Damien Sullivan phoenix at mindstalk.net
Tue Oct 17 15:07:53 BST 2017

The original piece has the right mix of overconfidence, ignorance, and
straw men, that I'd expect from Sarah Hoyt, defender of colonialism and
dictator Salazar.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Antoine Guillaud wrote:
> I think the point is another one...
> Namely that as soon as slavery exists, racism is bound to exist... After

But that point isn't true.  Slavery has existed in many places with
little to no racial component.  Classical slavery wasn't race based, it
was "you got captured" based.  Concomittantly, manumission was common,
at least among urban slaves.

White people didn't "invent slavery to enslave black people", but I
don't recall seeing anyone say they did.  And if someone has, well, then
Hoyt's picking at the silliest people in order to cast shade on more
substantial points; it's basically dishonest.

Europeans did bring back a slavery that was mostly abolished *in Europe*
to supply labor in the Americas.  And while it might not have been race
based in the very beginning, apart from Christians being given rights and
black Africans not, it quickly accrued a racial character.  The Spanish
created a bizarrely complex hierarchy of mixed-race castes.  The US
invented the one-drop rule.  In the late 1700s, the Founding Fathers
were largely uneasy about slavery; by the mid-1800s, it was
enthusiastically embraced and defended by Southerners as a cornerstone
of civilization, and specifically labeled as "Negro slavery".

The virulent racism we're used to is largely an 1800s invention, fueled
by "scientific racism", abuse of Darwin, the technological gap between
Europe and the rest of the world, and the needs to defend colonialism
and slavery.

-xx- Damien X-) 

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list