Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

Interesting that his notion of incest only includes having sex with female relatives…

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

People are used as extremely cheap labour with extremely poor working conditions to maximise profits and its generally accepted or at least ignored as we like cheap goods.

furious said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

Interesting that his notion of incest only includes having sex with female relatives…

Come on. First question – only antiquity. Second question – each implies the opposite.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

An easier definition would be to not be appropriately remunerated for your economic production because someone in a position of authority takes it instead.

Moll’s definition of “economic slavery” sounds a lot like “financial abuse” in domestic abuse situations.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

An easier definition would be to not be appropriately remunerated for your economic production because someone in a position of authority takes it instead.

As in the term wage slave.

It might be a long bow but groups of animals where, for example, there is a dominant male could be described as slavery – both economic and sexual – as the group must serve him until he is usurped. Insects in colonies also, in some ways, exist only to serve their queen…

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

An easier definition would be to not be appropriately remunerated for your economic production because someone in a position of authority takes it instead.

As in the term wage slave.

Or Wage inequality between male and female workers doing the Same job.

Divine Angel said:

Moll’s definition of “economic slavery” sounds a lot like “financial abuse” in domestic abuse situations.

There’s plenty of that.

Divine Angel said:

Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

An easier definition would be to not be appropriately remunerated for your economic production because someone in a position of authority takes it instead.

As in the term wage slave.

Or Wage inequality between male and female workers doing the Same job.

Yes. Slave is the wrong word to use except in a jocular sense.
It’s like the worker’s little song: “I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.”

furious said:

It might be a long bow but groups of animals where, for example, there is a dominant male could be described as slavery – both economic and sexual – as the group must serve him until he is usurped. Insects in colonies also, in some ways, exist only to serve their queen…

The role of dominant males in some species probably creates some degree of social stability in lieu of more chaotic settings. But then the same could probably be said of that in some human societies too.

furious said:

It might be a long bow but groups of animals where, for example, there is a dominant male could be described as slavery – both economic and sexual – as the group must serve him until he is usurped. Insects in colonies also, in some ways, exist only to serve their queen…

Some good debating points there.

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things,

…or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

Not far from you, ants are fighting for their freedom.

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things,

…or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

Not far from you, ants are fighting for their freedom.

Other food taboos are religious.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

People are used as extremely cheap labour with extremely poor working conditions to maximise profits and its generally accepted or at least ignored as we like cheap goods.

No Cymek, Tamb, that’s not really what I mean by “economic slavery”.

I’m using “economic slavery” as an umbrella term to include all four of:

• blackmail
• usury
• protection money
• crippling taxation

In each case the victim suffers greatly from the perpetrator’s actions but is not owned by the perpetrator, not a slave in the traditional sense. All of the four can operate in a barter economy. Idriess gives one example of usury in his book “Red Chief” about aborigines of NSW.

If you have a better term than “economic slavery” to cover all four then I’d like to know it.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

I disagree with the term economic slavery.

People are used as extremely cheap labour with extremely poor working conditions to maximise profits and its generally accepted or at least ignored as we like cheap goods.

No Cymek, Tamb, that’s not really what I mean by “economic slavery”.

I’m using “economic slavery” as an umbrella term to include all four of:

• blackmail
• usury
• protection money
• crippling taxation

In each case the victim suffers greatly from the perpetrator’s actions but is not owned by the perpetrator, not a slave in the traditional sense. All of the four can operate in a barter economy. Idriess gives one example of usury in his book “Red Chief” about aborigines of NSW.

If you have a better term than “economic slavery” to cover all four then I’d like to know it.

What about unreasonable tariffs on imported goods not to protect your local economy but to punish the exporter for criticising your politics
Economic sanctions as well I imagine

I’m a bit wary of using the term slavery for anything other than real slavery, particularly given that there is still real slavery in the world today.

dv said:

I’m a bit wary of using the term slavery for anything other than real slavery, particularly given that there is still real slavery in the world today.

You’ll do what the Boss Lady tells you and be glad of it!

dv said:

I’m a bit wary of using the term slavery for anything other than real slavery, particularly given that there is still real slavery in the world today.

Agree.

Slave screams he think he knows what he wants
Slave screams thinks he has something to say
Slave screams he hears but doesn’t want to listen
Slave screams he’s being beat into submission

Don’t open your eyes you won’t like what you see
The devils of truth steal the souls of the free
Don’t open your eyes take it from me
I have found
You can find
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery

Slave screams he spends his life learning conformity
Slave screams he claims he has his own identity
Slave screams he’s going to cause the system to fall
Slave screams but he’s glad to be chained to that wall

Don’t open your eyes you won’t like what you see
The blind have been blessed with security
Don’t open your eyes take it from me
I have found
You can find
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness

I don’t know what I am I don’t know where I’ve been
Human junk just words and so much skin
Stick my hands through the cage of this endless routine
Just some flesh caught in this big broken machine

Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery
Happiness in slavery (slavery)
Happiness in slavery (slavery)
Happiness in slavery (slavery)
Happiness in slavery (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness
Happiness (slavery)
Happiness (it controls why

Agriculture requires effort. It needs the input of labour in a planned way. It is a different sort of effort than hunting and gathering, it is hard work for no immediate reward, and the work can be quite a chore. Having somebody else do the hard work while you take the rewards is always a more attractive option. Slavery is as old as agriculture. It was only with the industrial revolution and the invention of machines that in modern times we have been able to sort of abolish slavery. Most other places it and times it was just regarded as a fact of life. The sexual exploitation of slaves was an integral part of the relationship in many societies too, such as ancient Rome.

party_pants said:

Agriculture requires effort. It needs the input of labour in a planned way. It is a different sort of effort than hunting and gathering, it is hard work for no immediate reward, and the work can be quite a chore. Having somebody else do the hard work while you take the rewards is always a more attractive option. Slavery is as old as agriculture. It was only with the industrial revolution and the invention of machines that in modern times we have been able to sort of abolish slavery. Most other places it and times it was just regarded as a fact of life. The sexual exploitation of slaves was an integral part of the relationship in many societies too, such as ancient Rome.

Slaves were expensive in ancient Rome & thus were treated quite well as opposed to their treatment in more recent times.

probably worth mentioning the array of mind tools housed in the cranium of humans didn’t evolve entirely as a consequence of much of life being ideal (ideal in the thoughtful sense, so elevated by intellect), right off the bat the cycles of try-and-test involving the recombination of DNA are in large part courtesy the orgasm, no shortage of indifference about that to get the job done

fairly much anything following that moment of indifference lends to some sort of construction, ideas to make it work, you could call it the Lie

of course everyone is a slave after they are born, and it probably preceded conception even

so I guess, of the best world possible, the slave concept might start right at home, with that executive voice in our heads (what it expresses into the broader social field), the press agent

slavery has its origin in the human tendency to compete among its own type, willingness, the enthusiasm to do that, to accept that, give it some respectable ideas to frame it though, in something where it wouldn’t be recognized perhaps, some apparently egalitarian ideas nestled in meritocracy could do it

of modern times you could argue people are increasingly slaves to clocks, not just calendars, and being slaves to clocks is being slaves to others, slaves to others that have more power over the rule of clocks maybe

a lot of taboos exist to make bullshit work, make the Lie work, dig around some and you find fairly much everything is patched up with some sort of bullshit, you aren’t meant to see, or think too much about the less pleasant dimension of normal

yet the less pleasant dimension of normal, the realities everyone has to deal with, they are in fact potentially a highly cohesive force of understanding, contribute to

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Agriculture requires effort. It needs the input of labour in a planned way. It is a different sort of effort than hunting and gathering, it is hard work for no immediate reward, and the work can be quite a chore. Having somebody else do the hard work while you take the rewards is always a more attractive option. Slavery is as old as agriculture. It was only with the industrial revolution and the invention of machines that in modern times we have been able to sort of abolish slavery. Most other places it and times it was just regarded as a fact of life. The sexual exploitation of slaves was an integral part of the relationship in many societies too, such as ancient Rome.

Slaves were expensive in ancient Rome & thus were treated quite well as opposed to their treatment in more recent times.

It was still not a pleasant life, Some estimates of life expectancy for people born into slavery in the ancient world are below 20. Some slaves had valuable skills like scribes and artisans, and these were probably well kept and well fed. Other slaves that were used in brute force jobs like mining and agriculture had a pretty miserable life. Maybe not quite so bad as the blacks in the Americas in the 16th to 19th centuries, but nothing to write home about.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Agriculture requires effort. It needs the input of labour in a planned way. It is a different sort of effort than hunting and gathering, it is hard work for no immediate reward, and the work can be quite a chore. Having somebody else do the hard work while you take the rewards is always a more attractive option. Slavery is as old as agriculture. It was only with the industrial revolution and the invention of machines that in modern times we have been able to sort of abolish slavery. Most other places it and times it was just regarded as a fact of life. The sexual exploitation of slaves was an integral part of the relationship in many societies too, such as ancient Rome.

Slaves were expensive in ancient Rome & thus were treated quite well as opposed to their treatment in more recent times.

It was still not a pleasant life, Some estimates of life expectancy for people born into slavery in the ancient world are below 20. Some slaves had valuable skills like scribes and artisans, and these were probably well kept and well fed. Other slaves that were used in brute force jobs like mining and agriculture had a pretty miserable life. Maybe not quite so bad as the blacks in the Americas in the 16th to 19th centuries, but nothing to write home about.

> Some estimates of life expectancy for people born into slavery in the ancient world are below 20

In Jamaica, the same was true of slave owners. Tropical diseases don’t discriminate.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Agriculture requires effort. It needs the input of labour in a planned way. It is a different sort of effort than hunting and gathering, it is hard work for no immediate reward, and the work can be quite a chore. Having somebody else do the hard work while you take the rewards is always a more attractive option. Slavery is as old as agriculture. It was only with the industrial revolution and the invention of machines that in modern times we have been able to sort of abolish slavery. Most other places it and times it was just regarded as a fact of life. The sexual exploitation of slaves was an integral part of the relationship in many societies too, such as ancient Rome.

Slaves were expensive in ancient Rome & thus were treated quite well as opposed to their treatment in more recent times.

It was still not a pleasant life, Some estimates of life expectancy for people born into slavery in the ancient world are below 20. Some slaves had valuable skills like scribes and artisans, and these were probably well kept and well fed. Other slaves that were used in brute force jobs like mining and agriculture had a pretty miserable life. Maybe not quite so bad as the blacks in the Americas in the 16th to 19th centuries, but nothing to write home about.

Not much less than the average for non slaves.
Historians believe that the life expectancy in Ancient Rome was probably around 25 to 40 years old.

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

Slaves were expensive in ancient Rome & thus were treated quite well as opposed to their treatment in more recent times.

It was still not a pleasant life, Some estimates of life expectancy for people born into slavery in the ancient world are below 20. Some slaves had valuable skills like scribes and artisans, and these were probably well kept and well fed. Other slaves that were used in brute force jobs like mining and agriculture had a pretty miserable life. Maybe not quite so bad as the blacks in the Americas in the 16th to 19th centuries, but nothing to write home about.

Not much less than the average for non slaves.
Historians believe that the life expectancy in Ancient Rome was probably around 25 to 40 years old.

Heck, even English monarchs had shit lives until recently. Bad teeth and joints with no remedy, drafty castles and uncomfortable beds. Check out the infant mortality among the kids of English monarchs before the scientific revolution: it’s like 30%.

Bogsnorkler said:

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

These dudes are literally shackled to the railway carriage.

Australia didn’t have a formal system of personal ownership, but if a person can’t leave or get alternative employment under threat of violence (shrugs) It’s de facto slavery.

Bogsnorkler said:

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

One of the people who attended the protests in Melbourne last weekend has since tested positive for Rona. Was possibly infectious at the time but not symptomatic. The government are right to be worried aout the spread of Rona through the protests.

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

These dudes are literally shackled to the railway carriage.

Australia didn’t have a formal system of personal ownership, but if a person can’t leave or get alternative employment under threat of violence (shrugs) It’s de facto slavery.

Why would he even say that?

The Drover’s Boy

party_pants said:

The government are right to be worried aout the spread of Rona through the protests.

yes

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

These dudes are literally shackled to the railway carriage.

Australia didn’t have a formal system of personal ownership, but if a person can’t leave or get alternative employment under threat of violence (shrugs) It’s de facto slavery.

No, no, they’ve chained themselves to the railway truck, to demonstrate their commitment to their employer’s ‘quality’ criteria.

how appropriate is use of a wrong reason to justify correct concern

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

Slaves were expensive in ancient Rome & thus were treated quite well as opposed to their treatment in more recent times.

It was still not a pleasant life, Some estimates of life expectancy for people born into slavery in the ancient world are below 20. Some slaves had valuable skills like scribes and artisans, and these were probably well kept and well fed. Other slaves that were used in brute force jobs like mining and agriculture had a pretty miserable life. Maybe not quite so bad as the blacks in the Americas in the 16th to 19th centuries, but nothing to write home about.

Not much less than the average for non slaves.
Historians believe that the life expectancy in Ancient Rome was probably around 25 to 40 years old.

Still, 19 compared to early or mid 30s is a big discrepancy.

SCIENCE said:

how appropriate is use of a wrong reason to justify correct concern

2/10

SCIENCE said:

how appropriate is use of a wrong reason to justify correct concern

Well if doing that increases the chance that people will do what you don’t think they should be doing, it has a high negative appropriateness quotient.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

how appropriate is use of a wrong reason to justify correct concern

2/10

Well if doing that increases the chance that people will do what you don’t think they should be doing, it has a high negative appropriateness quotient.

we agree that telling people they must not protest will only tend to increase their desire to protest

but then again our government does have experience with advancing all kinds of lies and having people swallow them hook line sinker so

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

These dudes are literally shackled to the railway carriage.

Australia didn’t have a formal system of personal ownership, but if a person can’t leave or get alternative employment under threat of violence (shrugs) It’s de facto slavery.

No, no, they’ve chained themselves to the railway truck, to demonstrate their commitment to their employer’s ‘quality’ criteria.

nyet they were actually the historical origins of Extinction Rebellion but Glue and Brisbane CBD hadn’t been invented yet so they chained themselves to the only fossil fuel related transport utility they could find

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

2/10

Well if doing that increases the chance that people will do what you don’t think they should be doing, it has a high negative appropriateness quotient.

we agree that telling people they must not protest will only tend to increase their desire to protest

but then again our government does have experience with advancing all kinds of lies and having people swallow them hook line sinker so

I don’t think that addressing the wrongs of historical baggage like colonialist atrocities or blackbirding is the more urgent and pressing issue versus dealing with the Covids.

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

These dudes are literally shackled to the railway carriage.

Australia didn’t have a formal system of personal ownership, but if a person can’t leave or get alternative employment under threat of violence (shrugs) It’s de facto slavery.

No, no, they’ve chained themselves to the railway truck, to demonstrate their commitment to their employer’s ‘quality’ criteria.

nyet they were actually the historical origins of Extinction Rebellion but Glue and Brisbane CBD hadn’t been invented yet so they chained themselves to the only fossil fuel related transport utility they could find

Luckily, (or unluckily for the shovelers) it’s ballast, not coal.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well if doing that increases the chance that people will do what you don’t think they should be doing, it has a high negative appropriateness quotient.

we agree that telling people they must not protest will only tend to increase their desire to protest

but then again our government does have experience with advancing all kinds of lies and having people swallow them hook line sinker so

I don’t think that addressing the wrongs of historical baggage like colonialist atrocities or blackbirding is the more urgent and pressing issue versus dealing with the Covids.

I don’t think that is the question.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

we agree that telling people they must not protest will only tend to increase their desire to protest

but then again our government does have experience with advancing all kinds of lies and having people swallow them hook line sinker so

I don’t think that addressing the wrongs of historical baggage like colonialist atrocities or blackbirding is the more urgent and pressing issue versus dealing with the Covids.

I don’t think that is the question.

Just my perception (which may be wrong) but this seems to be what the protests are morphing into. Attacking history and tearing down statues.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well if doing that increases the chance that people will do what you don’t think they should be doing, it has a high negative appropriateness quotient.

we agree that telling people they must not protest will only tend to increase their desire to protest

but then again our government does have experience with advancing all kinds of lies and having people swallow them hook line sinker so

I don’t think that addressing the wrongs of historical baggage like colonialist atrocities or blackbirding is the more urgent and pressing issue versus dealing with the Covids.

Right, but the protests are about violence happening now. Monuments celebrating historical violence might receive some brunt but obv that is not the focus.

dv said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

we agree that telling people they must not protest will only tend to increase their desire to protest

but then again our government does have experience with advancing all kinds of lies and having people swallow them hook line sinker so

I don’t think that addressing the wrongs of historical baggage like colonialist atrocities or blackbirding is the more urgent and pressing issue versus dealing with the Covids.

Right, but the protests are about violence happening now. Monuments celebrating historical violence might receive some brunt but obv that is not the focus.

But the violence happening now is primarily overseas. There’s not really much for protesters in Australia to hang the case on locally, except historical issues.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

I don’t think that addressing the wrongs of historical baggage like colonialist atrocities or blackbirding is the more urgent and pressing issue versus dealing with the Covids.

Right, but the protests are about violence happening now. Monuments celebrating historical violence might receive some brunt but obv that is not the focus.

But the violence happening now is primarily overseas. There’s not really much for protesters in Australia to hang the case on locally, except historical issues.

Certainly it is worse in some other places but I’m not going to tell Aboriginal people that they shouldn’t protest because things could be worse. I’d advise them to wear masks and take any reasonable distancing measures but they have to weigh up their own priorities.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Right, but the protests are about violence happening now. Monuments celebrating historical violence might receive some brunt but obv that is not the focus.

But the violence happening now is primarily overseas. There’s not really much for protesters in Australia to hang the case on locally, except historical issues.

Certainly it is worse in some other places but I’m not going to tell Aboriginal people that they shouldn’t protest because things could be worse. I’d advise them to wear masks and take any reasonable distancing measures but they have to weigh up their own priorities.

Well, I would. I think it is irresponsible at this time.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Right, but the protests are about violence happening now. Monuments celebrating historical violence might receive some brunt but obv that is not the focus.

But the violence happening now is primarily overseas. There’s not really much for protesters in Australia to hang the case on locally, except historical issues.

Certainly it is worse in some other places but I’m not going to tell Aboriginal people that they shouldn’t protest because things could be worse. I’d advise them to wear masks and take any reasonable distancing measures but they have to weigh up their own priorities.

They are consider more at risk due to poorer health

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

But the violence happening now is primarily overseas. There’s not really much for protesters in Australia to hang the case on locally, except historical issues.

Certainly it is worse in some other places but I’m not going to tell Aboriginal people that they shouldn’t protest because things could be worse. I’d advise them to wear masks and take any reasonable distancing measures but they have to weigh up their own priorities.

Well, I would. I think it is irresponsible at this time.

Very well then.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

But the violence happening now is primarily overseas. There’s not really much for protesters in Australia to hang the case on locally, except historical issues.

Certainly it is worse in some other places but I’m not going to tell Aboriginal people that they shouldn’t protest because things could be worse. I’d advise them to wear masks and take any reasonable distancing measures but they have to weigh up their own priorities.

Well, I would. I think it is irresponsible at this time.

And it is not just Aboriginal people protesting and most of these people will know, and associate with, people more at risk of dying from covid than themselves. This is why I previously asked if the organisers of these things had suggested to participants that they get the app. Yes, it won’t stop them from getting covid but it will provide quicker contact tracing in the event of someone who attended turning up sick…

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Scott Morrison has said there is no history of slavery in Australia, describing nationwide anti-racism rallies as a “real blocker” to easing coronavirus restrictions.

Hmmmm I guess blackbirding didn’t happen.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/06/11/pm-protests-racism-coronavirus/

These dudes are literally shackled to the railway carriage.

Australia didn’t have a formal system of personal ownership, but if a person can’t leave or get alternative employment under threat of violence (shrugs) It’s de facto slavery.

Why would he even say that?

The Drover’s Boy

Mr buffy says he is becoming Trump Lite.

furious said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Certainly it is worse in some other places but I’m not going to tell Aboriginal people that they shouldn’t protest because things could be worse. I’d advise them to wear masks and take any reasonable distancing measures but they have to weigh up their own priorities.

Well, I would. I think it is irresponsible at this time.

And it is not just Aboriginal people protesting and most of these people will know, and associate with, people more at risk of dying from covid than themselves. This is why I previously asked if the organisers of these things had suggested to participants that they get the app. Yes, it won’t stop them from getting covid but it will provide quicker contact tracing in the event of someone who attended turning up sick…

Advising people to get the app but still attend the protests is a bit hypocritical, or at least sends mixed messages. It is acknowledging the seriousness of the risk but telling people to go ahead and do it anyway. If you are seriously worried about the risk the better advice is not to attend in the first place.

party_pants said:

furious said:

party_pants said:

Well, I would. I think it is irresponsible at this time.

And it is not just Aboriginal people protesting and most of these people will know, and associate with, people more at risk of dying from covid than themselves. This is why I previously asked if the organisers of these things had suggested to participants that they get the app. Yes, it won’t stop them from getting covid but it will provide quicker contact tracing in the event of someone who attended turning up sick…

Advising people to get the app but still attend the protests is a bit hypocritical, or at least sends mixed messages. It is acknowledging the seriousness of the risk but telling people to go ahead and do it anyway. If you are seriously worried about the risk the better advice is not to attend in the first place.

I don’t disagree with you but if they are going to do it either way, best to take that extra precaution…

party_pants said:

furious said:

party_pants said:

Well, I would. I think it is irresponsible at this time.

And it is not just Aboriginal people protesting and most of these people will know, and associate with, people more at risk of dying from covid than themselves. This is why I previously asked if the organisers of these things had suggested to participants that they get the app. Yes, it won’t stop them from getting covid but it will provide quicker contact tracing in the event of someone who attended turning up sick…

Advising people to get the app but still attend the protests is a bit hypocritical, or at least sends mixed messages. It is acknowledging the seriousness of the risk but telling people to go ahead and do it anyway. If you are seriously worried about the risk the better advice is not to attend in the first place.

okok what we meant was, claiming there was never slavery in Australia is probably a wrong way to get them to avoid gathering in large (protest) crowds which is a correct action

whether protests are merely over historical curiosity is another matter; it is true to say that Aboriginal people suffer poorer outcomes than others here, and that now with everything else going on might be the most impactful setting to protest

that said clearly government and lawcallers have decided that protest is legal, but so is parking cars in car parks

that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the fee or get to avoid fines for other criteria, as Danny Andrews’s Police State Of New South China have sent, but hey

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

furious said:

And it is not just Aboriginal people protesting and most of these people will know, and associate with, people more at risk of dying from covid than themselves. This is why I previously asked if the organisers of these things had suggested to participants that they get the app. Yes, it won’t stop them from getting covid but it will provide quicker contact tracing in the event of someone who attended turning up sick…

Advising people to get the app but still attend the protests is a bit hypocritical, or at least sends mixed messages. It is acknowledging the seriousness of the risk but telling people to go ahead and do it anyway. If you are seriously worried about the risk the better advice is not to attend in the first place.

okok what we meant was, claiming there was never slavery in Australia is probably a wrong way to get them to avoid gathering in large (protest) crowds which is a correct action

whether protests are merely over historical curiosity is another matter; it is true to say that Aboriginal people suffer poorer outcomes than others here, and that now with everything else going on might be the most impactful setting to protest

that said clearly government and lawcallers have decided that protest is legal, but so is parking cars in car parks

that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the fee or get to avoid fines for other criteria, as Danny Andrews’s Police State Of New South China have sent, but hey

The slave trade was officially abolished in the British Empire in 1807, although slaves already held were not liberated until a further act in the 1830s. So for most of Australian colonial history slavery was illegal. So in a strictly legal sense ScoMo is correct.

There were other forms of unfree labour including kidnapping and blackbirding, but these were not legally recognised or enforceable officially, they were done more at a local or private level, especially in the cane fields of QLD. You could argue that convict labour was itself a form of slavery.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

Advising people to get the app but still attend the protests is a bit hypocritical, or at least sends mixed messages. It is acknowledging the seriousness of the risk but telling people to go ahead and do it anyway. If you are seriously worried about the risk the better advice is not to attend in the first place.

okok what we meant was, claiming there was never slavery in Australia is probably a wrong way to get them to avoid gathering in large (protest) crowds which is a correct action

whether protests are merely over historical curiosity is another matter; it is true to say that Aboriginal people suffer poorer outcomes than others here, and that now with everything else going on might be the most impactful setting to protest

that said clearly government and lawcallers have decided that protest is legal, but so is parking cars in car parks

that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the fee or get to avoid fines for other criteria, as Danny Andrews’s Police State Of New South China have sent, but hey

The slave trade was officially abolished in the British Empire in 1807, although slaves already held were not liberated until a further act in the 1830s. So for most of Australian colonial history slavery was illegal. So in a strictly legal sense ScoMo is correct.

There were other forms of unfree labour including kidnapping and blackbirding, but these were not legally recognised or enforceable officially, they were done more at a local or private level, especially in the cane fields of QLD. You could argue that convict labour was itself a form of slavery.

I have only skimmed this site, but it looks reasonable and fact based:
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australia-has-a-history-of-aboriginal-slavery#When_was_slavery_abolished_in_Australia?

The message seems to be that slavery was officially illegal from around 1830, but was tolerated for long after that, and continues today.

Here are some mad fn riches sorry we mean raving inner city lunatics who are advancing the radical, not even, twisted and bizarre idea, that statues could be moved to more appropriate contexts, like

Port Macquarie woman Arlene Mehan, of the Mid North Coast’s Birpai people, is leading the campaign to force Port Macquarie-Hastings Council to move the statue from Town Green park on the banks of the Hastings River.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-11/push-to-remove-statue-of-australias-first-pm/12340492

“I can see why it would not be considered appropriate by probably a good percentage of the population when he was one of the authors of the constitution, which basically wrote the Aborigines out,” Mr Smith said.

“I don’t have any particular opinion on statues except that I often think there are too many statues to dead white men whose achievements get reviewed from time to time and are perhaps not as great as they were once thought to be.”

That’s the beauty of SCIENCE, it’s self correcting ¡.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

okok what we meant was, claiming there was never slavery in Australia is probably a wrong way to get them to avoid gathering in large (protest) crowds which is a correct action

whether protests are merely over historical curiosity is another matter; it is true to say that Aboriginal people suffer poorer outcomes than others here, and that now with everything else going on might be the most impactful setting to protest

that said clearly government and lawcallers have decided that protest is legal, but so is parking cars in car parks

that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the fee or get to avoid fines for other criteria, as Danny Andrews’s Police State Of New South China have sent, but hey

The slave trade was officially abolished in the British Empire in 1807, although slaves already held were not liberated until a further act in the 1830s. So for most of Australian colonial history slavery was illegal. So in a strictly legal sense ScoMo is correct.

There were other forms of unfree labour including kidnapping and blackbirding, but these were not legally recognised or enforceable officially, they were done more at a local or private level, especially in the cane fields of QLD. You could argue that convict labour was itself a form of slavery.

I have only skimmed this site, but it looks reasonable and fact based:
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australia-has-a-history-of-aboriginal-slavery#When_was_slavery_abolished_in_Australia?

The message seems to be that slavery was officially illegal from around 1830, but was tolerated for long after that, and continues today.

semantics, but our point was that even if technically not slavery the idea that Aboriginal fellas have it good here and therefore nothing to protest about, nothing at all, seems … wrong

the idea that it needs to be weighed up against other issues is correct

banning protest may not be correct but allowing them to get away with public health violations, murder, or even bad dress sense on a Saturday, might also be wrong

Also, since we’re talking about destruction, removal and vandalism of precious historical artefacts, what about all those beautiful specimens Lawfully Acquired by the British Museum then, what about those eh?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

okok what we meant was, claiming there was never slavery in Australia is probably a wrong way to get them to avoid gathering in large (protest) crowds which is a correct action

whether protests are merely over historical curiosity is another matter; it is true to say that Aboriginal people suffer poorer outcomes than others here, and that now with everything else going on might be the most impactful setting to protest

that said clearly government and lawcallers have decided that protest is legal, but so is parking cars in car parks

that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the fee or get to avoid fines for other criteria, as Danny Andrews’s Police State Of New South China have sent, but hey

The slave trade was officially abolished in the British Empire in 1807, although slaves already held were not liberated until a further act in the 1830s. So for most of Australian colonial history slavery was illegal. So in a strictly legal sense ScoMo is correct.

There were other forms of unfree labour including kidnapping and blackbirding, but these were not legally recognised or enforceable officially, they were done more at a local or private level, especially in the cane fields of QLD. You could argue that convict labour was itself a form of slavery.

I have only skimmed this site, but it looks reasonable and fact based:
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australia-has-a-history-of-aboriginal-slavery#When_was_slavery_abolished_in_Australia?

The message seems to be that slavery was officially illegal from around 1830, but was tolerated for long after that, and continues today.

As is piracy.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The slave trade was officially abolished in the British Empire in 1807, although slaves already held were not liberated until a further act in the 1830s. So for most of Australian colonial history slavery was illegal. So in a strictly legal sense ScoMo is correct.

There were other forms of unfree labour including kidnapping and blackbirding, but these were not legally recognised or enforceable officially, they were done more at a local or private level, especially in the cane fields of QLD. You could argue that convict labour was itself a form of slavery.

I have only skimmed this site, but it looks reasonable and fact based:
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australia-has-a-history-of-aboriginal-slavery#When_was_slavery_abolished_in_Australia?

The message seems to be that slavery was officially illegal from around 1830, but was tolerated for long after that, and continues today.

As is piracy.

Sure but White Australians Break No Laws so we can promise you, no slavery legally speaking here.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

okok what we meant was, claiming there was never slavery in Australia is probably a wrong way to get them to avoid gathering in large (protest) crowds which is a correct action

whether protests are merely over historical curiosity is another matter; it is true to say that Aboriginal people suffer poorer outcomes than others here, and that now with everything else going on might be the most impactful setting to protest

that said clearly government and lawcallers have decided that protest is legal, but so is parking cars in car parks

that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the fee or get to avoid fines for other criteria, as Danny Andrews’s Police State Of New South China have sent, but hey

The slave trade was officially abolished in the British Empire in 1807, although slaves already held were not liberated until a further act in the 1830s. So for most of Australian colonial history slavery was illegal. So in a strictly legal sense ScoMo is correct.

There were other forms of unfree labour including kidnapping and blackbirding, but these were not legally recognised or enforceable officially, they were done more at a local or private level, especially in the cane fields of QLD. You could argue that convict labour was itself a form of slavery.

I have only skimmed this site, but it looks reasonable and fact based:
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australia-has-a-history-of-aboriginal-slavery#When_was_slavery_abolished_in_Australia?

The message seems to be that slavery was officially illegal from around 1830, but was tolerated for long after that, and continues today.

The way it seems to have worked was the further away from authority they were the more a law unto themselves they become.

Add to that the racist attitudes inherent in society at the time leading to a failure of the jury system. Juries of ordinary white men simply refused to convict another white person for offences committed against natives. I’m not sure about authorities tolerating it, but they could never get a successful prosecution.

SCIENCE said:

Also, since we’re talking about destruction, removal and vandalism of precious historical artefacts, what about all those beautiful specimens Lawfully Acquired by the British Museum then, what about those eh?

I don’t care if someone, or persons, pull down whatever statue, so long as, and this could be important, they don’t mind building or paying for something to replace it, to show they appreciate the work that may have go into building statues etc

you wouldn’t want a dickhead with no appreciation of the sort of effort that went into building such things to go pulling one down, unwilling to replace it with something better

of course it may be that no statue/s is better, they never impress me much, but I do know people get commissioned to build them, takes effort

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

Also, since we’re talking about destruction, removal and vandalism of precious historical artefacts, what about all those beautiful specimens Lawfully Acquired by the British Museum then, what about those eh?

I don’t care if someone, or persons, pull down whatever statue, so long as, and this could be important, they don’t mind building or paying for something to replace it, to show they appreciate the work that may have go into building statues etc

you wouldn’t want a dickhead with no appreciation of the sort of effort that went into building such things to go pulling one down, unwilling to replace it with something better

of course it may be that no statue/s is better, they never impress me much, but I do know people get commissioned to build them, takes effort

IMO the ritualistic removal and drowning of the Colston statue was a cathartic and fitting end to its story, quite an artistic ceremony.

If the original sculptor could have witnessed it and understood what was going on, he would have felt proud of the moment.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

Also, since we’re talking about destruction, removal and vandalism of precious historical artefacts, what about all those beautiful specimens Lawfully Acquired by the British Museum then, what about those eh?

I don’t care if someone, or persons, pull down whatever statue, so long as, and this could be important, they don’t mind building or paying for something to replace it, to show they appreciate the work that may have go into building statues etc

you wouldn’t want a dickhead with no appreciation of the sort of effort that went into building such things to go pulling one down, unwilling to replace it with something better

of course it may be that no statue/s is better, they never impress me much, but I do know people get commissioned to build them, takes effort

IMO the ritualistic removal and drowning of the Colston statue was a cathartic and fitting end to its story, quite an artistic ceremony.

If the original sculptor could have witnessed it and understood what was going on, he would have felt proud of the moment.

statues shit me for some reason, pull them all down, grow a tree maybe

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

Your “straight“definitions seem a little skewed to me. For one thing your question is about animals, but your definitions are about humans (eg, in definition 1 a person owns another person.) It’s known that some parasites modify the host’s behaviour: an obvious example is Toxoplasma gondii, which changes the behaviour of it rodent host so it gets eaten by a cat. That seems to fit both your first and second definitions. How about symbionts? An example ottomh would be ants that cultivate a particular fungus that they eat; the fungus only grows in the ant nests, and the ants only eat the fungus. That also seems to fit the first two definitions. Is it slavery?

Remove all the statues if you will. Where does that leave the pigeons?

bucolic3401 said:

Remove all the statues if you will. Where does that leave the pigeons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOw_XT96IE

You know how all these illegal protesters and slaves and criminals and opportunists are just taking their JobSeeking time (you know, COVID-19 and The Economy Must Grow but they’ve always been dole bludgers and always will be) to jam up our streets and cry and deface Statues That Speak To Our Noble Past and pull them down?

We have a good idea — maybe we could move them out of easy access, somewhere else, into some old musty building perhaps, or perhaps even buried in preservative soils, that they are safe from the violence and disrespect that the illegal protesters and slaves and criminals and opportunists are visiting upon them.

i’d reckon some of the same propensity to ‘domesticate’ animals probably finds expression in human ‘relations’, and that some racism originates in fact from misanthropy of sorts, an ambivalence about own species, and that latter can be fed by mental discomfort (even from avoiding the discomfort) about mortality etc

so looking at that the other way, problems with mortality result in ambivalence about the species, misanthropy, and a subcategory or branch of that could be racism

probably an unhelpful distortion of misanthropy though, in the context of the possibility of a healthy ambivalence about the species

and who has no ambivalence about their own species, can claim to have none at all?

as the wise ones suggested

Statue taken to ‘secure location’ after being fished out of harbour

The statue of 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston that was toppled by anti-racism protesters in Bristol, England, has been fished out of the harbour by city authorities.

Bristol City Council says the statue was recovered early on Thursday morning (local time) to avoid drawing a crowd. The council says it has been taken to a “secure location” and will end up in a museum alongside Black Lives Matter placards.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

What publication was that?

Neither Bingeing nor Googling gives any results for an exact search on “june 3 incorrectly stated australia did not”.

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/violet-was-stolen-and-forced-to-work-she-says-it-was-slavery/12346312

Remember how some teenager was pushing some silly redefinition of “racism” in the dictionary ¿ well now these damn Domestic Aboriginal Girls want to redefine “slavery”.

don’t forget your correct pronouns when the mob comes and burns your house down comrades.

dv said:

Who are these politicians?

I’ve done a search through scholar Google for papers about slavery in monkeys, without finding anything. The two types of slavery I would expect to see there are first sexual slavery, where a male owns a female. And second economic slavery in the form of protection money, where a high ranking individual repeatedly steals all they can from a low ranking individual.

A third type of slavery that would be interesting to find in mammals would be tribal slavery, where a tribe captures a prisoner from another tribe for slavery purposes.

I didn’t find that. All I found were a couple of studies showing that great apes exhibit selfishness and altruism in similar ways to human adults and children.

When it comes to food taboos – cats? Cats can be incredibly fussy eaters, but it’s not immediately clear to me whether that’s because of food taboos or not.

I have not yet looked up incest taboos in animals.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve done a search through scholar Google for papers about slavery in monkeys, without finding anything. The two types of slavery I would expect to see there are first sexual slavery, where a male owns a female. And second economic slavery in the form of protection money, where a high ranking individual repeatedly steals all they can from a low ranking individual.

A third type of slavery that would be interesting to find in mammals would be tribal slavery, where a tribe captures a prisoner from another tribe for slavery purposes.

I didn’t find that. All I found were a couple of studies showing that great apes exhibit selfishness and altruism in similar ways to human adults and children.

When it comes to food taboos – cats? Cats can be incredibly fussy eaters, but it’s not immediately clear to me whether that’s because of food taboos or not.

I have not yet looked up incest taboos in animals.

Looking at incest taboo in animals. For feral cats it is not a taboo, just a disinclination.

https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/138/2/article-p235_7.xml

“female cats avoid inbreeding with their close kin during copulation but not with distant relatives. Copulation attempts by kin males were less frequently accepted than those by nonkin males.”

Foxes exhibit inbreeding (I’m not sure if that’s captive or wild foxes).

Wild mole-rats avoid incest.

Incest is rife among “a wild population of banded mongooses. Females regularly conceive to close relatives, including fathers and brothers”.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.267
“Adaptive inbreeding avoidance mechanisms have been persistently selected for in evolution. Early and intimate association has been established as an inhibitor of sexual attraction in birds and mammals and plays the same role in our species.”

See also https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2887/1/2887.pdf
This has 63 pages on social structures and the influence of these and biology on the presence or absence of the incest taboo in animals other than humans. A good read.

mollwollfumble said:

Looking at incest taboo in animals. For feral cats it is not a taboo, just a disinclination.

https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/138/2/article-p235_7.xml

“female cats avoid inbreeding with their close kin during copulation but not with distant relatives. Copulation attempts by kin males were less frequently accepted than those by nonkin males.”

Foxes exhibit inbreeding (I’m not sure if that’s captive or wild foxes).

Wild mole-rats avoid incest.

Incest is rife among “a wild population of banded mongooses. Females regularly conceive to close relatives, including fathers and brothers”.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1981.49.1.267
“Adaptive inbreeding avoidance mechanisms have been persistently selected for in evolution. Early and intimate association has been established as an inhibitor of sexual attraction in birds and mammals and plays the same role in our species.”

See also https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2887/1/2887.pdf
This has 63 pages on social structures and the influence of these and biology on the presence or absence of the incest taboo in animals other than humans. A good read.

Not really sure what’s going on here, but you might like to look up the Westermarck effect

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Both slavery and taboos have an extraordinarily long history among humans.

Are slavery and taboos uniquely human things, or have they been seen in other animals?

Let’s get some definitions straight first.

• Slavery – where a person owns another person of the same species. Exclude parent-child relationships but include sexual slavery.
• Economic slavery – where a person suffers because someone else gets first call on food or on goods they make or obtain. Again exclude parent-child relationships.
• Incest taboos – banning sex with mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece and possibly more distant (eg. first cousin, mother in law).
• Food taboos – where an individual will not eat a specific food despite it being eaten by other members of the species (eg. vegan).
  

What do the last two have to do with the first two?

I thought that there was no connection.

But now I’m wondering.

Could slavery have begun as sexual slavery as a direct result of the incest taboo?

I’m asking because racially motivated slavery is so rare among ancient peoples.Could it be that race was never a factor in slavery at all? That able bodied people were dragooned as slaves irrespective of race.

What’s so startling about the following apod image is that it was captured by an amateur astronomer. Full size at https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/2006/ThorsHelmet.jpg

That said, the image is a composite from three telescopes, the largest of which is 400 mm in diameter, see below, a bit large for most amateurs but not out of reach of some amateurs. This amateur does sell telescope time.

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

How much do you think we’d get for Sibeen?

Peak Warming Man said:

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

How much do you think we’d get for Sibeen?

tree fiddy. dead or alive.

Snopes says “mixture” (and they are being pretty charitable at that).

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

But even if it was true, it would do nothing to detract from the Black Lives Matter movement.

Peak Warming Man said:

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

How much do you think we’d get for Sibeen?

tree fiddy ?

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

How much do you think we’d get for Sibeen?

tree fiddy ?

Good to see we’re all agreed on something anyway.

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

“The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans.

Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the effects of hereditary chattel slavery on Africans and their descendants, have used this false equivalence to promote racism against African Americans or claim that African Americans are too vocal in seeking justice. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

The myth has been in circulation since at least the 1990s and has been disseminated in online memes and social media debates. In 2016, academics and Irish historians wrote to condemn the myth.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-irish-were-indentured-servants-not-slaves/3198590001/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

Michael V said:

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

“The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans.

Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the effects of hereditary chattel slavery on Africans and their descendants, have used this false equivalence to promote racism against African Americans or claim that African Americans are too vocal in seeking justice. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

The myth has been in circulation since at least the 1990s and has been disseminated in online memes and social media debates. In 2016, academics and Irish historians wrote to condemn the myth.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-irish-were-indentured-servants-not-slaves/3198590001/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

Thank you, MV.

Rule 303 said:

Michael V said:

Rule 303 said:

Found this interesting:

———————————————-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

——————————————-

I feel compelled to add that (a) I don’t know how much of the above is true, and (b) it appears to have been written as a response to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement, which is ideologically questionable at best.

“The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans.

Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the effects of hereditary chattel slavery on Africans and their descendants, have used this false equivalence to promote racism against African Americans or claim that African Americans are too vocal in seeking justice. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

The myth has been in circulation since at least the 1990s and has been disseminated in online memes and social media debates. In 2016, academics and Irish historians wrote to condemn the myth.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-irish-were-indentured-servants-not-slaves/3198590001/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

Thank you, MV.

No worries.

I’d not heard of the Irish slaves, so I thought I’d check it out.

I had heard of penal transportation, of course (indeed, the independence of the US drove the Brits to transport Irish dissidents and other convicts people to Australia instead of America). I had not heard of indentured servitude.

Michael V said:

Rule 303 said:

Michael V said:

“The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans.

Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the effects of hereditary chattel slavery on Africans and their descendants, have used this false equivalence to promote racism against African Americans or claim that African Americans are too vocal in seeking justice. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

The myth has been in circulation since at least the 1990s and has been disseminated in online memes and social media debates. In 2016, academics and Irish historians wrote to condemn the myth.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-irish-were-indentured-servants-not-slaves/3198590001/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

Thank you, MV.

No worries.

I’d not heard of the Irish slaves, so I thought I’d check it out.

I had heard of penal transportation, of course (indeed, the independence of the US drove the Brits to transport Irish dissidents and other convicts people to Australia instead of America). I had not heard of indentured servitude.

I think the history and current state of forced labour is poorly understood. Calling it all ‘slavery’ shows a lack of buzzword du jour – Granularity.

absolutely the ‘abilities’ humans employ for domestication of other animals for their purposes also extends to own kind, has done historically

Michael V said:

Rule 303 said:

Michael V said:

“The Irish slave myth is a pseudohistory that falsely conflates the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries with the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans.

Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the effects of hereditary chattel slavery on Africans and their descendants, have used this false equivalence to promote racism against African Americans or claim that African Americans are too vocal in seeking justice. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

The myth has been in circulation since at least the 1990s and has been disseminated in online memes and social media debates. In 2016, academics and Irish historians wrote to condemn the myth.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/18/fact-check-irish-were-indentured-servants-not-slaves/3198590001/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

Thank you, MV.

No worries.

I’d not heard of the Irish slaves, so I thought I’d check it out.

I had heard of penal transportation, of course (indeed, the independence of the US drove the Brits to transport Irish dissidents and other convicts people to Australia instead of America). I had not heard of indentured servitude.

The mention of large numbers to Australia made me stop…the dates are too early.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Snopes says “mixture” (and they are being pretty charitable at that).

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

But even if it was true, it would do nothing to detract from the Black Lives Matter movement.

I read the meme yesterday. And then I looked at wiki. And I found that irish indentured had been sent to Aus. (I knew they had gone to the USA) but there was little info about Aus. So I asked if anyone knew about in the chat thread but got no response.

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Snopes says “mixture” (and they are being pretty charitable at that).

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irish-slaves-early-america/

But even if it was true, it would do nothing to detract from the Black Lives Matter movement.

I read the meme yesterday. And then I looked at wiki. And I found that irish indentured had been sent to Aus. (I knew they had gone to the USA) but there was little info about Aus. So I asked if anyone knew about in the chat thread but got no response.

Didn’t see that (and don’t know anything about it either, other than what Snopes told me).

I went on a bit of a tangent. Interesting read.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-6599(94)90043-4

“An unwelcome heritage: Ireland’s role in British empire-building”