Active Now

Honey Dew
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » SLAVES. Is America the only "civilized" country that was born with some of the people OWNING some of the people?

SLAVES. Is America the only "civilized" country that was born with some of the people OWNING some of the people?

Were any SLAVE OWNERS BLACKS WHO OWNED WHITES? Anywhere?

Posted - October 20, 2020

Responses


  • 10654

    No.  Slavery is nothing new.  When countries "start out" someone has to do the hard labor of building its infrastructure - and it's usually slave labor.  Many times those slaves are the people of the country whom that country conquered in order to become a country (war).  Sometimes those slaves could, eventually, buy their freedom.  Sometimes they were released by their masters as an act of kindness.  Sometimes they were “liberated” by another conquering country/nation (war) - many only to remain slaves in the new country.  Most slaves, however, remained their master’s property all their lives.

    This may sound strange, but not all slavery was/is bad.  When we hear the word “slavery”, we think of black people being abused by white people.  This is not always the case – even in this country!  Some slaves were treated like members of the master’s family (yes, even some in the US).  In the Roman Empire, some slaves were white.  Some slaves were owned by other people, some by the government.  Some treated them as if they were less than dirt, others didn’t.   Some people sold themselves into slavery so they could have food to eat and a place to live.  Sometimes it was only for a temporary basis (until they could “get back on their feet”), sometimes it was permanent. 

    Yes, some masters were cruel.  A slave was property, and as such, the owner could do whatever he pleased with them - brand them, beat them, abuse them (mentally, physically, and verbally), rape them, even kill them. 

      October 20, 2020 10:57 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    You mean to tell me that people actually SOLD THEMSELVES into slavery ShuhaK? That was the only means by which they could survive? Isn't that what prostitutes do? SELL THEMSELVES? Gigolos do that too don't they? I wonder who was the first prostitute and the first gigolo? I'm gonna ask. How sad is that? I did not know. What other sad stuff do I not know? Thank you for your reply! :)
      October 20, 2020 2:46 PM MDT
    2

  • 10654
    Yes.  Hard to imagine.  

    A hooker isnt a slave (unless they have an issue with their pimp), rather they're a vendor.  To be technical, since they only have one product and many customers, they're  actually "renting" out their body.  
      October 20, 2020 3:04 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Seems like a rather high number of "hookers" are indeed slaves---although some "escorts" may be independent---

    What is Modern Slavery?

    Sex Trafficking.

    Child Sex Trafficking.

    Forced Labor.

    Bonded Labor or Debt Bondage.

    Domestic Servitude.

    Forced Child Labor.

    Unlawful Recruitment and Use of Child Soldiers.

    https://www.state.gov/what-is-modern-slavery/
      October 20, 2020 3:37 PM MDT
    2

  • 34331
    Shuhak said unless they have a pimp. This post was edited by my2cents at October 20, 2020 3:54 PM MDT
      October 20, 2020 3:42 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    No, he didn't say that---he said unless they have an issue with their pimp

    When I read an opinion or a comment, I cathect my truth in advertising mode.
      October 20, 2020 3:50 PM MDT
    0

  • 34331
    Shuhak can explain if he wishes...I will not put words in his mouth.
      October 20, 2020 3:54 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    All I'm suggesting is that you don't take words out of his mouth---which you just did.
      October 20, 2020 4:00 PM MDT
    0

  • 34331
    I believe what I posted was how he meant it.
      October 20, 2020 4:39 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    So you think you knew what Shuhak meant to say more accurately than Shuhak himself did.

    (a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement: arrogant claims
      October 21, 2020 11:13 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    No, he said only if they had an issue with their pimp.
      October 20, 2020 3:59 PM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      October 21, 2020 2:18 AM MDT
    0

  • 10654
    I wasn't arguing the semantics of slavery.  I simply said that, technically, a hooker is renting her out body to clients for sexual usage, not selling it.  
      October 21, 2020 9:56 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    The definition of a vendor is a person selling something.

        From Old French vendeor, from Latin venditor (“seller")

    But I do get your point---we're cool.
      October 21, 2020 11:19 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    If it's a choice I wonder why and how anyone could "sell" their bodies for money. But then I realize the people working for duck sell their character and reputation so what's the diff? Body or soul money is the carrot. Right now I'm shaking my head. How can THAT be anyone's CHOICE? Sigh. Thank you for your reply Shuhak. I shall ask.
      October 21, 2020 2:16 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Selling one's body for money is at least intellectually understandable.

    Prostitution is the world's oldest business.

    The second oldest is advertising---prostitutes used to wear footwear that indicated that left a footprint that advertised their line of work in the dirt.
      October 21, 2020 11:24 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Whaddabout selling your loyalty integrity? I suppose one can be "divorced" from the body and view it as a medium of exchange like any other product. But your character? What is the going rate on the market for that? Different topic tom. Thanks for introducing me to tautology and cathect. But cathect is puzzling. It means to invest emotion or feeling which I know you know. But the word itself seems like library paste. The word itself evokes no feeling or emotion within me. Shouldn't it? It kinda sounds like pathetic. I'm probably making too much of it. Just thought of another question to ask vis a vis selling body or soul. Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to thee and thine.
      October 22, 2020 2:34 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    While the overwhelming proportion of human beings fall solidly and obviously into the male or female category, loyalty and integrity fall into the higher category of homo sapiens.  What you must be and do by virtue of what you are (otherwise you cease to act accordingly to your nature).  You are still human if you are a paraplegic, but the necessity of being appropriately loyal and displaying integrity are characteristics of having a higher "density of being" to which all human beings (whether they know it or not) have an obligation to achieve in this life.  (Now of course Billy Barr would disagree with me--but only one of us will turn out to have been right.   

    "Cathect" in Transactional Analysis (TA) means to go from one ego state to another.  In a broader sense, it means to engage (wear a different hat) and evaluate from that paradigm.

    For example a consultant may have to look at a company from the standpoint of a financial advisor, then switch to the perspective of a production manager.

    For me on Q & A sites, it means I frequently have to look at opinions and comments posted from the perspective of a fact checker.

    With the (arbitrary) requirement of respecting all opinions---whether they are based on truth or error---that's the best way to proceed.
      October 22, 2020 8:04 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your thoughtful analysis tom. I appreciate ot. With respect to religion much of it cannot be proven in the normal sense of "proof". Does that dissuade you from knowing at all? Can you KNOW absent proof evidence? :) This post was edited by RosieG at October 23, 2020 4:32 AM MDT
      October 23, 2020 4:01 AM MDT
    0

  • 34331
    I guess you do not know that free black people owned slaves in every colony in the US and later the states. The first slave owner here was a black man. And yes he owned both black and white slaves. 
      October 20, 2020 3:51 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Oh, you finally answer the question after how many posts?

    You tell people to re-read questions because you think they don't realize what they say....... This post was edited by tom jackson at October 21, 2020 2:17 AM MDT
      October 20, 2020 4:02 PM MDT
    1

  • 34331
    Yes, I reworded my answer.
    No, I do not tell people to re-read the question. 
    I tell you to re-read my posts because who ask/reply to things I had already addressed. This post was edited by my2cents at October 20, 2020 4:40 PM MDT
      October 20, 2020 4:38 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Amusing---I frequently post the reasonable assumptions that flow from your posts---and then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

    And apparently you reserve the right to rephrase (more accurately???) what Shuhak really meant.

    That blows my mind......  

    I would never presume to know what you meant in one of your posts or comments---I confine myself to evaluating the actual phraseology and spelling present in them and then react accordingly.
      October 21, 2020 11:29 PM MDT
    0

  • 34331
    He referenced having an issue with their pimp. I know what comes to mind when I hear that phrase.  As I said he can explain if he wishes. It appears chose not to address the phrase.  I don't blame him.  This post was edited by my2cents at October 22, 2020 6:30 AM MDT
      October 22, 2020 6:27 AM MDT
    0