Thread: https://lemmy.ml/post/5937514
And it’s not even the only nazi apologia in the thread. In fact, as i write this, there’s mainly nazi apologia there.
EDIT: some worst posts including the one about Natives got purged by a mod.
They took black slaves because they were trying to integrate into the white colonial agrarian society around them! They did it because they thought embracing that shit would allow them material benefits and acceptance. Jesus christ! It’s not a war is hell “gee it’s complicated” bullshit they wanted to join the winners and then the war broke out and their loyalty got them all fucked. They joined the bad guys and it was a fuck up. That makes them bad guys. Yeah ill blame them for doing it. If you got some Pawnee blood I’m not going to blame you but yeah ill blame a 19th century Pawnee scout who led a cavalry regiment to murder a village. He was a bad guy!
Pre-Columbian tribes did war and took slaves but it still wasn’t black chattel slavery. Fucking reddit. Goddamn.
if there’s one thing I’ve learned about settler-colonial consciousness, it’s this worm-like tendency to concern troll about the past crimes of the conquered, and to use them as a not-so-subtle post-hoc justification for the ongoing crimes of the settler-colonists.
As far as I’ve ever read, not even the ones trying to integrate with practiced perpetual, heritable, racialized chattel slavery
Presumably individuals integrating fully into white society did, but in any indigenous group I’ve read about remaining separate and holding slaves, slaves had far and away more rights than did black slaves in the US
Pretty much. You might be enslaved but it would be closer to indentured servitude with later release or assimilation. The idea of inherited status as a slave? There’s pretty much no record of it. Chattel slavery really only works if you’re getting regular boatloads of more Africans to replace the ones that escape or die because of appalling treatment.
I’m not sure if I would want to take this at value, but what particular source says that pre-colonial slaves had more rights than post-colonial Black ones anyways… it feels like the argument that Atlantic slave trade was less worse, compared to the Arab one…
I’m talking about ones that existed alongside the pre-civil war South, before they were driven out. It comes up as context in works that discuss a black slave fleeing to a nation where they’re also a slave, but it’s been a while since I read about that
That said, it’s usually a safe bet that a system is better than or equal to black slavery in the US, because that perpetual, heritable, racialized chattel slavery is virtually an endpoint for the logic of slavery. Not all forms of slavery involve the following:
- Permanent slave status
- Slaves transferable and heritable as property
- Slave status for all descendents in perpetuity
- If not “owned”, still designated as a slave by skin tone, to be captured and auctioned
- No family rights - married couples, parents, children all sold apart
- No rights at all, can be tortured or killed by owner
Most prominent systems of slavery haven’t involved many or any of those points, but ours usee them all. You can even contrast this system with a more precedented one in the same country, for Irish sharecroppers specifically
