If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Comments
1. Have you consider that our views on race and slavery were intrinsically linked. That the "morality" change you are talking about is linked to recognition of humanity regardless of skin tone?
2. Why refer to Europe etc as "white christian"? As if they are the same "white christians" who thought that slavery was acceptable in the first place and that there was anything else in Europe etc other that a "white christian" society? Why bring race and religion into that equation at all?
So many questions; I shall endeavor to answer a few.
Morality in Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and America is based on Christianity.
Europeans have enslaved other Europeans for centuries; Africans are not unique. Europeans abolished slavery long before Muslims and Africans did or have not yet done. Furthermore, Europeans have often been enslaved by others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boulanger_Gustave_Clarence_Rudolphe_The_Slave_Market.jpg
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/639.jpg
The abolitionists movement was greater in the Southern states than in the Northern states; the South would have abolished slavery on its' own. Only it would have taken longer, but it would have saved the lives of over six hundred thousand soldiers. Slavery was already on its' way out. However, like all wars, the truth is the first casualty.
"The history of slavery covers many different forms of human exploitation across many cultures and throughout human history. Slavery, generally defined, refers to the systematic exploitation of labor for work and services without consent and/or the possession of other persons as property. There is no clear timeline for the formation of slavery in any formalized sense. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi, which refers to slavery as an already established institution.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
Abolitionism is a European movement. The English had abolished slavery in 1102. However, it persisted in the colonies. This was abolished in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, non-Europeans waited until the 20th century to abolish it (Saudi Arabia waited until the 1960s, China 1910, Tibet 1959) and some still haven't. This is not surprising though, as Europeans leads the world and they've done a heck of a good job. :thumb:
So? This is a debate about race not slavery
And yet so many white christians behaved that way towards their slaves.
I don't recall the Maori killing 20,000 in 40 years, unlike the measures introduced by those you seem to defend so quickly
By the way why do you seem to see western christian countries as only those that speak English?
Oh and I seem to remember America being founded on the principals of secularism and freedom of religion.
Consequences are often part of any debate. Your error was in equating segregation and South African apartheid to slavery. I hope you aren't too conceited to admit your errors.
In regards to your second post, why are you so suspicious?
Okay now you make no sense and just sound like a troll, and a pretty familiar one as well.
I've never had any other identities here and I've been responding to your comments. Answering your questions/comments does not = trolling. So, why are you so accusatory, Jim?
If you don't want to respond to other people that's fine, but ignoring the points people have made and then claiming you've answered them just makes you look questionable.
Slavery came up as an example of treating people negatively based upon race. You claimed slavery shows how civilised English speaking western chrisitians are - so it seems entirely valid to show other examples that show further discrimination based entirely on race by other english speaking western chrisitians. That doesn't seem something that needs apologising for.
And as MoK pointed out, why be in such a rush to define a society as white christian, as a positive, but ignore the fact that white chrisitan society, as you define it, was responsible also for the creation of a massive industry of slavery, on a scale never imagined previously.
And then the other point, why when defining your idea of a white chrisitian society do you only mention countries that speak English and not countries that are western, chrisitian and don't speak English.
After all there are countries based much more on chrisitianity than the examples you've given (such as Italy)
I guess that's what I mean by the questions people brought up that you haven't addressed. Which is fine, but claiming you've answered those points is somewhat dubious when you clearly haven't.
Indeed, some would even say that morality is incompatible with not an inconsiderable amount of teachings in the Bible.
I recommend reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins where all it's explained in detail.
#1 You have been ignoring most of my points. So, why should I respond to all of yours?
#2 I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to respond to any of your "points."
#3 If you expect people to respond to you, then try making some sense.
To be fair it isn't really gonna happen - that's like the other side of the arguement saying - just read this book by Jesus
And as I said, you don't have to respond to anyones points - but you can't then claim, as you did earlier, that you have responded to everyone's questions (which based on this reply you accept you haven't responded to people's points)
No I did not; I said that abolishing slavery did. You see, this kind of response from you makes me afraid of you or mistrustful of you. Do you understand that? -Barkmoss
"why be in such a rush to define a society as white Christian, as a positive, but ignore the fact that white Christian society, as you define it, was responsible also for the creation of a massive industry of slavery, on a scale never imagined previously." -Jim
Again, this kind of response from you, makes me not trust you.
I already addressed important aspects of this question, in post #153. You should know that. However, to address one point that seems tediously obvious, you have to look at the size of the economy in European countries and colonies. The Arab and Islamic slave trade was just as numerous as that in the Americas, which incidentally, 90% of it was what we'd call today: "south of the border." So, only a very small percentage of world slavery occurred in British colonies. However, they do seem to be accepting most of the guilt. -Barkmoss
"why when defining your idea of a white Christian society do you only mention countries that speak English..." -Jim
#1.) I said Europe; Europe includes non-English speaking countries.
#2.) The issue that was raised was slavery in British colonies, particularly in America.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
I have no idea what basis you have for your first sentence.
The second sentence, I am going to ignore for now.
In regards to the third sentence, I know who Mr. Dawkins is; he is a secular humanist. Personally, I think Pantheism is more poetic than atheism and so did Carl Sagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Steven Hawking.
http://www.pantheism.net/
In any event, my nickel critique of Mr. Dawkins is as follows.
He supposes that knowledge = virtue. Like some Classic Greek philosophers he believes that if you know what the right thing to do is and you know how to do it, then you will do it, because it is rational. This is a common fallacy. As we all know, people do bad things even though they know better; people do things that aren't good for them, on purpose.
What makes you think religion has exclusive rights on morality?
Indeed, what makes you think religion has any claim to morality at all?
Shall we go through the acts that:
a) the Christian holy book (as well as the other holy books) demands we should do
b) have been commited in the name of religion
to assert what claim to moral values Christianity and the other religions really have?
Thought not...
Would it be possible for you to reply to the question I did answer?
And why don't you answer mine?
Classic trolling behaviour, that... not that I'm suggesting you are a troll of course.
Look, I commented on the author that you recommended. I took the time and made the effort to do that and you completely ignored it. That is scary and makes me afraid to respond to your posts. Is that what you want?
Can you summarise?
Ta.
Well for one thing, I'd like you to answer the question already posed to you in post #138.
"Meanings are not "just there". Meaning is something that is contingent on cultural, historical, social and economic context." ~Originally Posted by Blagsta
"How do you know that?" ~Barkmoss
Not much to comment about it, other than to say it sounds like bollocks. Nor that if it didn't I would be saying much more about it, because for intentionally or not you seem to be causing this:
Which might well be your intention all along.
That sounds paranoid.