Meta: Abolitionists and Slaves

[telesilla.livejournal.com]

So, I have a bit of a meta question....

We've seen people like Jeff, Dylan and even the Catholic Church, argue that, given the state of things in the USNA, keeping slaves and treating them well is the right/humane thing to do.

Then there's the argument that keeping slaves at all is wrong, and that it's better to either pay the fines and remove yourself from society (Cate Blanchett is a good example) or to deliberately live poor so that you don't have to own slaves (although we haven't gone into this much yet, David Hewlett's mother and his sister Kate live like this).

I'm kind of curious as to what people here think: which way makes more sense in the context of the AKB verse and which way is more ethical in that same context?

PS: There may be other examples of both sides, I'm kind of behind on the more recent additions to the 'verse.

Comments

Re: Amen!

[guard-the-cards.livejournal.com]

I think that it's actually very easy to see how it happens. When you think of in this verse, the positive things that come from beliving in the system (slaves doing what you want, having attractive people who you will do your every will sexually, not having to pay heavy fines) you would quickly adapt to it.

In a more modern argument you can say that for people who have very little, or who have issues with believing in their own self worth, the idea of thinking you are above a certain group does a lot for you. My grandfather was poor, uneducated, and white, but at least he was better then the "fags and n-ggers". These prejudices allow for moral superiority, especially when those groups are either making headway in life (moving up the social ladder, being accepted in public), or when their own group is being held back (mass lay offs or considerable change in the status Quo)

The same thing is done in the dehumanization of the enemy. Russian during World War One was our ally but quickly after we turned them into our enemy by manipulating fear of what a lot of American's feel strongly about, their way of life which had just been vastly improved. By playing into this, the government was able to create the "Red Scare" which went away again after Germany betrayed the USSR and then the USSR turned to our side. Soon after again the government changed people's minds and had them hating and fearing the "Ruskies" or "Pinko Commies".

Now back to the "A Kept Boy" verse, when you look at people who have had maybe two or three generations (or how ever far back Slavery pt 2 was) and being told that you are not only to care for a slave but that the slave is yours, that by virtue of their or their parent's fiscal irresponsibility they would otherwise be a burden on society you could see how easily someone could delude themselves that they were called upon to care for this person. Even though debt, which is a whole lot easier to fall into then skin colour, is the only difference.

Basically it is that we can not be right if someone else isn't wrong, we can not be good if someone else isn't bad.

Re: Amen!

[angels3.livejournal.com]

My whole problem though is who made them God and said they were better. I mean how did they get to be better. Obviously they're not but they have placed themselves above everyone and they look down their noses.

Maybe it's because I don't think I'm better than the next person that I can't wrap my brain around it.

Re: Amen!

[guard-the-cards.livejournal.com]

Its always the group in power, could be brute strength (as US settelers over Native Americans) could be economic (The way we keep people in the ghettos) could be a system that is formed by only those who can afford it being in there, and thus not arguing for the rights fo the people who elect them, but instead for those who give them the money to be elected (The US government)

Heck it could even be because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Just so long as others belive you are in power, or you have the means to back that power, which normally means might, economic status and some sort of body other then yourself that claims you have the right to do so.