
The Fallacy of “Good” Slave Owners - georgeshi
https://medium.com/discourse/the-fallacy-of-good-slave-owners-7dd2ea2dad2f
======
planetzero
During that period of time and over the course of history, slavery was normal
and a regular part of life. Was it right? of course not, but to single out the
US as somehow different than the founding of every other nation is dishonest
and only there to add to our current outrage culture.

The US was founded on great principles..and to somehow discount everything
that it stood for at the time and everything it's become (less racism and more
freedom than almost any other nation) is evil and really makes me question the
motive of the author.

Does the author forget the civil war we fought where hundreds of thousands of
non-slaves died for the rights of slaves?

"In truth, it was a protectionist measure to increase the value of domestic
slaves in areas with an abundance like his native Virginia and Maryland to the
detriment of states like South Carolina who imported the bulk of their slaves"

Jefferson wanted to end the international slave trade and you try to spin it
as some sort of a scheme to enrich himself. You have no idea what he was
thinking or his intentions. This is the sort of political spin that makes me
detest articles like this.

Yes, slavery was bad. Every rational person agrees. After a century, we really
need to move on from it or we will never grow as a nation.

My wife's relatives were slaves brought in from China and worked on our
railroads. I never see any articles about it. Why? Because Asians aren't
considered important enough minorities?

~~~
deogeo
In fact, during that period, about a million Europeans were enslaved by Arabs
[1].

But _curiously_ , that's rarely brought up. In fact, it's even mostly been
purged from wikipedia's entry on the Arab slave trade: "Muslims also enslaved
Europeans. According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million
Europeans were captured between the 16th and 19th centuries by Barbary
corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves." is
present in [1,2], but absent in [3].

I come from a region that had to deal with centuries of Ottoman raids, so it
is hard to stomach how [4] phrases it as if it was some sort of mutual trade,
and makes no mention of the pillaging and blood tax and using Europeans
captured as children as soldiers to then raid for _more_ slaves.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_slave_trade&...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_slave_trade&oldid=778777118)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#European_slav...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#European_slaves)

