|
Did American slavery build the foundations of a future superpower?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| If you look at history, most of great super powers that have existed, we heavily dependent on slave/forced labor. The Greeks, Romans, Persians, Charlemagne, USSR, etc. So did the 100-200 years of American slavery build the foundations of a future superpower? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| You can't possibly connect the two. The single biggest factor in the US becoming a superpower was WW2. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| No, because I'm racist. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
You can't possibly connect the two. The single biggest factor in the US becoming a superpower was WW2. |
I think there is a connection but maybe a much less well defined causal relationship. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
You can't possibly connect the two. The single biggest factor in the US becoming a superpower was WW2. |
This. I'm pretty sure the US is considered the biggest superpower because we have all the ing nukes. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
1)
superpower status, traditionally, has been a result of military strength, not slavery. The UK, a super power from the 18th century through the early 20th century, was a power because of its naval might.
2)
the statement that the foundation of our country was built on the back of slaves is bull . Slavery was largely confined to agricultural endeavors (and maybe development of some early infrastructure in the south). Slavery wasn't a contribution (or at most an insigificant contribution) to the development of our scientific institutions, our educational institutions, our industrial innovations, or our massive infrastructure development that occurred during the 20th century.
3)
How was charlemagne a superpower?
4)
The most significant factors contributing to the position of the US as a superpower are (i) our wealth of natural resources, (ii) our immigration policy [i.e., allowing so many immigrants from all over the world], and (iii) as PKC pointed out, WW2. The number of contributions to this country from europeans who immigrated to this country after the wars in europe is staggering. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
not that i agree with Krypton's basic premise but for argument's sake manifest destiny (though not the most peaceful of endeavors) and the Monroe Doctrine both had much to do with building the foundations Krypton is alluding to. and they both were indirectly related to slavery as well.
let's face it, slavery, as someone smart once put it, was a "birth defect" that defined us as a nation. it stayed with us, though limited to what jerz has already pointed out, till the only way we could go on maturing as one strong nation was to bring ourselves to our knees through unholy war. only then we could lay legitimate claim to our potential and thats exactly what we did after reconstruction. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If you look at history, most of great super powers that have existed, we heavily dependent on slave/forced labor. The Greeks, Romans, Persians, Charlemagne, USSR, etc. So did the 100-200 years of American slavery build the foundations of a future superpower? |
Yes, this makes sense. That's why Haiti, with a history of slavery, is a superpower.:stongue: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
superpower status, traditionally, has been a result of military strength, not slavery. The UK, a super power from the 18th century through the early 20th century, was a power because of its naval might. |
Military strength is dependent upon economic strength. Slave labor is always advantageous economically.
| quote: | | the statement that the foundation of our country was built on the back of slaves is bull . Slavery was largely confined to agricultural endeavors (and maybe development of some early infrastructure in the south). Slavery wasn't a contribution (or at most an insigificant contribution) to the development of our scientific institutions, our educational institutions, our industrial innovations, or our massive infrastructure development that occurred during the 20th century. |
Well, slavery after 1865 really just took on different forms. Sharecroppers who were basically serfs. Labor was usually paid slave wages so it could be said we still had a form of slavery all the way until Roosevelt's New Deal.
| quote: | | How was charlemagne a superpower? |
No other power rivaled the Frankish Empire at its height.
| quote: | | The most significant factors contributing to the position of the US as a superpower are (i) our wealth of natural resources, (ii) our immigration policy [i.e., allowing so many immigrants from all over the world], and (iii) as PKC pointed out, WW2. The number of contributions to this country from europeans who immigrated to this country after the wars in europe is staggering. |
No doubt but much of this progress has been on the backs of slaves, and even more, unskilled low wage labor. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Yes, this makes sense. That's why Haiti, with a history of slavery, is a superpower.:stongue: |
Except your straw man fallacy implies I said every country that employs slave labor becomes a super power. Clearly, that's not what I said. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Except your straw man fallacy implies I said every country that employs slave labor becomes a super power. Clearly, that's not what I said. |
Oh right, just most. That's why when someone points out a counter-claim to your theory you can easily whip out the straw man fallacy line. That's like me saying "Isn't Mexican food good?" and you say "I hate Baja Fresh" and then I say "Omg dumbass that's not good Mexican food I'm talking about good Mexican food!" I'm sure if I mentioned more slave countries not becoming world powers than slave countries who did then you're theory would still be sound, right?
Anyway, correlation does not imply causation. Interestingly, of your historical references some superpowers had slavery at the time of becoming a superpower while others didn't. So is your theory now going to be remodeled to say, "slavery is a precurser to becoming a superpower, but sometimes remains dormant for a hundred years or so." ? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Oh right, just most. That's why when someone points out a counter-claim to your theory you can easily whip out the straw man fallacy line. That's like me saying "Isn't Mexican food good?" and you say "I hate Baja Fresh" and then I say "Omg dumbass that's not good Mexican food I'm talking about good Mexican food!" I'm sure if I mentioned more slave countries not becoming world powers than slave countries who did then you're theory would still be sound, right?
Anyway, correlation does not imply causation. Interestingly, of your historical references some superpowers had slavery at the time of becoming a superpower while others didn't. So is your theory now going to be remodeled to say, "slavery is a precurser to becoming a superpower, but sometimes remains dormant for a hundred years or so." ? |
Clearly, you packaged my original argument into something I never intended nor stated. Straw man fallacy. Of the super powers I mentioned, which didn't have slave/forced labor preceding or at the height of their power? |
|
|
|
|
