Based on Lynn's estimates Barbados' average IQ is 91 and Jamaica's is 75, both countries being of almost entirely African descent. It seems like you might be suggesting that the focus on education and skill development in Barbados (and Bermuda) is what caused these higher IQs. Is it not a more parsimonious explanation that the skilled labour required by these slave societies selected for slaves who were already relatively intelligent, leading to a founder effect that created societies with notably higher IQs than their countries of origin?
"Is it not a more parsimonious explanation that the skilled labour required by these slave societies selected for slaves who were already relatively intelligent, leading to a founder effect that created societies with notably higher IQs than their countries of origin?"
This was going to be my point, looking Arg IQ of Ghana is less the 60, which is extreme low intelligent-function and blacks taken from there to Jamaica - at a ratio unknown to the other African slave source reported to be origin, a higher IQ country of 84 in Nigeria (which would allow those with avg and higher IQ to join USA Military - of not be rejected because IQ is too low.
That said, my other thoughts as I have been Catechize myself with Traditional Catholic theology and some history, I was considering if a Traditional Catholic monarchy with devoid Catholic population and laws and governance that followed Catholic observances in all things possible, where all men are treated with the respect as all us require for proper justice to God, man, and self - as image & creation and servant-slave of God, ..
.
.. if court judgments could not be enslavement for period of time due to the penitence and reparations their sin or intentional or others causes resulted in a loss of a son & worker others depended on, such as a son of working-age in a family farm - that if killed by criminal that part of his court judgement would be to replace their son with himself - and being Catholic being treated well, and as perhaps even family member for the decade (for example) or years the son would have worked until leaving to marry and family. Or until next Jubilee.
Some situation I suppose will be a while in coming, (perhaps Tonight) with His Kingdom Come.
'For this night your soul will be Judged' God says in Jesus Parable of the wealthy farmer consider his crop and the glutinous life he was planned with his wealth. Of sin and waste.
On Athens: Lavrio silver mines were infamous for driving slaves to death. Roman treatment of agricultural slaves, when prices of chattel from Syria and Asia Minor were low, was also rough--thus the Servile Wars.
Arabs seem to have been particularly brutal with slaves in general. See eg Sultan Moulay Ismail and his sadistic use of captured Europeans (with black overseers) in construction of palace complex at Meknes, also general Muslim practice of castrating domestics other than bodyguards.
There was a cultural as well as economic element in how well slaves were treated. Your point stands however that skilled and learned slaves were treated comparatively well, especially by Europeans.
sultan moulay ismail was particularly brutal, i think he was a mulatto too actually- his mom was black- hence his preference for blacks and the creation of the black army. But i think white slaves (especially caucasians and slavs) were mainly used as mamluks (ex slave soldiers) usually.
Yeah descriptions of the sultan suggest that he was mostly black. He also made his European slaves marry black women; he thought mixed-race people made the best slaves.
"so by "always" you mean, always in your subjective opinion?"
Of course. What is your point? All opinions are subjective. Most comments on here are opinions. Do you think that, in some situations, slavery is justified?
but in fairness, to answer your question, i believe slavery is always wrong. but i also do not believe morality is subjective. i dont think it can be if we are to take it seriously. the reasons for this are starting to emerge in the line of questioning, which is why i asked initially. i think most people will answer that morality is subjective when asked in the abstract, but when asked specifically about this or that moral problem, they will usually betray their belief by stating things objectively - like "always wrong."
hol up. "Do you think that, in some situations, slavery is justified?" this is precisely the question im asking you. lol. you initially said that slavery is "always wrong". but then you stated that you believe morality to be subjective. ergo, its not always wrong; it depends on the context or the beliefs of... someone, presumably those practicing it.
"you initially said that slavery is "always wrong". but then you stated that you believe morality to be subjective. ergo, its not always wrong; it depends on the context or the beliefs of... someone, presumably those practicing it."
Why is this so hard for you to understand? It is my opinion that slavery is always wrong. The fact that someone else has the opinion that slavery is not always wrong in no way influences my opinion.
do you believe you have any firm moral ground to stand on to criticize those who practice slavery? other than your subjective opinion? for instance, if certain people believe (for whatever reason) that they are morally justified to enslave other people, how can you criticize them? its just your opinion vs theirs. why should they listen to you?
if you find this annoying, feel free to stop. im not trying to be annoying. im just curious how you think. because i think you represent a lot of people. im trying to figure out how someone who believes morality to be subjective thinks about morality. and how/why it is easy for you (and most people) to say something like "slavery is always wrong", but go on believing morality is subjective a statement like that being nothing more than a mere matter of taste like ones fondness for cheese and dislike of bell peppers. if thats the case, why say something like, "slavery is always wrong"?
for instance, you could appeal to power. who ever is in power decides morality because they can force their will. or you could appeal to democratic principles: whatever the majority believes is moral. but even still, youre appealing to something. and no matter your position, if whatever you appeal to is subjective, youve cut the trunk of the tree whos limb you are sitting on. anyone can just come along and supplant your morality with their own.
hollywood absolutely destroyed the image of slavery in the west; people seem to forget that there are library of congress interviews of former slaves. 95% of slaves were never even whipped (prison & slavery), and even the most extreme estimates put the number of slaves raped at around 8%
Thomas Sowell makes similar points in "Race and Culture: A World View," noting also that domestic slaves have tended to be treated relatively humanely across cultures. For Sowell, among the indications that slavery is inefficient is the fact that even slaveowners themselves have apparently found it useful to grant more freedom to those slaves from whom they expected more sophisticated labour. At least, that's how I remember his argument.
At one point all societies were slave owning. Venice had some slave owning like views of non-nobility built into their culture, allowing for pretty awful day to day behavior. For instance, children of free servants were placed on windowsills to attract the mosquitos that would normally come in and bother thr house owners. They were feeding the mosquitos
Based on Lynn's estimates Barbados' average IQ is 91 and Jamaica's is 75, both countries being of almost entirely African descent. It seems like you might be suggesting that the focus on education and skill development in Barbados (and Bermuda) is what caused these higher IQs. Is it not a more parsimonious explanation that the skilled labour required by these slave societies selected for slaves who were already relatively intelligent, leading to a founder effect that created societies with notably higher IQs than their countries of origin?
"Is it not a more parsimonious explanation that the skilled labour required by these slave societies selected for slaves who were already relatively intelligent, leading to a founder effect that created societies with notably higher IQs than their countries of origin?"
I believe you came to the correct conclusion.
This was going to be my point, looking Arg IQ of Ghana is less the 60, which is extreme low intelligent-function and blacks taken from there to Jamaica - at a ratio unknown to the other African slave source reported to be origin, a higher IQ country of 84 in Nigeria (which would allow those with avg and higher IQ to join USA Military - of not be rejected because IQ is too low.
That said, my other thoughts as I have been Catechize myself with Traditional Catholic theology and some history, I was considering if a Traditional Catholic monarchy with devoid Catholic population and laws and governance that followed Catholic observances in all things possible, where all men are treated with the respect as all us require for proper justice to God, man, and self - as image & creation and servant-slave of God, ..
.
.. if court judgments could not be enslavement for period of time due to the penitence and reparations their sin or intentional or others causes resulted in a loss of a son & worker others depended on, such as a son of working-age in a family farm - that if killed by criminal that part of his court judgement would be to replace their son with himself - and being Catholic being treated well, and as perhaps even family member for the decade (for example) or years the son would have worked until leaving to marry and family. Or until next Jubilee.
Some situation I suppose will be a while in coming, (perhaps Tonight) with His Kingdom Come.
'For this night your soul will be Judged' God says in Jesus Parable of the wealthy farmer consider his crop and the glutinous life he was planned with his wealth. Of sin and waste.
God Bless., Steve
A tight and info-rich piece
On Athens: Lavrio silver mines were infamous for driving slaves to death. Roman treatment of agricultural slaves, when prices of chattel from Syria and Asia Minor were low, was also rough--thus the Servile Wars.
Arabs seem to have been particularly brutal with slaves in general. See eg Sultan Moulay Ismail and his sadistic use of captured Europeans (with black overseers) in construction of palace complex at Meknes, also general Muslim practice of castrating domestics other than bodyguards.
There was a cultural as well as economic element in how well slaves were treated. Your point stands however that skilled and learned slaves were treated comparatively well, especially by Europeans.
sultan moulay ismail was particularly brutal, i think he was a mulatto too actually- his mom was black- hence his preference for blacks and the creation of the black army. But i think white slaves (especially caucasians and slavs) were mainly used as mamluks (ex slave soldiers) usually.
Yeah descriptions of the sultan suggest that he was mostly black. He also made his European slaves marry black women; he thought mixed-race people made the best slaves.
>he thought mixed-race people made the best slaves.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Thanks for the informative article, but of course, slavery is always wrong.
so, morality is subjective, but slavery is always wrong? so by "always" you mean, always in your subjective opinion?
"so by "always" you mean, always in your subjective opinion?"
Of course. What is your point? All opinions are subjective. Most comments on here are opinions. Do you think that, in some situations, slavery is justified?
but in fairness, to answer your question, i believe slavery is always wrong. but i also do not believe morality is subjective. i dont think it can be if we are to take it seriously. the reasons for this are starting to emerge in the line of questioning, which is why i asked initially. i think most people will answer that morality is subjective when asked in the abstract, but when asked specifically about this or that moral problem, they will usually betray their belief by stating things objectively - like "always wrong."
"i believe slavery is always wrong. but i also do not believe morality is subjective."
Of course, morality is subjective. You can't prove something is moral or immoral.
so you believe in moral objectivity? morality is not subjective?
Good comment. So many fail to think of the time and place in history and the mores of that society.
"morality is not subjective?"
Of course, morality is subjective, just as your apparent opinion on slavery is.
I believe it is wise to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
hol up. "Do you think that, in some situations, slavery is justified?" this is precisely the question im asking you. lol. you initially said that slavery is "always wrong". but then you stated that you believe morality to be subjective. ergo, its not always wrong; it depends on the context or the beliefs of... someone, presumably those practicing it.
"you initially said that slavery is "always wrong". but then you stated that you believe morality to be subjective. ergo, its not always wrong; it depends on the context or the beliefs of... someone, presumably those practicing it."
Why is this so hard for you to understand? It is my opinion that slavery is always wrong. The fact that someone else has the opinion that slavery is not always wrong in no way influences my opinion.
do you believe you have any firm moral ground to stand on to criticize those who practice slavery? other than your subjective opinion? for instance, if certain people believe (for whatever reason) that they are morally justified to enslave other people, how can you criticize them? its just your opinion vs theirs. why should they listen to you?
"for instance, if certain people believe (for whatever reason) that they are morally justified to enslave other people, how can you criticize them?"
Simple, I say I believe it is immoral.
"why should they listen to you?"
Why should I listen to them?
Why don't you quit the bantering and explain your point?
if you find this annoying, feel free to stop. im not trying to be annoying. im just curious how you think. because i think you represent a lot of people. im trying to figure out how someone who believes morality to be subjective thinks about morality. and how/why it is easy for you (and most people) to say something like "slavery is always wrong", but go on believing morality is subjective a statement like that being nothing more than a mere matter of taste like ones fondness for cheese and dislike of bell peppers. if thats the case, why say something like, "slavery is always wrong"?
for instance, you could appeal to power. who ever is in power decides morality because they can force their will. or you could appeal to democratic principles: whatever the majority believes is moral. but even still, youre appealing to something. and no matter your position, if whatever you appeal to is subjective, youve cut the trunk of the tree whos limb you are sitting on. anyone can just come along and supplant your morality with their own.
The only trolling I get is from Aporia....strange, that is.
hollywood absolutely destroyed the image of slavery in the west; people seem to forget that there are library of congress interviews of former slaves. 95% of slaves were never even whipped (prison & slavery), and even the most extreme estimates put the number of slaves raped at around 8%
Thomas Sowell makes similar points in "Race and Culture: A World View," noting also that domestic slaves have tended to be treated relatively humanely across cultures. For Sowell, among the indications that slavery is inefficient is the fact that even slaveowners themselves have apparently found it useful to grant more freedom to those slaves from whom they expected more sophisticated labour. At least, that's how I remember his argument.
At one point all societies were slave owning. Venice had some slave owning like views of non-nobility built into their culture, allowing for pretty awful day to day behavior. For instance, children of free servants were placed on windowsills to attract the mosquitos that would normally come in and bother thr house owners. They were feeding the mosquitos