Those of us who are not from the US may not know who this man was.
From the Wikipedia article about him:
> Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895) was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, gaining note for his oratory and incisive antislavery writings.
Frederick Douglass is mentioned in Sagan's superb "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark":
"Frederick Douglass taught that literacy is the path from slavery to freedom. There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom. But reading is still the path."
Also, perhaps my favourite part describing the reaction to a speech by Douglass:
"His very appearance and demeanour destroyed the then-
prevalent myth of the 'natural servility' of African-Americans. By all accounts his eloquent analysis of the evils of slavery was one of the most brilliant debuts in American oratorical history.
William Lloyd Garrison, the leading abolitionist of the day, sat in the front row. When Douglass finished his speech. Garrison rose, turned to the stunned audience, and challenged them with a shouted question:
'Have we been listening to a thing, a chattel personal, or a man?'
'A man! A man!' the audience roared back as one voice.
'Shall such a man be held a slave in a Christian land?' called out Garrison.
'No! No!' shouted the audience.
And even louder, Garrison asked: 'Shall such a man ever be
sent back to bondage from the free soil of Old Massachusetts?'
And now the crowd was on its feet, crying out 'No! No! No!'
> "Frederick Douglass taught that literacy is the path from slavery to freedom. There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom. But reading is still the path."
I believe this same thing holds true for coding and the modern day African American ( of which I am one ). I earn 6x more than my father ( Fisk University / TSU - BS/Masters ), 3x more than my sister ( Yale / Columbia Educated Architect - BS/Masters ) and an even greater multiple more than the rest of my family - yet I have no college education. I truly wish more African Americans saw that coding is the new literacy and IMO a real path to freedom.
I totally disagree. Coding is a not at all comparable to literacy, it is simply a lucrative trade that is in demand at this time in history, but it won't always be (in fact, I suspect the career prospects for software engineers will look very similar to the career prospects for lawyers today, within the next 30 years). I say this as a black male software engineer under 35 without a college education who is in the 95th percentile of income earners in the U.S.
I would agree that coding is no replacement for literacy. However, I see coding as more than a lucrative trade. I think it is increasingly a way of reasoning about data, not just a set of techniques for manipulating data. I think the ability to code is starting to weave itself deeply into the analytic mindset. If you can't write code, you are limited in your ability to be creative with data. In this sense, it is similar to literacy - you don't just write up your topic after you understand it, you develop understanding through writing. Similarly, you don't do your coding after you understand your data, you understand your data by interacting with it - and these days, that involves increasingly sophisticated coding skill.
It is a different kind of coding that software engineering, to be sure, and there will be a grey area between data work and actual coding. But based on what I'm starting to see (I work regularly with academics who struggle with this), it is reasonable to call their analytical work a kind of coding - in fact, I'm not sure there's any other way to describe it. I'm starting to see the amount of R, Python, or other languages analysts need to write to truly dig into complex data, to the point where you can really get insight into it. We can debate where the line between coding and mere analysis starts and ends, but what I'm seeing ventures well into the territory where it is most accurate to call it coding.
What you're describing here is a specialized skillset that is becoming a necessary tool in order to push forward the frontiers of science and academia, but it isn't a fundamental building block of the mind like literacy or even something like philosophy.
Interesting, but I still disagree. To the extent that code is a tool, it's as fundamental as a pencil and paper. However, I believe that it runs much deeper than a tool, even a very fundamental one. I was a double major in literature and math (CS emphasis), and I think people really overlook how fundamentally algorithmic thinking structures your mind, at a very deep level. I think it is particularly valuable in combination with other approaches, which is why I encourage people who study CS to read and study widely in the humanities and sciences. I think people who do that can have unusual insight into topics well outside the traditional realm of CS.
I do think differently about problems well outside the realm of CS because of my background in CS. You don't strictly need to code to develop this kind of thinking, but coding is a good way to develop it. For me, it has been as fundamental as literary analysis or mathematical proof.
> To the extent that code is a tool, it's as fundamental as a pencil and paper
This is very clearly false. I'll sidestep the semantic argument regarding pen/paper vs a keyboard, but the bottom line is that reading and writing are fundamental communication skills that represent the bedrock of civilization and while computers are obviously a revolutionary and world-changing technology the likes of which we've never seen before, the same can be said of physics, chemistry, metallurgy, agriculture etc. These skills just aren't a requirement for being a productive citizen (like reading and writing); they're just not.
> I think people really overlook how fundamentally algorithmic thinking structures your mind
People overlook lots of important insights about psychology, biology, and physics, it doesn't mean those things are fundamental skills comparable to literacy.
> but coding is a good way to develop it
I totally agree that writing code is a guaranteed way to enhance logical and critical thinking skills but the same is true of studying logic directly, or physics, biology etc
> I totally agree that writing code is a guaranteed way to enhance logical and critical thinking skills but the same is true of studying logic directly, or physics, biology etc
That goes well beyond "simply a lucrative trade", though, doesn't it? Even if we disagree about whether it is fundamental in and of itself (akin to algorithmic thinking), or just similar to physics or studying logic directly.
> That goes well beyond "simply a lucrative trade", though, doesn't it
Sure. When I say it is "simply a lucrative trade" I don't mean to characterize programming as sterile or mundane, I only mean to suggest that the programmer's vaunted status as a profession is a function of the current labor market and not a function of some quality specific to the ability to write software. Writing software is a trade-skill subject to market forces, literacy is a critical thinking skill more akin to logic itself.
Writing software requires applied logical thinking, but that doesn't make it a fundamental skill. Your reasoning is akin to suggesting that solving a Rubik's cube is a fundamental skill because it requires logical thinking to solve.
If the total number of senior engineers on the market increased 10,000% overnight, the value of programming as a skill would instantly plummet, given the same scenario for rates of literacy, the value of literacy would remain the same or perhaps even increase. This is because literacy is a force multiplier in all aspects of career advancement while software programming simply isn't.
If you glance anywhere outside the IT echo-chamber to examine the value of literacy vs programming the point I'm making becomes very obvious. Nearly every high prestige profession (lawyer, doctor, scientist, architect, author etc) is amplified by literary skills whereas this is obviously untrue for programming.
>> Coding is a not at all comparable to literacy, it is simply a lucrative trade that is in demand at this time in history, but it won't always be (in fact, I suspect the career prospects for software engineers will look very similar to the career prospects for lawyers today, within the next 30 years).
I think you are playing semantics, my argument is simply that coding can be as fundamental to earning a living as literacy and unlike many other occupations there are no gatekeepers that tell you what/when you can code - thus it gives you the freedom to work to improve yourself and your situation in ways that other occupations do not. I have no interest in debating the fundamental building blocks of learning etc... only the tactical dat to day skills that can add value to ones life but I would like to see your GitHub profile. Here is mine - https://github.com/ArionHardison. I also have 0 interest in your supposition, do you have any empirical evidence to back up the assertion that coding in 30 years will be akin to being a lawyer?
Note: To assert that someone would be able to code well enough to hold a job whole also being functionally illiterate is simply moronic.
Being literate in this day and age is essential to being able to explore the treasure trove of information that has been made available to us throughout history. It's a necessity for modern communication, and a tool that enables access into all kinds of knowledge from virtually EVERY domain.
Meanwhile coding IS a way of communication in itself (as is something like math), but it boils down to being a specification for the behavior of an agent. The versatility that it grants you in the job market, or the algorithmic thinking that it cultivates on the day to day just doesn't seem comparable to the advantages of reading. Text is a literal inscription of the languages used to express the entirety of the human experience verbally. Any programming language just can't compete with the value of being able to read general text (the value added just isn't the same).
> Note: To assert that someone would be able to code well enough to hold a job whole also being functionally illiterate is simply moronic.
Perhaps it is moronic to reduce "literacy" to a binary attribute. Are you deliberately misinterpreting my statements or do you honestly believe I'm here arguing for a definition of literacy that stops at 1st grade language arts? Increased literacy translates into increased ability to communicate effectively and intentionally. Increased literacy translates into faster knowledge acquisition and higher productivity gains.
Many engineers I've worked with have excellent literary skills, but many have poor literary skills and it is very obvious when those poorly developed skills are holding them back; it is especially noticeable among those who have an aversion to books or dense technical literature and supplement their experience almost exclusively with videos and by following tutorials. I'm not knocking videos or tutorials, I use them and I think everyone should, but if you're not also utilizing and improving literary skills you will always be overshadowed by those who are.
Consider the example of the developer who jumps into a new framework on the job and just starts hacking away until they've got a functioning MVP, but in the process also wastes 8 hours trying to demystify the behavior of a complex API by running tutorial code rather than spending an hour doing a comprehensive read through the documentation after which everything makes sense. Consider the missed opportunities for otherwise talented individuals who simply lack the literary skills necessary to participate in ongoing written communication with non-technical management, executives, and business partners. Consider the loss of productivity from poorly written or non-existent documentation. I see this kind of thing all the time.
> I think you are playing semantics, my argument is simply that coding can be as fundamental to earning a living as literacy
I am not "playing semantics", I explicitly disagree with the notion that "coding can be as fundamental to earning a living as literacy", it simply doesn't get any more "fundamental" than being able to read and write and there is nothing "fundamental" about code writing skills that cuts across almost every track of occupational advancement the way that literary skills do. Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that logical thinking skills do not cut across all domains, I'm saying that coding skills do not, they are not at all the same thing.
> there are no gatekeepers that tell you what/when you can code
Such is the case for all artisanal skills, it is only that writing code happens to be in very high demand at this time so it is a smart economic choice given the available options, but that obviously won't last forever and is clearly contingent on a market demand for the skillset. Literacy, on the other hand, is a timeless skill that pays dividends indefinitely in the advancement of one's career regardless of the industry.
> it gives you the freedom to work to improve yourself and your situation in ways that other occupations do not
Not true. Practice makes perfect with code, just like anything else, it's only that nobody is going to pay someone with 1 year of experience a 60k salary to produce hobbyist level paintings and music, thus "the freedom to work to improve yourself" becomes "things I don't have time to do because I'm working".
> I would like to see your GitHub profile
Why? I don't measure my career success by a matrix of green squares displayed on a corporation's website. Seriously, who cares? This is kinda what I'm talking about. Your github profile is just self-aggrandizing noise in the technocratic bubble of the software industry, it's not inherently important.
> I also have 0 interest in your supposition, do you have any empirical evidence to back up the assertion that coding in 30 years will be akin to being a lawyer?
I didn't say it was a proven fact, only that it is something I suspect - but to offer some reasoning for this suspicion
1. Year over year developers are able to produce more and more, with less bugs, at faster rates and cheaper costs. 30 years ago, you couldn't pay an experienced team of 10 to do what a single mid-level dev can accomplish with Rails and AWS today (i.e. doing more with less = less demand for engineers = lower wages)
2. Open source greatly exacerbates this effect and it is compounding as more and more open source software matures and is able to do more. (i.e. tools that get better and easier with 0 cost = lower barrier to entry in the industry = higher supply of engineers = lower wages)
3. An explosion of interest in the field spurred by high salaries, high prestige, popular media, deliberate awareness campaigns, a burgeoning bootcamp industry and an unlimited springwell of high quality resources for free online. (i.e. large influx of new engineers * explosion of free high quality learning resources = big spike in supply of quality engineers = lower wages)
4. Increasing saturation of software markets. We see it pretty much across the spectrum of software from apps and games to office and web; the only area that isn't saturated yet is B2B but that won't last forever either. How many times in how many languages can we remake the same CRUD application before companies start to realize that open-source or off-the-shelf software can be much more cheaply deployed and maintained by an agency as opposed to recruiting and managing an expensive software department? Obviously, software companies can't really do that, but it is becoming increasingly viable for every other industry to do so as the software gets better and better.
All these trends are increasing in intensity and amplifying each-other, the golden era of the engineer won't last forever.
1. I wanted to see your GH profile because I simply do not believe that you are what you claim to be. - Non college educated black dev making 200+ a year. That "self-aggrandizing noise" is social proof and as I suspected you refuse to provide any. I run into people like you any time I tell people any aspect of my story ie: blah blah poor kid made it big via coding blah blah. There is always someone like you that attacks what I have done and claims the same but can never provide a single piece of evidence to support their claim.
2. There is actually no #2. I have work to do, the things I build help people so while you may take this reductionist attitude toward me and my work it really does not matter because as long as I can push code and use that as a mechanism to distribute my ideas at scale to cause measurable change in the lives of others my code matters - I suspect Fredrick Douglas would be proud of that as where you are just all talk.
Also, https://dietmanager.com - my work is FAR from a simple CRUD app but good luck w/ that.
> I wanted to see your GH profile because I simply do not believe that you are what you claim to be.
lol, come on man, do you honestly think I care about proving my accomplishments to random internet strangers? I don't even care about proving it to IRL strangers.
> that "self-aggrandizing noise" is social proof and as I suspected you refuse to provide any
I don't feel like I need to prove anything to you; my statements stand on their own. I also hope the irony of asking a black guy to dox himself in order to prove that he's actually real isn't lost on you. If I had said I was white would you feel the need to ask for proof of my accomplishments? A successful black engineer who disagrees with you is not a unicorn.
> There is always someone like you that attacks what I have done and claims the same but can never provide a single piece of evidence to support their claim.
I'm not sure why you're being so defensive. Seriously, please copy and paste ANYTHING I've said that is attacking you or any of your work. I simply disagree with your assertion that coding is as fundamental to career success as literacy, that's it. I wrote a really long reply with a lot of details explaining my specific reasoning and you completely disregard it in favor of some twisted caricature of my reply that you've decided is a personal attack against you and your work. You're not even hearing what I'm saying so I'll stop here. Good luck on your app.
I talk a lot about this with my wife. She's half mexican-american, I'm a quarter so we compare notes. Not everyone has what it takes to code. I played the hell out of video games for hours and hours on end as a kid. I'm kind of a natural fit for sitting in front of a computer for hours, trouble shooting until I succeed. My parents, my siblings, my friends I grew up with... not so much. Not scientific, but I kind of think we won the lottery for brains and the personality to do the kind of work we do for long stretches of time.
I 100% agree ... so allow me to reframe my argument around "tech" and not just "coding". No matter if you can sit for hours etc... going into tech is much more likely to allow you the economic freedoms I am speaking of than trying to make it to the NBA or as a rapper etc...
Edit: e.g. as a product manager, product manager, graphic designer etc...
It seems that visibility into these tech careers is very low amongst lower-income groups. I don't say that to expand your statement past black communities, but rather as a coincidental point--I am a white man and grew up in a fairly poor, overwhelmingly white area, and it was certainly the case there. What's been related to me (and maybe you can speak to this) is that it's similar in lower-income black communities, yeah? It's ingrained because it's ingrained, and it's what people think about because it's what they're shown. (Perhaps the aspirational targets are different--where I grew up it was not NBA players or rappers. Rather, reality-TV stars and the like. But the idea is similar.)
If anything, seeing more and more NBA players (who tend to be extremely savvy businessmen, at the high end) getting into tech as investors--Steph Curry as a founding investor of Slyce, as an example--might bring visibility into that. A few years after the NBA dress code implementation--and there are things to talk about with regards to that, but that's kind of orthogonal--you saw players like Kevin Durant consciously dress "nerdy", with glasses and sweater vests and the like. I thought Wesley Morris wrote a beautiful piece[0] on the topic, and how, reluctantly or not, those NBA players who are themselves aspirational targets are trying to redefine the possibility space for the people watching them. Maybe that'll help.
> "It seems that visibility into these tech careers is very low amongst lower-income groups. I don't say that to expand your statement past black communities, but rather as a coincidental point"
You are correct, and you should expand my statement past black communities. I apologize for my bias here as I grew up in an all black poor neighborhood so I often associate this with race but the truth is that its much more socioeconomic than it is racial.
I mean, nothing to apologize for, yeah? Everyone has their take. I grew up in a poor white community, so that's what I see.
I do wonder what can be further done; the social consciousness of the NBA is one of the reasons I feel good about watching it, and I have anecdotally heard it's made some inroads, but that seems like it's bailing out the ocean. Structural problems, structural fixes...
I've thought much the same, and I'm really interested in helping out any organization that both increases general literacy and computer literacy for people who have neither. There's so many people in this country who have so little access to basic necessities, but they may have a computer and internet access. Remote work might lift a lot of people out of poverty.
If I'm not mistaken, he is buried at Mt. Hope cemetery in Rochester, NY. I remember from my visits that he has two grave stones, each with a different birth date, because his real birth date is unknown.
Actually, according to the Wikipedia article, "The exact date of his birth is unknown, and he later chose to celebrate his birthday on February 14. In his first autobiography, Douglass stated: 'I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it.'"
It's humbling to read about his life and the many major figures in the abolitionist movement. Those men and women really deserve respect for how visionary and open minded they were in a world of close mindedness.
>"It's humbling to read about his life and the many major figures in the abolitionist movement. Those men and women really deserve respect for how visionary and open minded they were in a world of close mindedness."
In 150 years people may well be saying the same thing about the major figures in today's anti-abortion movements.
This comment badly broke the HN guideline against introducing generic flamebait into threads. The last thing we need is flamewars about abortion. Please don't do this again.
Two classes of human beings, slaves and fetuses, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
Now replace abortion with anti-abortion and I could equally say:
Two classes of human beings, slaves and women, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
Unless you wish to argue that bodily integrity [1] is not a human right.
This question is utterly irrelevant to my point. I'm not saying that the fetus is part of the woman, I'm saying that the woman has the right to control what happens to her body - including removing a fetus before it comes to term - if she chooses to do so.
Saying otherwise is equivalent to saying that under certain circumstances it's okay to force someone to keep another being alive for 9 months with continuous blood transfusions while exposing themselves to many dangerous, and potentially fatal, side effects.
You're right it's not the "question [you] asked". It's the underlying implication that question has loaded in it.
The implication, stated roughly is the following: "A person can do what they want to their own body. And their body is defined by the DNA signature. Whereas a fetus has a different DNA structure than the body it is in, and therefore harming it is depriving it of human rights, because it has different DNA."
I proved this implication wrong. If you feel that this implied statement is not indicative of your intent, please post your implication as a statement rather than engage in obfuscated writings.
Shoving an ethical system on people is kinda what the rule of law is all about. There are even limits put on the age up to which it is lawful to kill a baby you know.
When a fetus does not need somebody to spend their time and pain hosting them and risk their health and life doing it, then we can talk about this.
Even if it was not a fetus but an adult with a fully formed conciousness and personality, this would be a hard demand to make, and our laws reflect that.
You are required to help people in need, but not at the expense of your own safety. Calling 112 is enough.
Abortion is not about killing, it's about not having a being in your body, potentially wrecking it and killing you. In the same vein, you can stop supporting dependent adults, as an individual (doing that as a society is a different matter). You can just stop. It won't kill them in that case, but that is not what this is about.
If pregnancy was nothing for your body, no stress at all, then carrying to term and giving it up for adoption would be a lot more common. This dimension is often overlooked by people, especially men, I feel. Pregnancy can be insanely hard and dangerous.
Seems like your view of fetuses is that of parasites, not even subhuman as slaveowners had of their slaves. It's an odd, counterproductive defense of abortion.
I'm not in the business of defending abortion, actually very much agnostic on this topic and don't think it should receive the attention that it does. But man-oh-man, calling fetuses parasites is simply wrong and makes one look heartless. Parasites are of a different species, invade rather than being seeded by the host, and create misery for the host. Fetuses, on the other hand, are usually awaited with excitement, welcomed by the family, and bring joy and happiness to parents.
To call them parasites really is Orwellian. The only thing they have in common with parasites is that they live inside another's body. Even our gut bacteria is not parasitic.
I did and it might not just be your view but also that you seem to answer not to what was argued, but something else in the broader vicinity of the topic.
I will not go into details since that makes for boring reading for everyone else, but that's what I thought about.
Sorry for being so blunt, but then I thought you might want to know.
They don't look human, they don't act human, absolutely none of them can survive as independent creatures (as most humans can).
If anything, they're kinda weird little monsters that invade women's bodies that could potentially become human, but human they are not.
Rather than call them human (which they're not), or a class of people (which they're not), call them fetuses and then the sophistry around controlling women's access to health care wears away a little.
Well, at least with slavery, slave owners to some degree or another had to at least mitigate against the risk of revolt or uprising throughout history. I suspect fetuses might be held in higher regard if they could exert their sovereignty inside their parents womb to any sufficient degree before/during/after an abortion.
They're hidden away and disposed of in secret. It got so bad in the recent referendum campaign in Ireland that even to show an ultrasound image of a normal in-utero fetus was regarded as hurtful and offensive.
So I think it's no coincidence that at the same time extreme anti-abortion views came to prominence on the US right, the US right became steadily more extreme, with centrists disappearing from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/
My expectation is that this, like all positive feedback loops, will eventually break, and Christians will return to historical norms. And I'd further guess that this will be aided technological advances that make extreme antiabortion views untenable. Look, for example at the question that goes something like, "In a clinic fire, would you save a five year old or a tank with 1,000 embryos?". [1] Advances in medicine, AI, copying minds, and animal uplift would provide many more examples, forcing a debate around what really makes something a legally protected person. If an AI, a human mind moved to silicon, and a dog with a 140 IQ all get citizenship, it'll harder to explain why a nonsentient fertilized human egg gets those protections.
What I find quite interesting in the discussion in the US about abortion is the extreme all-or-nothing view, on both sides. One side sees any abortion, at any time and any condition, as highly immoral, while the other rejects any limits on abortion as an insufferable limit on women's rights. The question is, when does the non-sentient fertilizied human egg become something more. Certainly not at the moment of fertilization, but "birth" seems rather arbitrary too.
I like your examples for questions, because they are thought-provoking. Let me add two more: Should a baby born a (2/3..) month (or a day!) premature be less protected than a baby born 3 days late? Would you rather save a five year old, or 20 premature born babies?
Or, what do you think about abortions done because the embryo is female.
The existence of c-section and labour-inducing medicine.
It is certainly the most perceivable milestone. But maybe we can define a status change which is more relevant to the question cell group -> human. Maybe "has consciousness".
My point is that this is a discussion which seems important.
I agree that defining an exact moment is difficult and/or somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that physical birth doesn't make sense as a cutoff since the baby is usually viable before that point. In my opinion a better milestone is higher brain function which occurs at about 19 to 20 weeks.
If you ask me, the questions are not "is it human" (skin flakes are human), "is it alive", (plankton is alive), but "is it an human individual for whom we grant rights. And so long as it is biologically dependent on a host, it is not individual at all.
Agreed on "human individual". But what is the limit of "biologically dependent on the host". A born baby needs to be fed, it can not sustain itself. But obviously, the "host" can change. So I guess you would say "not biologically dependent". On the other hand: A 8 month unborn baby could easily (in the sense of "as easy as a born baby") live without the host if somebody just would help it out of the host. Which is often done.
The moment a plumber becomes licensed is well defined after extensive discussion. The speed limit is a constant discussion. We spend a lot of resources building fast cars and educating drivers, it's actually quite insulting to try to micromanage how fast another person drives. No, it's not.
We absolutely DO legislate exact moments pertaining to unforeseen situations. See discussion about "stand your ground" laws, which are exemptions from "murder is bad". Are they good? No, I don't think so.
Your last sentence is hilarious. We need to understand why complete strangers are so involved in the existence of babies they don't know. Really? The same reason we care that immigrant kids (we don't know) are separated from their families (we don't know either) and caged. The same reason we care about the people affected by the war in Syria. None of which I know personally btw. It's very simple: Iff an unborn baby is at any point a human individual, it has rights. They need then to be balanced with the rights of the mother. We can discuss if this is the case, and we can discuss how that balance should be found if we find that "yes". We can absolutely not discuss whether I can have an opinion on this or not.
>We can absolutely not discuss whether I can have an opinion on this or not.
I was not saying people shouldn't have opinions. I was saying they should not have opinions that are so strongly held that compromise is not an option. That is the problem we have. The laws we currently have are already a result of extensive debate and compromise.
> We need to understand why complete strangers are so politically and emotionally involved in the existence of babies they don't know.
Because of basic humanity? If you grant that they actually do believe
(as they say they do) that those babies are human beings with rights, should they not act?
But these same people support a political party that is in favor of capital punishment and against a larger social safety net. Where is the basic humanity in the state murdering someone or a person dying for lack of healthcare?
I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct view, but I don't see any reason that a logically consistent political view can't be prolife, support capital punishment, and opposed to a larger social safety net.
For example:
A person who believes that the punishment should be calibrated to pay back the damage a crime does and concludes that life is so valuable that the only "payment" that a murderer can make to balance the scales is their own life.
A person views actively taking someone's life in abortion as different from not providing a social safety net that preserves someone's life.
There are plenty of people who are pro-life, against capital punishment, and for a reliable social safety net. The two American political parties exist only paper; I've never met someone who agreed with 100% of their parties platform.
That being said, someone having one wrong belief does not automatically invalidate all of their other arguments. For example, Albert Einstein wrote several racist remarks in his travel journal while he traveled Asia. That does not invalidate any of the science he pioneered.
I believe it does invalidate their opinion on abortion when they are using “basic humanity” as their reasoning. Some unrelated example about Einstein and racism doesn’t really address that hypocrisy.
Not to mention that this same political party isn’t practicing “basic humanity” in their border policy or towards journalists. It’s ok to call out the hypocrisy. Crying “basic humanity” isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Nobody said anything similar to "pro-abortion-in-all-circumstances" except you. I never assumed anything, simply pointed out the reality the many people who are claiming "pro-life" or "basic humanity" seem to be using that as a shield and do not practice it in other forms.
It's ironic how you want me to accept your nuance, but you eliminate any nuance from my perspective. It speaks to how you view your opinions versus other's opinions.
Also missing in this context is the same group who wants to make abortions illegal also wants to reduce access to contraception, sex education (abstinence only) and healthcare for women. If you honestly want to reduce abortions, all of the above ha e shown to work. The one thing that doesn't work to reduce abortions is to make it illegal. Rich people just have abortions elsewhere, while everyone else who really wants one does it anyway illegally.
Abortion is condemned in the Didache (late 1st century/early 2nd century CE). There were already rigorously set penalties under canon law for abortion in the 1st millennium. It may be that American Evangelical Christians will return to the moderate views about the issue that they held several decades ago, but it is entire possible that the "historical norms" that any Christian community might return to are the ones even further back in time.
Sure. Heck, they could go back to approving of slavery, which was theologically justified in a number of times and places. But when I say evangelicals may return to historical norms, I mean relative to other Christians in other well-off societies over the last hundred years or so.
Skeptical response : was Hippocrates a Christian? If not then why did the oath that bears his name prohibit a doctor from participating in abortion ("I will not give a woman a pessary to procure an abortion")?
It's worth noting that the role of women in ancient Greece was barely above that of slaves.
BTW the oath also forbids doctors to treat bladder stones (seemingly for anti-competitive reasons?), so all in all it should, as every ancient text, be interpreted in the historical context.
The role of women in ancient Greece varied. Spartan women at one time held 40% of all property, and were highly educated and could freely travel, while women in Athens had a lot less rights.
The deferral to (what I assumed to be) surgeons seems to indicate specialization rather than being anti-competitive. That is, there was a split between "doctors" and "chirurgeons" or surgeons.
It's incredible that a speech from over 160 years ago can have such an emotional impact on a 2018 American reader. If you feel uncomfortable reading this speech just as I did, you understand the importance to reflect on our national moral compass.
> At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
This is a great speech. Douglass' biographies are on my to-read list.
The Declaration of Independence was an important and powerful document. An oft-overlooked part is that it set the stage for the end of slavery, a world-wide phenomenon that encompasses known human history, around the world.
At the time of writing, it was more important to keep the country together than to end slavery, but just ~40 years after independence America ended the slave trade, and it was the new nation of the United States of America that freed all slaves less than 100 years after it's founding.
The founders of America truly had a great vision, and created the foundation of a radically new kind of country that beget the end of slavery in the developed world.
Yes the founders of America had great vision and developed a radically new kind of country. But I'm not convinced that they had great vision or positive impact with regard to slavery. Weren't they hypocrites to permit slavery while proclaiming proudly that all men are created equal?
The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. The thirteenth amendment to the United States constitution abolished slavery in 1865. So a first approximation is that American independence extended slavery on US soil by 32 years.
The British used indentured servitude well into the 20th century. Sure, it’s not the same kind of slavery movies enjoy depicting, but the practice was just as inhumane and brutal in many respects. Indians were particularly affected by it.
America ended all forms of slavery, including indentured servitude, under the 13th amendment after the civil war.
We shed a lot of blood as a country to get that result, the sacrifice of those men and women shouldn’t be so quickly cast aside.
Our Founders knew the fight against slavery was coming, they discussed it extensively in historical records you can look up, but they had bigger fish to fry first when they founded the country. The fact the United States moved so quickly after the ratification of the Constitution to ban slave importation in 1808 shows they had a strong desire to get the issue solved. The country quickly chipped away at it with all things considered.
With all due respect that is hogwash. The war of independence was not quite the glorious thing Americans like to paint it as.
1) The southern states only joined after they learned that the British were freeing slaves. Now the British may not have had ulterior motives, but then don't pretend all Americans did either.
2) The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbid european american settlers from expanding into native American territory, was a major contribution to resentment towards British rule. Not exactly a very honorable thing.
3) As for slavery. The Convict lease system existed until past the 1900s or so. This was an enormous system. Over 70% of the income of the state of Albama was from convict lease system. This was just black slavery under a new name. Not only that but it was significantly more brutal than the old slavery.
4) My wife's side of the family is from Hawaii so I've been there many times. I know all to well about the extent of involuntary servitude placed upon immigrants there. People were beaten lynched, racist laws preventing e.g. Chinese from doing anything but farm work. The whole island was illegally invaded by the US. Hawaii was recognized as a sovereign nation by all of Europe at the time.
Ok, I am not trying to say the US was the worst ever, one always ends up getting those accusations. I merely asking to stop this incessant American tendency to glorify themselves as so much better than everybody else.
Painting the English as some sort of evil tyrants might make sense in India. But in America people tended to enjoy a lot more freedom and lower taxes than anywhere else. Britain had never promised representation to colonial subjects. The US followed the exact same practice in their own colonies. Did not see the Philippines get any representation in the US. Puerto Rico still doesn't.
I think I agree with the broad thrust of your argument but I am having trouble sourcing the "70% of Alabama's income" stat, and the stats I have found are more like 10%.
>America ended all forms of slavery, including indentured servitude, under the 13th amendmemt after the civil war.
Not entirely... the 13th amendment makes an exception for "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
Meaning slavery as a private institution is outlawed in the US, but the government is allowed to keep as many slaves as it wants, provided it convicts them of a crime first.
That’s a much larger argument I agree. You could also argue the high level of citizen taxation combined with record deficit spending in our country could be further evidence that the goal posts simply shifted.
I won't go so far as to imply that the American justice system is intended to further the institution of slavery with a racially biased system of laws and law enforcement that results in disproportionate black incarceration.
But... it is telling that the US just couldn't bring itself to let go of slavery entirely.
> America ended all forms of slavery, including indentured servitude, under the 13th amendment after the civil war.
No, it didn't; the 13th Amendment explicitly excluded penal slavery from it's general abolition of slavery, and overt penal slavery continued long after the 13th Amendment, having been radically expanded in its immediate aftermath (and, arguably, penal slavery continues in the U.S. today.)
> Our Founders knew the fight against slavery was coming
They did, which is why several provisions of the Constitution were put into place to protect the institution and stack the deck for the coming fight.
"The fact the United States moved so quickly after the ratification of the Constitution to ban slave importation in 1808 shows they had a strong desire to get the issue solved."
I seem to recall that the bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of...) was supported by some in the slave states because it would increase the value of their existing slaves. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article seems to imply that an important aspect of the issue was that Britain was the largest slave trader of the time.
The idea that "they had a strong desire to get the issue solved" seems clearly false; they kicked that can down the road as long as they could.
>America ended all forms of slavery, including indentured servitude, under the 13th amendment after the civil war.
In reality, most slavery moved to sharecropping and expanding the criminal justice system so that prisons became the new source of cheap black labor. There’s a prison in Mississippi which was converted to a prison after being a plantation became unfashionable and business there has been unchanged since the antebellum.
Sure, if you look at numbers in a timeline, but 1) the British couldn't hold on to the colonies in N. America and 2) based on #1, even if they had held on to the colonies, they would have had a heck of a time enforcing abolition in the Southern states area.
That's an interesting point. If the American Revolution hadn't occurred in 1776 (or had failed), the Southern states at least would likely have rebelled if the English had attempted to abolish slavery in the 1830s-40s.
Then you have to wonder whether the northern states would have sided with the South or with the English.
The founding fathers did not develop a radically new kind of country. They observed the inter-national confederacies of the people who had already been living in and around the area that is now called New England. Under the articles of confederation (in which the term "The United States of America" is coined) the country was run in a way very similar to the Iroquois Confederacy. The big difference was that the Articles did make it possible for the central government to develop policies to be implemented in all states; the Iroquois Confederacy did not have anything of the sort.
The federalist influence came later, but the Constitution we live under now did not require such a huge amount of creativity as we like to teach in our American History classes.
For those not into the whole American exceptionalism thing, you could go with Haiti, whose revolution started in 1791 and where independence and the end of the slavery were fought for at the same time.
> that beget the end of slavery in the developed world.
Where did you learn this? This is absolutely wrong. Most developed nations had abolished slavery before the US did. A few, like the Ottoman Empire and Brazil was later, but to frame the US as a front-runner is absurd.
> Didn't the British empire ban slaves and slavery on English soil at the start of the 19th century?
Depends on your meaning and what dates. The British did NOT ban slavery "at the start of the 19th century" (meaning 1800s). They banned only the buying of slaves using English vessels and even then it was nominally enforced. In 1833, the English compensated approximately 3000 slavers for "loss of business assets" (yes, that's right, they compensated the slavers, not the slaves) including the ancestors of David Cameron, the Bazalgettes and other wealthy families.
Almost instantly after the passing of the 1833 act, the British used indentured labour to replace slavery. Indentured labour was found to be equivalently cruel. The historical record shows death rates as high or higher than the slavery period for indentured labourers brought from South Asia to the West Indies and South East Asia. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/12/thefor...
1835 "To finance the compensation (for slave owners), the British government had to take on a £15 million loan (40% of its budget) with banker Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore. The money was not paid back until 2015."
> yes, that's right, they compensated the slavers, not the slaves
That seems fair: the slave-owners had undertaken obligations that by the standards, mores & laws of the time were normal, ethical & legal; changing mores & laws nullified those obligations, and hence they were compensated.
You'll find that it's a lot easier to change someone's mind if you say, 'I want you to do something which is right, and I'll pay you to do it!' than if you say, 'I want you to do something which is right, and I'll punish you for doing it!' What's more important in your mind: freeing slaves or punishing slaveholders?
Of course you compensate the slavers. You want them to buy in to the process. That way you don't have to fight a war with them over it. That's just pragmatism in politics.
It's stuff like this that reveals why some organizations like the NAACP are successful and others are not.
The British banned slavery on the British Empire at the start of the 19th century. But the slave trade was banned on English soil way before that, in 1102. However, there were imported slaves in England, which got their freedom in the mid 18th century (via some court cases because slave trade etc was banned on english soil in the common law), effectively ending slavery as a whole in England. Then 50 or so years later, as the anti slave trade movement grew, this extended to the colonies and the whole empire.
When the Union blockaded the Confederacy, cotton workers in Lancashire, England (who were out of work without raw material) rallied against the Royal Navy breaking the blockade though it would have been in their economic interest at the time. Solidarity forever.
Some people have pointed out some similarities between the Declaration of Independence and the much earlier Declaration of Arbroath:
"As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
> The founders of America truly had a great vision, and created the foundation of a radically new kind of country that beget the end of slavery in the developed world.
This is just bad history. What on Earth possessed you to write this? One could refute it but it's so made up it's practically fan fiction of the history of the world.
My reading of the U.S. Civil War is that tensions began when the federal government wanted to accelerate to the development of high tech industries in the northern states by increasing tariffs on manufactured imports. This hit the southern states hard because their agricultural economies require a consumption of manufactured goods to produce raw material; equipment bought from Britain would be used to make cotton which is shipped back to Britain to be manufactured and exported again. This dynamic explains why the British elite were in favor of the south (possibly hoping they would regress the entirety of the U.S. to an agricultural economy), while the British public were more often sympathetic towards the north. This action, among other things the federal government did, resembled the old English tyranny that everyone's parents and their parents' parents had fought and died to be rid of.
Slave-plantations are unsustainable. A workforce must be free before it can be trained to farm in such a way that does not rapidly deplete the land; this is one fact which contributed to the idea of white supremacy, as free workers were white, and free workers were taught more skills. With the rapid expansion of U.S. territory this would not become a problem in any single man's lifetime. I believe that those slave owning people who backed secession may have seen slavery driving the U.S. expansion, rather than the other way around, but that's just an opinion.
Anyway, coming back to emancipation, the Lincoln administration had a much clearer view of the relationship between capitalism and slavery since they were outside of the southern thought bubble. Plus anyone could see the potential in having former-slave armies: radicalized fighters with unlimited morale. "Freeing the slaves" is always a good idea when one is at war with slave owners.
Lincoln is one of the greatest presidents my country has ever had but in my view, the Civil War had almost nothing to do with asserting the equality of all people. When viewing it on paper it seems to me to have been about solidifying the authority of the federal government, as well as industrializing the U.S. economy to replace and eventually compete with foreign manufacturing.
Also, the U.S. is not a new kind of country. There were already several confederations of independent nations, living in the area when the Europeans arrived and began colonizing. I will concede that having a central government which can create and apply policy to all members of the confederation was "new" it was not "radically new" as it was only a remix of other, well-established models of government.
> "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."
> What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
Douglas was woke af.
It looks like there's a maritime museum dedicated to him and Isaac Myers right near where Douglas lived in Baltimore. I'm a bit ashamed to admit I had no idea this existed, and I lived there for 5 years. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Frederick+Douglass-Isaac+M...
I've always found hypocrisy to be an American specialty like no other. Who else exerts so much time talking passionately about freedom while at the same time locking up more people than anybody else on the planet and invading more countries than anybody else on the planet.
The Chinese and Russians e.g. seem a bit more honest about the machinations.
I find it funny you're being downvoted, as if people just don't like hearing the truth.
America houses more prisoners than any country in the world (around 2.4 Million). More than both China and Brazil combined, the next two highest (Brazil has recently beat out Russia for third highest prison population). To give some comparison, the combined population of China and Brazil is 1.6 Billion, compared to America's 326 Million.
Holy crap!!! 1/3rd that is insane. What is that not a bigger topic? I guess that explains that the first time ever I met anybody who had been in prison was when I moved to the US (I had enough after a year and went back. Got too much police state vibes).
Don't get me wrong. There are LOTS of things I love about the US. The country fascinates me immensely. There are many things Americans can be proud of. I just wish there was more acceptance towards the idea that the US is in fact quite flawed and not miles ahead of everybody else in freedom as they like to portray it.
It almost feels a bit insulting when you interact with Americans and they just assume you live in a dictatorship, because hey only Americans have freedom. That mindset can't be by an accident. It must be from the constant harping on in school and in public about how amazing and free the US is.
It's not a big topic because systemic racism and political and social neglect have made it normal.
The simplest way to look at it is this. Some minorities in this country have been forced to be poor due to a combination of social and state-sanctioned actions accumulated for a century or two. People in poverty often end up associated with crime and drug use. As a massive amount of cheap, highly addictive illegal drugs pours into poor areas, crime and drug use climbs.
The political system decides that the solution is to punish people more, the thinking apparently being that punishing them harsher will somehow alleviate the source of the crime and drugs: poverty. So the minorities targeted by racist policies, mainly poor black people, get locked up 6x more than anyone else. When they get out of jail, they have even fewer opportunities to make a living. The end result is a cycle of poverty, crime, prison, poverty, crime, prison.
To address this, you basically have to state that 1) America is deeply affected by systemic racism, 2) Politicians sentenced poor people to languish in prison rather than help them rise out of poverty, 3) Our citizens don't care much about each other.
It's very easy to ignore a big problem like our insane prison problem when the people affected don't live in your community or they're locked up in prison. The poor black communities who are affected have become completely normalized to it; every black person I know has a member of their family who has been to or is in prison.
Even though keeping people in prison costs us tens of billions of dollars, and continues a revolving door of poor people, new prisoners, crime, illegal drugs, and racism, we refuse to address the problem. We will continue to do so as long as we refuse to look hard at our own complicity.
> About one in three Americans has a criminal record.
Are the laws in America unjust? Do they make criminal behaviour which in other nations would be legal? Are the police & justice system in America more effective, in finding & punishing criminals? Or are Americans more criminal than residents of other nations?
Only the first of those points to a problem of the American system; the second, if true, is a good thing; the last points to a problem of Americans.
Just to be clear, the Chinese probably incarcerate more people when you factor in the Uyghur reeducation facilities, but point taken.
You are correct about invading and locking up, but you leave out the fact that all of Western Europe would have fallen under Stalin if not for the US heavily investing in it.
Frederick Douglass' autobiography is one of the most inspiring books I've ever read, a book which every American should read.
However, after reading his story, one cannot help but be angered by the many who push the popular, patronizing, and cryptically racist mantra that black americans don't have the power within themselves to overcome the legacy of slavery.
The question is: how should one react to learning that life is unfair and full of adversity against them?
Perhaps the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass could serve as a good example?
I wonder if Douglass had just remained hopeless, blamed others, and waited on the government to fix his problems, instead of learning to read, educating himself, and becoming resolutely determined to gain freedom, would we even be talking about him right now?
Surely Douglass was delt far worse cards than most american's complaining about the deck today.
"The question is: how should one react to learning that life is unfair and full of adversity against them?"
The answer: Get incredibly lucky; Douglass learned to read with help from his master's wife when such was significantly frowned on and (IIRC) illegal. Respond to disagreeable situations violently ("After Douglass won a physical confrontation, Covey [a poor farmer who had a reputation as a "slave-breaker"] never tried to beat him again"). Commit crimes; Douglass attempted to escape repeatedly.
After that, all you have to do is become one of the most successful writers of your age. This step is trivial.
That is an incredibly disempowering opinion. Is there any practical value to leading one's life in accordance with such a philosophy?
>The answer: Get incredibly lucky;
Does a human have no agency in which to improve their odds?
>Douglass learned to read with help from his master's wife when such was significantly frowned on and (IIRC) illegal.
Indeed today educating oneself is frowned upon by many in the black community, those who do are often referred to as "white" or "uncle toms". Does that mean one should refrain from it?
>Respond to disagreeable situations violently ("After Douglass won a physical confrontation, Covey [a poor farmer who had a reputation as a "slave-breaker"] never tried to beat him again"). Commit crimes; Douglass attempted to escape repeatedly.
"Disagreeable" is incredibly euphemistic and dishonest characterization of slave-breaking camps. Should human beings not rebel when being tortured and enslaved?
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." -MLK
How did I misunderstand? It was not willfull. Maybe they were speaking tongue in cheek and I did not realize? It seemed they were willfully misunderstanding the life of Frederick Douglass which came across as malicious to the struggle for human rights.
You've done a lot of reasoning and deriving and explaining, but the fundamental conclusion you reach through all that work:
> I wonder if Douglass had... blamed others... instead of learning to read, educating himself, and becoming resolutely determined to gain freedom, [we would not] even be talking about him right now
has as its counter-example the very discussion in which you're taking part...
Douglass is a perfect example of two facts that cut agains the thesis of your comments in this thread. His work demonstrates that 1) critique is necessary; and 2) placing blame where it is due is NOT, as your question insinuates, mutually exclusive with action or self-improvement.
What is the history of slavery in the Islamic / Arab middle east? When did those countries abolish it? I think it was fairly recent, some in the 20th century... I mean not counting recent the scandal from the guardian about migrant workers who can’t get an exit visa.
PS: I am curious why asking about continuing slavery in other parts of the world importing Black slaves is so heavily downvoted. Aren’t people equal regardless of where in the world they are? Why discourage concern and knowledge about slavery of people of African descent??
This is like when the Paris attacks happened and the world was lit up in French colors while on the same day the same group (ISIS) killed just as many people at a stadium Beirut, Lebanon and no one seemed to even mention them. We need to move past our navel gazing.
EDIT: again, heavily downvoted for merely inquiring why slavery in the middle east persisted
It seems it’s only acceptable to discuss the moral failings of the US, or attacks on Westerners, while peoples and nations in the middle east are “below” criticism or comment eh? “We” are too englightened and talking about “them” is diverting the conversation from what really matters?
You were probably downvoted because people suspected what your edit demonstrates: that you were trying to whatabout attention away from the US.
You’re absolutely allowed to criticize other countries (Mauritania is pretty far from the Middle East BTW), but when you suddenly bring them up in a conversation that’s specifically about the US and a prominent figure in the American abolitionist movement, it looks like you’re trying to deflect. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it looks like the downvoters got it right.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I absolutely must clarify:
Mauritania is considered to be a constituent part of the "Maghreb" region, which, while it isn't the Middle East, it is certainly a part of the "Arab World".
Furthermore, Mauritania has a crescent and star on their flag, and their state religion is Islam.
When Paris was attacked, and Beirut on same day, only France was being remembered. Somehow we haven't yet learned to care about people being hurt in other places in the world if we're not living there, if it's not part of "us". We need to start thinking of people as equal regardless of where they live.
I think they got it right that you’re not interested in discussing the topic at hand, and would rather hijack the conversation to talk about your pet issues.
I am talking about slavery of Black people that continued to happen and, by the way, is happening today.
And instead of discussing the actual issue, it’s considered hijacking?
I have seen Hacker News comments of all types on an article, some heavily upvoted, that are on a tangential topic. Very often they were even political or opinions on other tech platforms or the landscape of tech in the FIELD of the article.
It happens so often on HN that I am truly bewildered as to how this is not just special pleading / double standard invoked specifically because what I am doing is currently politically incorrect: talking about issue X happening more recently and in the rest of the world, which takes away from talking about the history of the country where most HNers live.
Just step away for a second and think about it. Is it really a healthy response when I say Black people have continued to be enslaved long after the Emancipation proclamation in the USA, that for millions of Negroes in other parts of the world this continued, to say it is “hijacking to talk about my pet issues”?
I think this one sentence from that article gives a strong clue:
"Activists are arrested for fighting the practice."
Everyone is always quick these days (at least, here in the US) to decry "Social Justice Warriors" as if they are a bad thing ... but for many across the world and across history, they were the saving grace; someone who dared ask, "why are we doing this?"
Don't confuse people "who dared ask, "why are we doing this?"" with people who want reparations, affirmative action, etc. And that's just a second definition I've thrown out there, alongside yours, when there's many more.
You reference those things as if they are a "bad thing" ... they are not universally "bad things". They are merely individual actions/tools/incentives to right historical wrongs. It's not wrong for people to want to right those wrongs, even if someone else feels that other actions would be more efficient at righting those wrongs ... that's a valid discussion to have, not summarily dismissing people proposing solutions.
>You reference those things as if they are a "bad thing"
More accurately, as if they are not obviously noble, since you conflated everyone to have been called SJW with someone brave and insightful. But yeah I do think those things are intrinsically wrong.
If you'd like to discuss slavery elsewhere, why don't you post a substantive article on the topic? That's what Hacker News posts are: a story and a discussion about that story.
Is this the norm on Hacker News that asking about continuing abuses in other parts of the world is not relevant to the topic about historical abuses in the USA, and one needs to get their own topic heavily upvoted to get a discussion?
When your post reads like "rationalist" (read: white supremacist/American nationalist) whataboutism and seems to be there just to pivot to What About The Islams, Man, having a mod like 'sctb suggest you chill out is a pretty light response.
Not saying your post is that. But I am saying that if somebody of that mind wanted to derail some things, they'd write your post.
EDIT: Ah. Saw your comments elsewhere in the thread. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> PS: I am curious why asking about continuing slavery in other parts of the world importing Black slaves is so heavily downvoted.
Because it sounds very much like whataboutism. In an article about the US and slavery, you're talking about how other cultures may have been worse--ones completely unrelated to the current discussion.
I understand it sounds like whataboutism, but whatboutism is one of the most dangerous labels. It allows people to just dismiss conversation about current and pressing issues in the world in favor of navel gazing at a far less pressing issue. It provides cover for human rights abuses in countries which were conveniently “not the subject” of conversation initially.
Like when women in the world are trafficked into sex slavery, married off as children, honor killings, caste rapes etc. and a charge of “whataboutism” is used to refocus on how a default avatar in social networks is unfairly male instead of female.
It has been over a century since slavery was abolished in the USA yet it persisted and persists around the world now. I think it SHOULD be talked about, and analyzed and solved, whether or not it is whataboutism, just like we should talk about malaria or anything else. Just because it isn’t happening here doesn’t mean it’s not a BIGGER and more pressing problem.
So just cause someone coined a stupid word doesn’t mean you get to dismiss issues affecting millions of people or excuse a double standard. Go beyond virtue signaling and care about actual utilitarian statistics and solutions.
I would argue the supremacists are those who focus exclusively on their own ethnic group and navel gaze at their own coutry at the expense of people worldwide.
Then do as 'sctb said and post a substantiative, thought-provoking article about it. I'd be happy to discuss the issue there, because it is an important one. Bad shit does happen today, and needs to be discussed.
But the fallout of the bad shit from the past matters too and trying to diminish that here suggests that your motives are not as pure as your representation of them suggests. Which may not be your intention...buuuut...I'd bet that way, Monsieur "Virtue Signal", Señor "They're The Real Supremacists", Mister "Let's Talk About Anybody But Me".
I would say the motives of those who talk about historical wrong X in the past while obstructing discssion of X happening today are also not pure. Everyone should evaluate themselves. That’s why I am not backing down and just agreeing. I find “calling whataboutism” to be disingenuous cover for double standards (speaking in general, not about anyone in particular).
I am happy to talk about things if the intention is genuine. The people who care about historical wrong X seem to put up pedantic walls as soon as they are asked to care about X much closer and much more pressing to us. “Make another topic on HN and get it upvoted and maybe I will talk about slavery of Black people that has been happening in regions where it’s not as cool to critique at the moment.” Doesn’t seem to fit on a site where comments to “I invented a decentralized permissionless movie streaming platform” is “your site is green bleh” or some other thing. But talking about Black people being enslaved today is “diverting attention” from an article about Black people being enslaved by the country of which I am a citizen. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/series/modern...
It is a form of soft bigotry to me, if analyzed without the filter. A light form of collective insanity. And it doesn’t have to do with slavery in particular but pick any X issue.
"I would argue the supremacists are those who focus exclusively on their own ethnic group and navel gaze at their own coutry at the expense of people worldwide."
And sometimes they're just responding to a topical article like a link to Frederick Douglass' speech on the 4th of July
So was I. Fredrick Douglass spoke about the experience of the Negro being enslaved in USA. That was a powerful image. Normally, it would be quite appropriate to point out that people from the same continent, with the same skin, were enslaved also in Arab countries all through the 20th century and discuss the institution of slavery there and how it compared throughout history with the US institution. (Mamluks for example.) It can unearth a lot of interesting and historically useful information. But more to the point, Black people are being enslaved even today, but you would prefer to suppress this fact because why? Because freedom and independence wasn’t for everyone in Douglass time, IN THE USA. And what, only the USA matters?
I am just trying to get you to see that if this was any other topic on HN, like eg a speech by Linus Torvalds about Git, a wide array of comments would be perfectly fine eg someone asking whether distributed VCS has really taken off, or (like I did) whether people still use centralized version control in some companies.
Here we are talking about the lives of human beings. But apparently Black lives matter ONLY in the USA, women’s lives matter only in the USA, because mentioning current honor killings of women in some countries is racist. That is a perverse reaction and no, saying it’s “off topic” just makes it worse. You either don’t actually care about women's rights or ending slavery, or there is some overriding principle I am still not aware of that makes the same exact issue outside the USA so off topic as to be essentially unwelcome as a comment!
Unless you are building a time machine, what are the other distractions more beneficial to improving the present than using that precious time to consern yourself with the far past mistakes made by humans?
From the Wikipedia article about him:
> Frederick Douglass (born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895) was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, gaining note for his oratory and incisive antislavery writings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass