(You mention complicity again, but we are agreed upon that separate issue, so let's drop it)
I was responding to the assertion here in your comment section that US slavery was "far more brutal" than any other culture, which I consider an unsubstantiated allegation, which seems rather unlikely to be true. However, I am very willing to rev…
(You mention complicity again, but we are agreed upon that separate issue, so let's drop it)
I was responding to the assertion here in your comment section that US slavery was "far more brutal" than any other culture, which I consider an unsubstantiated allegation, which seems rather unlikely to be true. However, I am very willing to revise that assessment if anybody can provide a good source.
You note that neither of us is an expert on slavery. We are not climate scientists either, but at least somebody making a credible assertion about climate change should be able to cite their expert sources, which is all I asked for. I've never seen a sober analysis which placed US slavery as far worse than any other in the world, not one - just naked assertions without evidence.
You speak about recent history versus ancient history. But (1) the specific assertion I questioned and quoted did not make that limitation and (2) some of the counter examples I tentatively mentioned as justifying skepticism are contemporary or more recent. That assertion would require that US slavery was far more brutal than the other 96% of trans Atlantic slavery, which to my best understanding was more brutal and fatal. And far more brutal than the contemporary Arabic slave trade in Eastern Africa. And far more brutal than the Japanese use of slave labor in Asia during WWII.
You say you don't encounter that assertion often; for me, seeing it crop up in your comment thread was the Nth time I have encountered it. Maybe it will fade away, or maybe you will start seeing it more often. Time will tell.
(I have also seen videos of young people asserting that the US invented slavery. Full stop. That's what ordinary non-intellectual people take away from their history lessons; while it's not the same assertion, it comes from the same attempts to create an emotionally evocative but intellectually flimsy narrative, and they absorbed the tone if not the details.)
You ask why (other than to avoid allegations of complicity) would anybody care about an unsupported and likely false comparison being made, rather than just accepting it and moving on. Fair question.
Of course, just a love of the truth is one component of it. Remember, I asked for sources, not as a tactic but because if there are solid sources I *will* probably revise my opinion, as I have many times. Otherwise I suggest not passing on a possible false comparison. I see truth seeking as an incremental refinement process. This is a strong proclivity of mine in general, whether I'm checking out an urban legend, or looking at who really invented something, or what causes ulcers. It's not specific to politics or to racial history or any other niche.
Before proceeding, I think it's worth asking why the assertion gets made, not just why it was questioned. Why would somebody assert that US slavery was far worse than that of any other culture? What payoffs would persuading others of that assertion have? If the motive is just getting the truth out there in the same spirit I've mentioned, then sources should be readily and cheerfully available. If the motive is emotional hijacking of critical thinking, then sources are less important, because no moral person should ever pause to ask for them.
But you tell me - what harm would result if we agreed not to assert that strong comparison without evidence? How would it hurt the dialogue or truth seeking? Why is is important to make or defend such an assertion?
I believe that the assertion that US slavery was uniquely brutal is part of weaving a particular narrative more related to a morality play than to honest truth seeking. If it really was, by far, the worst example in all of human history around the globe, then wouldn't it be morally suspect to question proportionately extreme counter-measures? Doesn't all the kind of careful nuancing that you and I attempt to do fall into trivia, when confronting the ultimate evil humanity is capable of?
One of the problems I find with the neo-progressive narrative on race is the tendency to remove history from relevant context. The 1619 project and related narratives seeks to center the American experience on oppression, permeating every value, ideal, or pragmatic decision. This is of course based on a substantial (but smaller) kernel of truth, but it attempts to exaggerate, distort, and decontextualize that to justify more radical analysis and prescriptions. One common element of that distortion is to frame US slavery as historically unprecedented and uniquely evil. I don't like distortions, especially in service of dogmatic ideologies.
As such, repeating an unsupported allegation seems harmful (just as repeating some unfactual urban legends can be harmful). However, if there is evidential support, then my regard for truth is again dominant and I will change my view of that assertion. You and I might still agree that comparisons are not very useful, but I would not challenge the truth of it. But until then, I support not making any unsupportable assertions in any direction. Slavery was very bad, and is always very bad, regardless of what happens or happened somewhere else; that's enough for rational political purposes.
Honestly, I am puzzled by how hard you seem to be taking this. We both agree that (1) it was a horrible blemish and terribly cruel and brutal, (2) that's quite sufficient reason to condemn it, it doesn't have to be the worst to be very bad, (3) we should not link it to present day complicity in any case, and (4) it's not easy to make accurate and objective comparisons between brutal systems and would at minimum take major effort by unbiased experts. For all those reasons I would have expected you go agree that we should avoid making strong yet simplistic comparisons of US slavery with all other examples, based on no solid sources.
As for the related implicit question of why this extended discussion, that's not because this is a big issue for me (it's not, I've spent very little time on this issue over recent years, my comment was meant to be a brief questioning and search for possible sources which might modify my view and I never anticipated nearly so much back and forth!), I think the duration is due to some personality characteristics which you and I share.
I have (well earned) respect for you, and you are engaging intelligently in good faith with me, and I enjoy that kind of shared pursuit of truth. I don't think either of us is imputing ill motives, or seeking to boost our own egos in "owning" the other; we seek truth. You appear to behave similarly. And I enjoy trying to craft words in a way to convey subtle distinctions and nuance arguments clearly. The length of our dialogue here has more to do with that vibrant engagement, than with the global importance of the topic which spawned it.
----
I do want to push back on one thing you said: "slavery in Africa at that time, which, as far as I know, *was* far less brutal."
How much do you know about how the empires in Africa acquired over 20 million salable human being to provide first to the Arabs and then to European traders?
How many defending warriors were killed in the conquer of other tribes? How many non-warrior villagers were killed as too young, too old, too weak, or too feisty to make valuable slaves? If not killed outright, how many villagers later died of starvation after being plundered for slaves? How brutally were captured people treated during the breaking period as they were driven to the fortresses to be later sold? I do not know, but given the population age distribution of similar societies, and the economic dynamics involved, I suspect that multiple others were brutalized and killed for every prime slave delivered at the port for sale to the Arabs or Europeans.
Whether the slaves kept for use within the empires themselves were better treated than the ones sold is going to be hard to determine fairly (given the diversity within African societies and the tendency to cherry pick stories to support narratives), but in any case they represent a small sliver of the total people conquered and enslaved by Africans in Africa.
There is no slavery which is not brutal, because people do not take well to being enslaved. Comparison is not needed and should in general be avoided, within the political dialogue context. But if one nevertheless wants to compare brutality, then one needs to be honest about it.
"I was responding to the assertion here in your comment section that US slavery was "far more brutal" than any other culture, which I consider an unsubstantiated allegation, which seems rather unlikely to be true."
Yep, I know that. I didn't make the assertion, and I haven't tried to defend it with any enthusiasm. You asked for information that might support it, and I offered some that I found persuasive but far from definitive. If you don't find it persuasive, that's totally fair. There is no "truth" here, at least not that we'll unearth without investing several years of study. There are no definitive statistics that measure levels of brutality throughout the history of slavery. No metrics for human suffering. Just random accounts of horror that we dig up on the internet. Your questions about warriors killed in the conquer of other tribes are literally impossible to answer.
You mention the 1619 project and a few staggeringly ill-informed young people. But getting to the bottom of which form of slavery was most brutal will have zero impact on either, because the fact of the Atlantic slave trade is enough. Even if we had definitive proof that it was the least brutal form of slavery in history, what we *do* know about it is more than emotionally evocative enough for the people who want to fixate on it. As I said, it's incompatibility with the Declaration of Independence alone is enough to keep the grifters grifting for years to come.
Those grifters profit mainly from race essentialism and guilt based on the notion of racial complicity, which is why I think those are much more interesting and valuable routes to break down false narratives. Convincing the world that people aren't responsible for the past actions of people with the same skin colour would have a seismic impact on racial discourse. Convincing the world that the Atlantic slave trade was only the fifth most brutal form of slavery in history would have no real impact whatsoever. That's why I think the former is a far more worthwhile use of our attention.
You say you're puzzled by how hard I seem to be taking this, but I feel exactly the same way.😅 I'm genuinely not taking it hard at all. You call Nicole's comment an "allegation" in your last reply. And it does seem as if you're taking her statement personally. I conceded that the assertion might not be true in my very first reply. And again, if you're not convinced, that's totally reasonable. I just don't think it's unreasonable that other people *are* convinced. I don't think Nicole made the assertion because she believes America invented slavery or because she's a supporter of the 1619 project or because she wants to promulgate an anti-American narrative.
> "I don't think Nicole made the assertion because she believes America invented slavery or because she's a supporter of the 1619 project or because she wants to promulgate an anti-American narrative."
Nor do I. I respect her viewpoint and was hoping for a helpful response from her. I've heard similar things from non-credible activists, but this is the first time I've seen somebody who seems quite thoughtful make such assertion, which got my curiosity up.
I want to share something about myself here, so it doesn't look like a personal attack. There are times when I echo a commonly held position, just assuming we all know it's true. And sometimes somebody questions that, providing reasons it shouldn't be assumed without more evidence. I appreciate those wake up calls, whether I wind up finding better sources to support a hitherto weakly examined assumption on my part (I cannot do thorough research on everything), or I wind up agreeing with the skeptic. (Or of course, in another scenario, my opinion was not just by default but based on some investigation, and I would have sources to share). I'm not unique; this is part of all of our individual cognition, and I'm pretty well convinced by Haidt and others that we can reason better in collaboration with other good faith minds. So please do not interpret my questioning that assertion as thinking that Nicole is especially bad (I quite admire her); I just think she's human, and so might either have good sources for me, or might learn from looking for such sources before repeating the assertion.
> "I just don't think it's unreasonable that other people *are* convinced."
And my question to her was essentially: "interesting, but what makes you convinced?". I figured that if she was thinking that, she likely had some reason which I should consider, despite my initial skepticism. And I explained why I didn't simply accept it on face value as "likely true on the face of it".
> "I conceded that the assertion might not be true in my very first reply."
Yes, and you've also agreed that it's difficult to justify a characterization like "far more brutal" without serious study by somebody qualified and unbiased. So if you do not have confidence that it's true, and you agree that it would require serious study to have such confidence, then why not simply agree that it's best to avoid repeating assertions as true when their provenance is so weak (or, provide the solid source which makes it less weak).
Suppose that in the context of a broad disagreement over whether NATO should directly enter the war in Ukraine, somebody asserted that "Russian soldiers are by far the most brutal in all of history" (echoing, knowingly or by random coincidence, one of the emotional talking points of the pro-aggressive-intervention group). And a second person said "from my non-expert reading over the decades, that seems unlikely to be true, but I'd be open to solid sources supporting it if you have any". This second person is also suggesting that unless that remarkable assertion can be documented, it would be better not to inflame the debate with an unsupported assertion like that; we know they have been brutal, but helping to spread unsupported exaggerations is not a good idea. Let's stick to truths, which are sufficient justification for an appropriate reasoned level of intervention. If such exaggerations are false and serve only to justify more radical counter-measures than truth would, what help are they?
Then the first person does not reply but a third person jumps in to talk about why the Russian soldiers are in fact brutal (which was not in dispute) but providing no evidence to support the asserted *comparison* which was the only thing being questioned.
(Notice that complicity doesn't get mentioned in this alternative scenario, nor is it personal to me.)
Again, I have no problem if other people are convinced that Russian soldier are by far the most brutal in history - unless they have no evidence to support that extraordinary claim, in which case I feel it's reasonable to ask what did convince them.
It's easier to reason in the absence of unsupported extreme characterizations. "by far the most brutal" of all cultures is an extraordinary claim to accept on face value.
(And just to be extra clear - I'm suggesting either avoiding such inflammatory assertions - my first choice - or documenting them. I want to avoid unsupportable assertions, not replace them with different unsupportable assertions!!! Supporting some different assertion about where US slavery ranks is FAR, FAR from my goal. Let's just not rank them at all, unless there is solid evidence.)
"I want to share something about myself here, so it doesn't look like a personal attack"
No, this doesn't look like a personal attack. It never has! I think you're really misinterpreting me here.
I don't think you're trying to minimise the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade. I don't think you're attacking Nicole or me. I think you're demanding "truth" where there's no truth to be found. This is a matter of *opinion*.
I'm not at all wedded to that opinion. Nor, it seems, is Nicole, but you seem extremely wedded to changing that opinion.
Your comparison to the Russian invasion fails precisely because it's not mere opinion. We can directly examine evidence. We can look at wars, happening today, choose whatever metrics we want, and get a clear answer. And as you say, that answer might impact current policy.
None of this is true for slavery. And I don't think the suggestion that The Atlantic slave trade is the most brutal is "inflammatory" (inflammatory to whom?). Or rather, I see no reason that it might be other than the reasons I've already mentioned. And, for reasons I've also already mentioned, I see no particular value in devoting the time to prove or disprove it. This might just be due to our differing experiences of how often it's said. But I see no way in which the brutality ranking will affect policy.
If you object to me "jumping in," I apologise. I wasn't trying to derail your conversation. Nicole *has* replied to your question. As I said, I've spent a lot of time learning about The Atlantic slave trade, so I thought I might be able to provide some useful information that I don't think is weak. You do. That's totally fair. But you seem to be expecting me to become *unconvinced* (to the extremely minor degree that I am), because *you're* not convinced. I didn't just read a single article that I can link for you. As I said, I've read far more about slavery than I care to. Over many years.
And despite that, I *don't* rank them. That's the very first thing I said in my response. So if you're trying to convince me not to, that was already settled in the very first reply!😅
We have agreed for some while that asserting that "US slavery was far more brutal than any other form" is an unhelpful opinion, because such ranking *should*, ideally, play no place in policy making, and because meaningfully making such rankings would be difficult and require unbiased expertise. I've made that that I don't support making any contrary assertion either, for the same reasons. Not making the comparison seems to be optimum for both of us. OK?
The difference is that I was suggesting that an additional reason to avoid promulgating such opinions is that their truth value is highly suspect, absent some analysis that supported the comparison, UNLESS there is some good source. My opening was:
> "I would be interested in solid sources for the belief that 'the American slave trade was far more brutal system than slave cultures anywhere else'. "
I'm still open to any evidence supporting such a comparison, because other people keep making it.
But since, for other reasons, we agree that such assertions are unhelpful, there's nothing further to discuss here. Let's agree to agree.
(You mention complicity again, but we are agreed upon that separate issue, so let's drop it)
I was responding to the assertion here in your comment section that US slavery was "far more brutal" than any other culture, which I consider an unsubstantiated allegation, which seems rather unlikely to be true. However, I am very willing to revise that assessment if anybody can provide a good source.
You note that neither of us is an expert on slavery. We are not climate scientists either, but at least somebody making a credible assertion about climate change should be able to cite their expert sources, which is all I asked for. I've never seen a sober analysis which placed US slavery as far worse than any other in the world, not one - just naked assertions without evidence.
You speak about recent history versus ancient history. But (1) the specific assertion I questioned and quoted did not make that limitation and (2) some of the counter examples I tentatively mentioned as justifying skepticism are contemporary or more recent. That assertion would require that US slavery was far more brutal than the other 96% of trans Atlantic slavery, which to my best understanding was more brutal and fatal. And far more brutal than the contemporary Arabic slave trade in Eastern Africa. And far more brutal than the Japanese use of slave labor in Asia during WWII.
You say you don't encounter that assertion often; for me, seeing it crop up in your comment thread was the Nth time I have encountered it. Maybe it will fade away, or maybe you will start seeing it more often. Time will tell.
(I have also seen videos of young people asserting that the US invented slavery. Full stop. That's what ordinary non-intellectual people take away from their history lessons; while it's not the same assertion, it comes from the same attempts to create an emotionally evocative but intellectually flimsy narrative, and they absorbed the tone if not the details.)
You ask why (other than to avoid allegations of complicity) would anybody care about an unsupported and likely false comparison being made, rather than just accepting it and moving on. Fair question.
Of course, just a love of the truth is one component of it. Remember, I asked for sources, not as a tactic but because if there are solid sources I *will* probably revise my opinion, as I have many times. Otherwise I suggest not passing on a possible false comparison. I see truth seeking as an incremental refinement process. This is a strong proclivity of mine in general, whether I'm checking out an urban legend, or looking at who really invented something, or what causes ulcers. It's not specific to politics or to racial history or any other niche.
Before proceeding, I think it's worth asking why the assertion gets made, not just why it was questioned. Why would somebody assert that US slavery was far worse than that of any other culture? What payoffs would persuading others of that assertion have? If the motive is just getting the truth out there in the same spirit I've mentioned, then sources should be readily and cheerfully available. If the motive is emotional hijacking of critical thinking, then sources are less important, because no moral person should ever pause to ask for them.
But you tell me - what harm would result if we agreed not to assert that strong comparison without evidence? How would it hurt the dialogue or truth seeking? Why is is important to make or defend such an assertion?
I believe that the assertion that US slavery was uniquely brutal is part of weaving a particular narrative more related to a morality play than to honest truth seeking. If it really was, by far, the worst example in all of human history around the globe, then wouldn't it be morally suspect to question proportionately extreme counter-measures? Doesn't all the kind of careful nuancing that you and I attempt to do fall into trivia, when confronting the ultimate evil humanity is capable of?
One of the problems I find with the neo-progressive narrative on race is the tendency to remove history from relevant context. The 1619 project and related narratives seeks to center the American experience on oppression, permeating every value, ideal, or pragmatic decision. This is of course based on a substantial (but smaller) kernel of truth, but it attempts to exaggerate, distort, and decontextualize that to justify more radical analysis and prescriptions. One common element of that distortion is to frame US slavery as historically unprecedented and uniquely evil. I don't like distortions, especially in service of dogmatic ideologies.
As such, repeating an unsupported allegation seems harmful (just as repeating some unfactual urban legends can be harmful). However, if there is evidential support, then my regard for truth is again dominant and I will change my view of that assertion. You and I might still agree that comparisons are not very useful, but I would not challenge the truth of it. But until then, I support not making any unsupportable assertions in any direction. Slavery was very bad, and is always very bad, regardless of what happens or happened somewhere else; that's enough for rational political purposes.
Honestly, I am puzzled by how hard you seem to be taking this. We both agree that (1) it was a horrible blemish and terribly cruel and brutal, (2) that's quite sufficient reason to condemn it, it doesn't have to be the worst to be very bad, (3) we should not link it to present day complicity in any case, and (4) it's not easy to make accurate and objective comparisons between brutal systems and would at minimum take major effort by unbiased experts. For all those reasons I would have expected you go agree that we should avoid making strong yet simplistic comparisons of US slavery with all other examples, based on no solid sources.
As for the related implicit question of why this extended discussion, that's not because this is a big issue for me (it's not, I've spent very little time on this issue over recent years, my comment was meant to be a brief questioning and search for possible sources which might modify my view and I never anticipated nearly so much back and forth!), I think the duration is due to some personality characteristics which you and I share.
I have (well earned) respect for you, and you are engaging intelligently in good faith with me, and I enjoy that kind of shared pursuit of truth. I don't think either of us is imputing ill motives, or seeking to boost our own egos in "owning" the other; we seek truth. You appear to behave similarly. And I enjoy trying to craft words in a way to convey subtle distinctions and nuance arguments clearly. The length of our dialogue here has more to do with that vibrant engagement, than with the global importance of the topic which spawned it.
----
I do want to push back on one thing you said: "slavery in Africa at that time, which, as far as I know, *was* far less brutal."
How much do you know about how the empires in Africa acquired over 20 million salable human being to provide first to the Arabs and then to European traders?
How many defending warriors were killed in the conquer of other tribes? How many non-warrior villagers were killed as too young, too old, too weak, or too feisty to make valuable slaves? If not killed outright, how many villagers later died of starvation after being plundered for slaves? How brutally were captured people treated during the breaking period as they were driven to the fortresses to be later sold? I do not know, but given the population age distribution of similar societies, and the economic dynamics involved, I suspect that multiple others were brutalized and killed for every prime slave delivered at the port for sale to the Arabs or Europeans.
Whether the slaves kept for use within the empires themselves were better treated than the ones sold is going to be hard to determine fairly (given the diversity within African societies and the tendency to cherry pick stories to support narratives), but in any case they represent a small sliver of the total people conquered and enslaved by Africans in Africa.
There is no slavery which is not brutal, because people do not take well to being enslaved. Comparison is not needed and should in general be avoided, within the political dialogue context. But if one nevertheless wants to compare brutality, then one needs to be honest about it.
"I was responding to the assertion here in your comment section that US slavery was "far more brutal" than any other culture, which I consider an unsubstantiated allegation, which seems rather unlikely to be true."
Yep, I know that. I didn't make the assertion, and I haven't tried to defend it with any enthusiasm. You asked for information that might support it, and I offered some that I found persuasive but far from definitive. If you don't find it persuasive, that's totally fair. There is no "truth" here, at least not that we'll unearth without investing several years of study. There are no definitive statistics that measure levels of brutality throughout the history of slavery. No metrics for human suffering. Just random accounts of horror that we dig up on the internet. Your questions about warriors killed in the conquer of other tribes are literally impossible to answer.
You mention the 1619 project and a few staggeringly ill-informed young people. But getting to the bottom of which form of slavery was most brutal will have zero impact on either, because the fact of the Atlantic slave trade is enough. Even if we had definitive proof that it was the least brutal form of slavery in history, what we *do* know about it is more than emotionally evocative enough for the people who want to fixate on it. As I said, it's incompatibility with the Declaration of Independence alone is enough to keep the grifters grifting for years to come.
Those grifters profit mainly from race essentialism and guilt based on the notion of racial complicity, which is why I think those are much more interesting and valuable routes to break down false narratives. Convincing the world that people aren't responsible for the past actions of people with the same skin colour would have a seismic impact on racial discourse. Convincing the world that the Atlantic slave trade was only the fifth most brutal form of slavery in history would have no real impact whatsoever. That's why I think the former is a far more worthwhile use of our attention.
You say you're puzzled by how hard I seem to be taking this, but I feel exactly the same way.😅 I'm genuinely not taking it hard at all. You call Nicole's comment an "allegation" in your last reply. And it does seem as if you're taking her statement personally. I conceded that the assertion might not be true in my very first reply. And again, if you're not convinced, that's totally reasonable. I just don't think it's unreasonable that other people *are* convinced. I don't think Nicole made the assertion because she believes America invented slavery or because she's a supporter of the 1619 project or because she wants to promulgate an anti-American narrative.
> "I don't think Nicole made the assertion because she believes America invented slavery or because she's a supporter of the 1619 project or because she wants to promulgate an anti-American narrative."
Nor do I. I respect her viewpoint and was hoping for a helpful response from her. I've heard similar things from non-credible activists, but this is the first time I've seen somebody who seems quite thoughtful make such assertion, which got my curiosity up.
I want to share something about myself here, so it doesn't look like a personal attack. There are times when I echo a commonly held position, just assuming we all know it's true. And sometimes somebody questions that, providing reasons it shouldn't be assumed without more evidence. I appreciate those wake up calls, whether I wind up finding better sources to support a hitherto weakly examined assumption on my part (I cannot do thorough research on everything), or I wind up agreeing with the skeptic. (Or of course, in another scenario, my opinion was not just by default but based on some investigation, and I would have sources to share). I'm not unique; this is part of all of our individual cognition, and I'm pretty well convinced by Haidt and others that we can reason better in collaboration with other good faith minds. So please do not interpret my questioning that assertion as thinking that Nicole is especially bad (I quite admire her); I just think she's human, and so might either have good sources for me, or might learn from looking for such sources before repeating the assertion.
> "I just don't think it's unreasonable that other people *are* convinced."
And my question to her was essentially: "interesting, but what makes you convinced?". I figured that if she was thinking that, she likely had some reason which I should consider, despite my initial skepticism. And I explained why I didn't simply accept it on face value as "likely true on the face of it".
> "I conceded that the assertion might not be true in my very first reply."
Yes, and you've also agreed that it's difficult to justify a characterization like "far more brutal" without serious study by somebody qualified and unbiased. So if you do not have confidence that it's true, and you agree that it would require serious study to have such confidence, then why not simply agree that it's best to avoid repeating assertions as true when their provenance is so weak (or, provide the solid source which makes it less weak).
Suppose that in the context of a broad disagreement over whether NATO should directly enter the war in Ukraine, somebody asserted that "Russian soldiers are by far the most brutal in all of history" (echoing, knowingly or by random coincidence, one of the emotional talking points of the pro-aggressive-intervention group). And a second person said "from my non-expert reading over the decades, that seems unlikely to be true, but I'd be open to solid sources supporting it if you have any". This second person is also suggesting that unless that remarkable assertion can be documented, it would be better not to inflame the debate with an unsupported assertion like that; we know they have been brutal, but helping to spread unsupported exaggerations is not a good idea. Let's stick to truths, which are sufficient justification for an appropriate reasoned level of intervention. If such exaggerations are false and serve only to justify more radical counter-measures than truth would, what help are they?
Then the first person does not reply but a third person jumps in to talk about why the Russian soldiers are in fact brutal (which was not in dispute) but providing no evidence to support the asserted *comparison* which was the only thing being questioned.
(Notice that complicity doesn't get mentioned in this alternative scenario, nor is it personal to me.)
Again, I have no problem if other people are convinced that Russian soldier are by far the most brutal in history - unless they have no evidence to support that extraordinary claim, in which case I feel it's reasonable to ask what did convince them.
It's easier to reason in the absence of unsupported extreme characterizations. "by far the most brutal" of all cultures is an extraordinary claim to accept on face value.
(And just to be extra clear - I'm suggesting either avoiding such inflammatory assertions - my first choice - or documenting them. I want to avoid unsupportable assertions, not replace them with different unsupportable assertions!!! Supporting some different assertion about where US slavery ranks is FAR, FAR from my goal. Let's just not rank them at all, unless there is solid evidence.)
"I want to share something about myself here, so it doesn't look like a personal attack"
No, this doesn't look like a personal attack. It never has! I think you're really misinterpreting me here.
I don't think you're trying to minimise the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade. I don't think you're attacking Nicole or me. I think you're demanding "truth" where there's no truth to be found. This is a matter of *opinion*.
I'm not at all wedded to that opinion. Nor, it seems, is Nicole, but you seem extremely wedded to changing that opinion.
Your comparison to the Russian invasion fails precisely because it's not mere opinion. We can directly examine evidence. We can look at wars, happening today, choose whatever metrics we want, and get a clear answer. And as you say, that answer might impact current policy.
None of this is true for slavery. And I don't think the suggestion that The Atlantic slave trade is the most brutal is "inflammatory" (inflammatory to whom?). Or rather, I see no reason that it might be other than the reasons I've already mentioned. And, for reasons I've also already mentioned, I see no particular value in devoting the time to prove or disprove it. This might just be due to our differing experiences of how often it's said. But I see no way in which the brutality ranking will affect policy.
If you object to me "jumping in," I apologise. I wasn't trying to derail your conversation. Nicole *has* replied to your question. As I said, I've spent a lot of time learning about The Atlantic slave trade, so I thought I might be able to provide some useful information that I don't think is weak. You do. That's totally fair. But you seem to be expecting me to become *unconvinced* (to the extremely minor degree that I am), because *you're* not convinced. I didn't just read a single article that I can link for you. As I said, I've read far more about slavery than I care to. Over many years.
And despite that, I *don't* rank them. That's the very first thing I said in my response. So if you're trying to convince me not to, that was already settled in the very first reply!😅
We have agreed for some while that asserting that "US slavery was far more brutal than any other form" is an unhelpful opinion, because such ranking *should*, ideally, play no place in policy making, and because meaningfully making such rankings would be difficult and require unbiased expertise. I've made that that I don't support making any contrary assertion either, for the same reasons. Not making the comparison seems to be optimum for both of us. OK?
The difference is that I was suggesting that an additional reason to avoid promulgating such opinions is that their truth value is highly suspect, absent some analysis that supported the comparison, UNLESS there is some good source. My opening was:
> "I would be interested in solid sources for the belief that 'the American slave trade was far more brutal system than slave cultures anywhere else'. "
I'm still open to any evidence supporting such a comparison, because other people keep making it.
But since, for other reasons, we agree that such assertions are unhelpful, there's nothing further to discuss here. Let's agree to agree.