Expounding on what? Honestly I am not clear on what you are arguing here or in the post I was responding too. What I gather is that you feel that Weslinder is somehow being insulting with his comment about work ethic. I am not seeing it and explained why. I know Wes doesn't need me to defend him but most of your argument seems based upon something that came up previously rather than what has been posted in this thread.
I see what you mean. I would like to think that would be the case but even if widespread knowledge of how truly horrific the slave trade was might not have ended the practice any sooner in the US or the UK than when it did respectively. Unfortunately the 18th and 19th Centuries were still a time where racism and bigotry was the norm and many doubted that other races were even human. Even Abraham Lincoln felt while slavery was a wrong didn't believe that whites and blacks were equal.
because not having a work ethic means people didn't work hard because they were lazy. you are expouding on why they didn't have a work ethic, they didn't have a work ethic because of "blah blah blah" i'm saying they weren't as productive because they ate ****, they slept on ****, they had **** to do with time off. do you understand that **** its not work ethic, its actual conditions, physical
I do not Speak for PGabs however. . . the idea of the LAZY SLAVE translates into the idea of BLACK PEOPLE ARE JUST LAZY an ideal and thought that is still prevalent to day I alot of the roots . . of this view of the modern black people lays in the slavery era. The stereotype was born and made there and it is one that has persisted to this day. it is . . a cliche that people take as true on some level So . . . I too . . . kind of bristled at the statement Rocket River
We are all saying the same thing. Slaves didn't work hard because they were in a state of servitude under very harsh living conditions. You aren't going to have a good work ethic if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor and have no chance of benefiting from your labor.
I'm wondering how this thread devolved into an argument over how hard slaves worked, instead of being about the topic.
I would guess that once a slave reached middle-age, their physical health and robustness naturally declined. At some point it was probably just cheaper for the slave owner to just work the slave to the point of utter exhaustion and death.
I remember reading in some history book about Southern attempts to "colonize" Cuba with mercenaries, etc. and carve out some "golden circle" of slavery that reached from Cuba thru central America, etc. All the attempts were unsuccussful of course - but one wonders what may have happened if the CSA somehow won. I would like to think Northern naval supremacy would have curtailed further expansion. I also wonder if Lincoln would have won reelection if there was no secession. I suppose it may have been possible for some compromise-ready Democrat to become a viable candidate.
we aren't saying the same thing. they worked as hard as they could. lack of work ethic means they could have worked harder. there wasn't anymore production to be gained
I can see this is touchy, and I know history professors probably don't know squat according to some of the black folks in this thread but this is what I was taught as well...it only makes sense...why the hell would they do anymore than just enough to get the job done? Why? There is nothing gained except more work...no benefit...it makes no sense. If there was something to gain then hell yes people work harder, but there was nothing...they were slaves, they weren't trying to impress their masters, they were trying to stay alive and remain as unharmed as possible.
When I figure out how to quote Nookbooks, I will. If you don't mind, I can send you pages, and more importantly, the footnotes.
Ridiculous. LOL You honestly think a slave, who gets no benefit from their labor but could actually be punished long term for working as hard as possible (whipped if they slacked off that level) actually gave all the production they were physically capable of? This is illogical. This isn't about their personal work ethic. It's about what they would give under the historically horrible conditions they were forced to work under. The idea that slaves were such noble people that even in slavery they gave all they had to give is silly. Very few people give their all to an oppressive master who forces bad working conditions and no benefits on the workforce.
You're right, that is my statement. Slaves didn't work as hard as they could. My opinion is that threat of beating someone is a really poor motivator. Carrots work better than sticks.
you're right, its illogical to think the threat of beating caused someone to work harder we're talking about picking cotton. how do you actually work harder. not only am i gonna pick the cotton i'm going to clean as well to go that extra mile?
define working harder doing the most mundane work. on a large plantation there are overseers. you think slaves were actually slacking off under these conditions?
just weighing in ... I don't know Rocketsjudoka in real life, but from his history here, he is might be the most non-prejudicial guy on the planet. Also - of course slaves weren't as productive as free labor. And it is good that they weren't, because that would have only made the institution of slavery more "efficient" and "profitable". If running away or revolting meant death (or worse), I sure as hell wouldn't give my 110 percent out there on the fields.
