Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Locked
bleezy
Valued Contributor
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:36 am

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by bleezy » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:13 pm

BobF wrote: 1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.
Ok, that's just crazy. Anybody could have done work. Black or white. If they wanted a field hand or a maid or a cook or whatever they could have just hired someone. Who do you think did fieldwork after the civil war? The same people who were slaves beforehand! Only later they were being paid, they could work anywhere they wanted and quit whenever they wanted, they weren't being beaten, etc. (In theory, I understand in practice some of this might not have changed immediately)

User avatar
BobF
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:03 pm
Location: Westmonster, MD
Contact:

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by BobF » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:45 pm

bleezy wrote:
BobF wrote: 1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.
Ok, that's just crazy. Anybody could have done work. Black or white. If they wanted a field hand or a maid or a cook or whatever they could have just hired someone. Who do you think did fieldwork after the civil war? The same people who were slaves beforehand! Only later they were being paid, they could work anywhere they wanted and quit whenever they wanted, they weren't being beaten, etc. (In theory, I understand in practice some of this might not have changed immediately)
But they would basically have to live on premises is what I am saying. And in farming communities (as most of the US was at the time) laborers would simply work on their own family's plantation.

And to MDaunt, yes there were some very terrible slave owners, including the infamous guy who lived in the town where I now live, but that doesn't mean all slave owners did that. Please keep histrionics out of history.
Was once hugged by Maggie Speak!

User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by MDaunt » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:08 pm

BobF wrote:
bleezy wrote:
BobF wrote: 1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.
Ok, that's just crazy. Anybody could have done work. Black or white. If they wanted a field hand or a maid or a cook or whatever they could have just hired someone. Who do you think did fieldwork after the civil war? The same people who were slaves beforehand! Only later they were being paid, they could work anywhere they wanted and quit whenever they wanted, they weren't being beaten, etc. (In theory, I understand in practice some of this might not have changed immediately)
But they would basically have to live on premises is what I am saying. And in farming communities (as most of the US was at the time) laborers would simply work on their own family's plantation.

And to MDaunt, yes there were some very terrible slave owners, including the infamous guy who lived in the town where I now live, but that doesn't mean all slave owners did that. Please keep histrionics out of history.
Histrionics? Is that what the kids are calling reality these days? Or did you think runaway slaves were treated gently, kindly and given a stern talking to?

If you don't understand agricultural economics, then you probably shouldn't comment on agricultural economics. There were ethical and practical alternatives to slavery, which were widely practiced in the European countries from which the slavers came. They were not, however, nearly as profitable. When most labor was farm labor, most laborers did not own land.

User avatar
BobF
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:03 pm
Location: Westmonster, MD
Contact:

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by BobF » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:22 pm

MDaunt wrote:
BobF wrote:
bleezy wrote:
BobF wrote: 1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.
Ok, that's just crazy. Anybody could have done work. Black or white. If they wanted a field hand or a maid or a cook or whatever they could have just hired someone. Who do you think did fieldwork after the civil war? The same people who were slaves beforehand! Only later they were being paid, they could work anywhere they wanted and quit whenever they wanted, they weren't being beaten, etc. (In theory, I understand in practice some of this might not have changed immediately)
But they would basically have to live on premises is what I am saying. And in farming communities (as most of the US was at the time) laborers would simply work on their own family's plantation.

And to MDaunt, yes there were some very terrible slave owners, including the infamous guy who lived in the town where I now live, but that doesn't mean all slave owners did that. Please keep histrionics out of history.
Histrionics? Is that what the kids are calling reality these days? Or did you think runaway slaves were treated gently, kindly and given a stern talking to?

If you don't understand agricultural economics, then you probably shouldn't comment on agricultural economics. There were ethical and practical alternatives to slavery, which were widely practiced in the European countries from which the slavers came. They were not, however, nearly as profitable. When most labor was farm labor, most laborers did not own land.
Was it a comment or was it a question? What would have been more helpful initially, a couple of gruesome pictures or a reply like this?

And I stand by my histrionics label of your post for precisely THAT reason.

One good point you touch on here is profitability. As I said, more slave owners than not were racist. I will add to that of the rest, more slave owners than not were profiteers.
Was once hugged by Maggie Speak!

User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by MDaunt » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:16 pm

BobF wrote:
MDaunt wrote:
BobF wrote:
bleezy wrote:
BobF wrote: 1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.
Ok, that's just crazy. Anybody could have done work. Black or white. If they wanted a field hand or a maid or a cook or whatever they could have just hired someone. Who do you think did fieldwork after the civil war? The same people who were slaves beforehand! Only later they were being paid, they could work anywhere they wanted and quit whenever they wanted, they weren't being beaten, etc. (In theory, I understand in practice some of this might not have changed immediately)
But they would basically have to live on premises is what I am saying. And in farming communities (as most of the US was at the time) laborers would simply work on their own family's plantation.

And to MDaunt, yes there were some very terrible slave owners, including the infamous guy who lived in the town where I now live, but that doesn't mean all slave owners did that. Please keep histrionics out of history.
Histrionics? Is that what the kids are calling reality these days? Or did you think runaway slaves were treated gently, kindly and given a stern talking to?

If you don't understand agricultural economics, then you probably shouldn't comment on agricultural economics. There were ethical and practical alternatives to slavery, which were widely practiced in the European countries from which the slavers came. They were not, however, nearly as profitable. When most labor was farm labor, most laborers did not own land.
Was it a comment or was it a question? What would have been more helpful initially, a couple of gruesome pictures or a reply like this?

And I stand by my histrionics label of your post for precisely THAT reason.

One good point you touch on here is profitability. As I said, more slave owners than not were racist. I will add to that of the rest, more slave owners than not were profiteers.
The question you want to ask yourself in the 21st century is "Why do I want to be an apologist for slavery?" Really, why do you?

User avatar
BobF
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:03 pm
Location: Westmonster, MD
Contact:

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by BobF » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:28 pm

I'm done MDaunt. Thank you for helping me to christen my ignore list. You make 0 attempt to understand what I'm saying.
Was once hugged by Maggie Speak!

User avatar
skullturf
Married to a Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Miami

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by skullturf » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:26 pm

I have been reluctant to chime in on this conversation, but I want to say that I personally do not see BobF's comments as attempting be an *apologist* for slavery. (And for what it's worth, I generally happen to be someone who tends to be solidly left of center on social issues.)

It is possible to make both of the following assertions simultaneously:

--The institution of slavery is unquestionably and unequivocally morally repugnant.

--During times and places when slavery was practiced, some slave owners were not as thoroughly or unspeakably evil as some other slave owners.

I understand that slavery is an emotional issue, and we all obviously object to slavery today. But what if you or I had been born in a time and place when slavery was common? Sure, we'd like to think that we would have been among the "good" people. But if we really *had* been born in another time and place, we wouldn't have been born with values from 2015.

Although it's uncomfortable to talk about, it's probably true that some slave owners treated their slaves better than some other slave owners did, no matter how repugnant we find the practice today.

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by Vanya » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:08 pm

MDaunt wrote: Again, I can't really believe you typed that.
I know, right? "... a man...their ," it's an abomination!

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by Vanya » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:10 pm

Slave owners weren't racist; they saw blacks as sub-human. So they were... humanists.

User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by MDaunt » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:01 pm

BobF wrote:I'm done MDaunt. Thank you for helping me to christen my ignore list. You make 0 attempt to understand what I'm saying.
I think your problem is that I understand exactly what you're saying.

User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by MDaunt » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:43 pm

skullturf wrote:
I understand that slavery is an emotional issue, and we all obviously object to slavery today. But what if you or I had been born in a time and place when slavery was common? Sure, we'd like to think that we would have been among the "good" people. But if we really *had* been born in another time and place, we wouldn't have been born with values from 2015.
Regardless of whether or I not I would like to think I would have been courageous enough to object to slavery, it was still immoral and widely recognized as such even during its heyday. The fact is that many people did object to it, not least the enslaved.

The fact that some slave owners were modestly less evil than other slave owners is no excuse for the fact of slave ownership. In the context of New World slavery, it is prima facie evidence for racism of a rather extreme character.

Peggles
Grand Exalted Queen of the Universe
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:39 am
Location: Swansea, Massachusetts

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by Peggles » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:37 pm

Okay, I'll wade into the fray. It seems to me (social norms notwithstanding), that the primary "justification" for slave holders was their belief that their slaves were an inferior species, more animal than human. You can't own someone whom you acknowledge as your equal.

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by Dr. J » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:14 pm

BobF wrote: I'll agree that more slave owners than not were probably racist. There are just a couple of unanswered questions that make me not come down in judgment on the whole lot of them.

1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.

2. More importantly, what would happen to the slaves if they were freed? Would they have any guarantee of not being killed or not being taken by a horrible slave owner on the outside?

In general, I don't like to paint with a broad brush, I find one gets into more trouble that way.
What's amazing to me is that my college students are in the middle of a historical role-playing game set in 1845 where they are arguing the legality and morality of slavery. The game includes such actual historical personages as John Calhoun, Henry Clay, William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. And BobF's arguments are VERBATIM what the proponents of slavery were arguing in 1845, and the abolitionist of the time (over 160 years ago, mind you), were exposing the fallacies of those arguments even then. (Not only was it possible for southern plantation owners to survive without slavery -- see sharecropping, which took its place -- but why should the government have continued to prop up that system when it required the abuse of human rights on a daily basis?)

I guess I should tell my students not to bother trying to end modern slavery (or "human trafficking," if you don't want to call it slavery...but it's slavery all the same), because there's no other way for consumers to get their cheap apparel, and Americans can't possibly be talked out of wanting their STUFF.

User avatar
BobF
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:03 pm
Location: Westmonster, MD
Contact:

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by BobF » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:57 am

Dr. J wrote:
BobF wrote: I'll agree that more slave owners than not were probably racist. There are just a couple of unanswered questions that make me not come down in judgment on the whole lot of them.

1. Who would do the work in the absence of slaves? As I mentioned before, it's not like they could get a bunch of teenage kids to come work for them, especially in an age where it took George Washington months to get to NYC for his inauguration.

2. More importantly, what would happen to the slaves if they were freed? Would they have any guarantee of not being killed or not being taken by a horrible slave owner on the outside?

In general, I don't like to paint with a broad brush, I find one gets into more trouble that way.
What's amazing to me is that my college students are in the middle of a historical role-playing game set in 1845 where they are arguing the legality and morality of slavery. The game includes such actual historical personages as John Calhoun, Henry Clay, William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. And BobF's arguments are VERBATIM what the proponents of slavery were arguing in 1845, and the abolitionist of the time (over 160 years ago, mind you), were exposing the fallacies of those arguments even then. (Not only was it possible for southern plantation owners to survive without slavery -- see sharecropping, which took its place -- but why should the government have continued to prop up that system when it required the abuse of human rights on a daily basis?)

I guess I should tell my students not to bother trying to end modern slavery (or "human trafficking," if you don't want to call it slavery...but it's slavery all the same), because there's no other way for consumers to get their cheap apparel, and Americans can't possibly be talked out of wanting their STUFF.
Okay, Dr. J. But I'm certainly not arguing for slavery. In other posts, I call it barbaric. I also say that more owners than not were racist, and of the rest more than not are profiteers. My point is not to use a broad brush.
Was once hugged by Maggie Speak!

User avatar
DysonSphere
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:43 am

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by DysonSphere » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:26 am

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.
Last edited by DysonSphere on Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by Rex Kramer » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:37 am

DysonSphere wrote:Wouldn't you want to be judged according to the standards of your time instead of some unknowable standard from the future?
It's not as if the idea that slavery was repugnant and morally reprehensible only occurred to people in the 20th century. There was a raging debate over slavery from before the founding of the United States, just as there were people, say, in the 1960s divided over whether it was right and just to prevent Blacks and whites from marrying. If you were against miscegenation in the 1960s, or were for slavery in the 1820s, it's not as if you were simply behaving according to some uniform "standard of your time". You made a choice between two well-debated alternatives, and you made the wrong choice.

Rex

User avatar
TomKBaltimoreBoy
Lucky to be Here
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:30 am

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by TomKBaltimoreBoy » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:43 am

Bamaman wrote:Getting back to the original topic, if Hollywood can give an Oscar to Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 year old, I do not have a problem with a Hugo going to some guy writing stuff on his blog some view as racist.
Well, so much for giving the benefit of the doubt.
Life IS pain, Princess. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.

User avatar
Dr. J
Decade Battler and Mustache Maker
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by Dr. J » Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:55 pm

DysonSphere wrote:Context matters. To morally judge a person, it's unfair to judge them against anything but the time and circumstances in which they lived. Keep in mind there are undoubtedly countless things we do today we think little of that will be seen as backwards and evil at some time in the future. Even something as mundane as eating animal products, using a toilet run with with precious water, or driving a car might condemn you in the eyes of some future generation with a different culture, or one that benefits from advanced technology obviating the need for such behaviors. Wouldn't you want to be judged according to the standards of your time instead of some unknowable standard from the future?
I actually say this to my students a lot, partially as a way to remind them that we WILL be judged by future generations. When animals are determined to have souls and granted civil rights at some point in the future, we can't really say we didn't see it coming...PETA members will gleefully remind us -- those of us who are still alive -- that we could have chosen to listen to them instead of dismissing them as crazy radicals.

If I'm dead I can't really control how I'm judged, and while I may WANT to be judged by my current context, I'll mostly be judged from a future standpoint that I didn't determine. That's just one of the motivations I have to try to be more forward thinking and progressive.

User avatar
DysonSphere
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:43 am

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by DysonSphere » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:22 pm

Deleted - let's keep Jboard about the show.
Last edited by DysonSphere on Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ihavejeoprosy
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1208
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:17 pm

Re: Chu Chu Train = Salon Aboard!

Post by ihavejeoprosy » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:26 pm

DysonSphere wrote:
Rex Kramer wrote:
DysonSphere wrote:Wouldn't you want to be judged according to the standards of your time instead of some unknowable standard from the future?
It's not as if the idea that slavery was repugnant and morally reprehensible only occurred to people in the 20th century. There was a raging debate over slavery from before the founding of the United States, just as there were people, say, in the 1960s divided over whether it was right and just to prevent Blacks and whites from marrying. If you were against miscegenation in the 1960s, or were for slavery in the 1820s, it's not as if you were simply behaving according to some uniform "standard of your time". You made a choice between two well-debated alternatives, and you made the wrong choice.

Rex
I hope I was clear that I'm not for morally letting slave owners off the hook. I just don't think it's fair to judge them by the standards of today, as those like Chu argue we should. As another commenter pointed out, we could be considered "on notice" for any number of currently debatable moral standards that may or may not become universally accepted in the future. I'm sure I'll fall on the wrong side of some of those - I just hope there's a footnote reminding the reader that it was a different time and reasonable minds of my time could come to different moral conclusions.

Why do I tolerate starvation in Africa? Because it's a complex issue and I guess I just don't care all that much at the end of the day. Does that make me a horrible person? Somebody in the future (and the present) will say yes, but when 99% of my peers aren't doing anything about it either, it's a bit more understandable how I can go about my life.
Just because something is acceptable at a certain point, does not make it ethical. Its fine to call out people in history for behaving in an unethical manner. Dismissing something as a sign of the times doesn't help anything.
Please follow me on Twitter @Cinjeopardy
Total game show losings: $25 K

Locked