives for slavery were reduced.
That's what happened in Europe and its colonies over the course of the 19th century.
But was that internal rejection of slavery happening around the world at that time, as their own economic and technological development changed? If not, would it have still happened, just delayed by some number of decades? Or would it have persisted?
Which brings us to the other thread - external opposition to slavery, coersion from one nation on another to end slavery. Beyond ending their own use of slavery, the British expended substantial resources and lives attempting to end the slave trade world wide, including doing what they could to shut down the Arabic slave trade - without a good economic return on investment. This was primary a moral crusade, as best I understand currently.
To what degree would slavery practiced by other than Europeans have ended anyway, absent that coercive (externally enforced) British campaign? Would slavery be more prevalent in parts of the world today (it is NOT gone), had Europeans not attempted to stop others from practicing it, as well as themselves?
You are likely aware of what happened after the British navy cut off the seaborne slave trade from Africa (not just the transatlantic triangle, but other flows as well). The Dahomey continued to capture slaves, but instead of selling them, they worked them in Dahomey owned and controlled palm oil plantations (the Europeans still traded for palm oil - they had not gotten to the point of ethical sourcing enforcement). The British did not invade the land to stop that practice (but the French did, in this case). Palm oil was still a trade good, but was somewhat less profitable as workers needed to be paid.
There is no doubt that Europeans became major participants in the practice of slavery, especially during the height of their colonization. The trans-Atlantic slave trade took a roughly similar number of slaves out of Africa, as the Arabic slave trade did. (In the 10 million range, each).
But the Europeans later changed their attitudes about slavery (delayed, as you rightly point out, until the economic benefits of slavery were less compelling), and went beyond internal bans, to actively seeking to end it worldwide. Can the same be said for all non-Europeans?
I suspect this is what he was referencing, and I don't find it entirely void of evidential support.
Great article. Always nice to come across another Paradox autist
>No one wants to grapple with the very high likelihood that not only you would have been holding the whip but also ridiculing anyone who argued otherwise as a daft imbecile
Interesting. Shall we also talk about how the ancestors of most black Americans would have happily sold off their tribal enemies as slaves if they had been on the winning side of whatever conflict they ended up losing?
Shall we talk about how, without Europeans, the African and arab slave trades would likely still exist, and that principled opposition to slavery is mostly a white person thing, historically?
> Shall we also talk about how the ancestors of most black Americans would have happily sold off their tribal enemies as slaves if they had been on the winning side of whatever conflict they ended up losing?
I already talked about how the transatlantic slave trade operated above. Did you see that part?
> Shall we talk about how, without Europeans, the African and arab slave trades would likely still exist, and that principled opposition to slavery is mostly a white person thing, historically?
Citation needed? Slavery was a universal practice and didn't really start to die off until the beginning of the industrial revolution. I have no idea how you pin abolition on being a "white person thing" given how many white persons enthusiastically engaged in the practice.
I would prefer to hear Jason's own perspective, but I can speculate.
I think he's referring to the European rejection of slavery within Europe, and the British war against the slave trade - not matched by a contemporaneous widespread internal nor external rejection of slavery inside Africa or within the Arabic slave trade.
Let's distinguish two threads of opposition to slavery. One is internal - a nation deciding not to practice slavery themselves, often based on moral reasoning, albeit becoming dominant mostly after the economic imperatives for slavery were reduced.
That's what happened in Europe and its colonies over the course of the 19th century.
But was that internal rejection of slavery happening around the world at that time, as their own economic and technological development changed? If not, would it have still happened, just delayed by some number of decades? Or would it have persisted?
Which brings us to the other thread - external opposition to slavery, coersion from one nation on another to end slavery. Beyond ending their own use of slavery, the British expended substantial resources and lives attempting to end the slave trade world wide, including doing what they could to shut down the Arabic slave trade - without a good economic return on investment. This was primary a moral crusade, as best I understand currently.
To what degree would slavery practiced by other than Europeans have ended anyway, absent that coercive (externally enforced) British campaign? Would slavery be more prevalent in parts of the world today (it is NOT gone), had Europeans not attempted to stop others from practicing it, as well as themselves?
You are likely aware of what happened after the British navy cut off the seaborne slave trade from Africa (not just the transatlantic triangle, but other flows as well). The Dahomey continued to capture slaves, but instead of selling them, they worked them in Dahomey owned and controlled palm oil plantations (the Europeans still traded for palm oil - they had not gotten to the point of ethical sourcing enforcement). The British did not invade the land to stop that practice (but the French did, in this case). Palm oil was still a trade good, but was somewhat less profitable as workers needed to be paid.
There is no doubt that Europeans became major participants in the practice of slavery, especially during the height of their colonization. The trans-Atlantic slave trade took a roughly similar number of slaves out of Africa, as the Arabic slave trade did. (In the 10 million range, each).
But the Europeans later changed their attitudes about slavery (delayed, as you rightly point out, until the economic benefits of slavery were less compelling), and went beyond internal bans, to actively seeking to end it worldwide. Can the same be said for all non-Europeans?
I suspect this is what he was referencing, and I don't find it entirely void of evidential support.