Originally Posted by NateR
1) You asked the question, I gave you the answer. So you disagree? Of course you do. You're British!
2) Not true at all. The idea that Africans were subhumans and little more than animals is a result of Darwin's theories. Prior to that, slavery was purely an economic necessity going all the way back to Biblical times.
Also, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 and the first serious effort to ban slavery in America started in 1777. So, these men were completely aware of the disparity between American idealism and the reality.
3) Just because someone is a poor representative of an idea, doesn't make the idea false. If that were the case then you would just have to look at one Christian to be able to discredit all of Christianity.
1) Well thats just racist
2) Erm...news for you, Nathan...I think you find the British Slave Trade was slightly older then the American version, and that those traits which carried over into the American Slave Trade were nothing but a copy of their British counterparts. Now the British certainly believed that Africans were sub-human, and whilst it ended up being a skin colour issue...it didnt begin that way, because the British system, was, and later returned to, its Roman Heratage, which indescriminate of skin tone, considered largely everything outside of itself Barbarous, and therefore not civilized, and therefore, not proper humans. Most of North Europe, Africa, and the Orient, fell under this description...infact, what a horrible suprise it must have been when the Visigoths actually besieged Rome at one point.
So the ideal of slavery had nothing to do with Darwin, and the use of Slaves for anything other then private ownership was something invented by the British to run the Empire...and the American South was based on that system..So I beg to differ that Darwin had anything to do with it. This was well before Enlightenment Philosophies...and if you bother to note what a good proportion of the American Civil War was really all about, you will find that those in the south, whilst fully in compliance with the Constitution and DOI would not extend such privalage to slaves...I'm sorry but you cant claim that those land barons thought of their workers as some kind of Servants.
the blacks in the south were not Servants. There is a huge difference. Servants have rights, Servants are primarily free, Servants are primarily in servitude voluntarily. Slaves are owned. Slaves have no rights. Slaves are property and commodity, like livestock on a farm, like a herd of buffallo, or cattle. They do not have any freedom, save that given by whoever owns them.
3) Well, that IS true...but then, since when do you take seriously, the thoughts of those who are poor representatives? Would you take moral lessons from a hypocrit? Even if those moral lessons were true...and we despute that these are true in the first place when it comes to what you presume is "GOD-Given Rights"
I dont believe there is any such thing as Human Rights in terms of the absolute nature of Truth, only what man perscribes to man, in accordance with its culture, and according to its relative chronology and zeitgiest...after all...in Europe...as often inspired by Americans...they have gone mad with this ideal of "Human rights" to the extent that they cant even deport foreign convicted criminals, because apparently they have the right to "a family life" which would be ruined by returning them from whence they came...and how about the prison sufferegets, who believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote in general ellections, because everyone has the right to exercise their democratic right to vote...all of these, so the European Court of Human Rights would have us believe are "GOD-Given" aswell.
What a load of bollox