French teacher murdered for Muhammad

[Joij21]

White Slave-holders were a minority in the Antebellum U.S. Somehow, their influence was immensely disproportionate to their numbers, however.

True but only American slave holders would have the gall to fight in order to keep their slaves. And even still there were more U.S. slaveholders population wise compared to Barbados slave holders.

 

[Farm Boy]

unless one prefers a total echo chamber of course.

Racists generally do.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes but they were a minority in the empire at the time, so they couldn't resist. If America was still a British colony then the 1832 act would immediately trigger the American Revolution just later.

Only the Southern states had a strong interest in maintaining slavery, and by the 1830s the profitably of slavery depended on access to British markets. (Even if British protectionist policies were abandoned at an earlier date in this timeline- which seems less likely- no other country had a comparable demand for industrial quantities of cotton.) If what's now the United States were still part of the British Empire by that date, there's no realistic scenario in which the Americans take up arms to defend slavery.

 

[Patine]

True but only American slave holders would have the gall to fight in order to keep their slaves. And even still there were more U.S. slaveholders population wise compared to Barbados slave holders.

The great majority of Confederate soldiers (as opposed to full officers) did not own slaves themselves - nor did their families - but were conscripted to fight and die for the slaveholders, or enlisted based on the same rabid and disingenuous propaganda and internal social peer pressure and promotion of myths and stereotypes other nations of similar tack have used.

 

[Joij21]

Only the Southern states had a strong interest in maintaining slavery, and by the 1830s the profitably of slavery depended on access to British markets. (Even if British protectionist policies were abandoned at an earlier date in this timeline- which seems less likely- no other country had a comparable demand for industrial quantities of cotton.) If what's now the United States were still part of the British Empire by that date, there's no realistic scenario in which the Americans take up arms to defend slavery.

They would still have demand to ship to the northern colonies, and even still Britain purchased a lot of cotton from the south right up to before the civil war along with France. Besides it would not be all of the 13 colonies succeeding but rather just the southern ones.

Edit: added Not to Would

 

[Joij21]

The great majority of Confederate soldiers (as opposed to full officers) did not own slaves themselves - nor did their families - but were conscripted to fight and die for the slaveholders, or enlisted based on the same rabid and disingenuous propaganda and internal social peer pressure and promotion of myths and stereotypes other nations of similar tack have used.

Which proves my point as to why Barbados couldn't revolt, not enough white people. The British knew that and hence why they only illegalized slavery until after America left.

 

[Patine]

They would still have demand to ship to the northern colonies, and even still Britain purchased a lot of cotton from the south right up to before the civil war along with France. Besides it would be all of the 13 colonies succeeding but rather just the southern ones.

I'm not convinced the "Benjamin Franklin solidarity," would just insert itself seamlessly into such an alternate history scenario, to be honest.

 

[Joij21]

I'm not convinced the "Benjamin Franklin solidarity," would just insert itself seamlessly into such an alternate history scenario, to be honest.

I made an edit, typo.

 

[Traitorfish]

They would still have demand to ship to the northern colonies, and even still Britain purchased a lot of cotton from the south right up to before the civil war along with France. Besides it would not be all of the 13 colonies succeeding but rather just the southern ones.

Edit: added Not to Would

That's what I'm saying, though: Britain was the primary market for Southern cotton and their primary source of manufactured goods, a war with Britain at this stage would be devastating to the Southern economy, it would undercut the whole point of rebelling in the first place.

The South could rebel in 1775 because their economy was not so heavily dependent on Britain: their primary crops were tobacco and rice, which had domestic and European markets. The South could rebel in 1860 because it didn't mean cutting themselves from their primary trading partner. (At least, in the long-term; the Union blockade saw to that in the short term.) In this scenario, we're envisioning that the South willingly abandons its primary trading partner with no viable alternative on the horizon. It's just not realistic.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope... doesn't appear to be anything about the attacks in France in here. Maybe that's in one of the Brexit threads now...

 

[Joij21]

That's what I'm saying, though: Britain was the primary market for Southern cotton and their primary source of manufactured goods, a war with Britain at this stage would be devastating to the Southern economy, it would undercut the whole point of rebelling in the first place.

The South could rebel in 1775 because their economy was not so heavily dependent on Britain: their primary crops were tobacco and rice, which had domestic and European markets. The South could rebel in 1860 because it didn't mean cutting themselves from their primary trading partner. (At least, in the long-term; the Union blockade saw to that in the short term.) In this scenario, we're envisioning that the South willingly abandons its primary trading partner with no viable alternative on the horizon. It's just not realistic.

And yet the vice versa would be true. Britain would not want to illegalize slavery if they owned the south because they would then lose their access to cheap cotton. Barbados on the other hand barely contributed when it came to cotton, if not at all.

 

[Yeekim]

How far is wealth heritable? Is there a point at which the normal rules of inheritance falter, that after so many generations we say "this doesn't really belong to you"?

Can we inherit the wages of sin without bearing some part of the sin itself? Can we consider ourselves absolved of the sin without being parted from the wages? I'm quite happy to absolve people of the sins of their ancestors, but I think that proper restitutions should first be made to those who still suffer the consequences of that sin, and that this will entail returning at least the material aspect of what was taken- if nothing else, as a gesture of good faith.

Just because wealth is, theoretically, endlessly inheritable does not mean it happens in practice. If your great-great grandpa exploited my ancestor, but son of the former then left literally nothing to his son... am I still justified in asking restitution from you?
Social inequality and wealth gaps need constant management and reducing, but framing this in terms of restitution is rarely practical.
This is coming from someone who has seen the warts of one of probably most extensive restitution programmes in XX century.

 

[EnglishEdward]

And yet the vice versa would be true. Britain would not want to illegalize slavery if they owned the south because they would then lose their access to cheap cotton. Barbados on the other hand barely contributed when it came to cotton, if not at all.

The legal status of slavery in England ended in 1066, with the Norman conquest.
The institution of slavery in the southern colonies and Caribbean islands was an exception.

However slavery was, I understand, explicitly legalised in the West Indies, because some naval
captains were reluctant to intervene during slave revolts/strikes saying that it was not the job
of the Royal Navy to intervene in disputes between sugar plantation owners and their workers.

The access to cotton was not dependent upon the institution of slavery,
although it was dependent upon African immigrants better suited to the climate.

Thing is the semi-aristocratic status of the plantation owners, often the younger
son of English lords, was dependent upon them being in control which would not
have been the case if the African workforce had been voluntarily imported as free
people rather than being cruelly conveyed as slaves in the triangular trade.
They had social influence with the House of Lords, and HMG enjoyed the sugar tax.

 

[Traitorfish]

And yet the vice versa would be true. Britain would not want to illegalize slavery if they owned the south because they would then lose their access to cheap cotton. Barbados on the other hand barely contributed when it came to cotton, if not at all.

I think you would need to demonstrate that abolition would translate into higher costs for the British. The American South was not the sole source of British cotton, merely the largest; large amounts of cotton were also imported from Egypt and India, where it was produced by wage-labourers or by sharecroppers. Unlike tobacco, cotton-production was heavily capital-intensive, so the cost of labour had a lower impact on the market price of crop; the primary beneficiaries of the lower cost of slave labour compared to other forms of labour were the slave-owners themselves. In our timeline, cotton prices jumped during the Civil War due to the sudden restriction of supply, but more or less normalised after Southern production resumed.

It's possible that the scenario you outline may have lead to more resistance to the abolition of slavery among the British ruling class, and the terms of abolition may have been even more generous to the slave-owners than they were historically, but I don't see any evidence that it would have fundamentally changed the circumstances leading to abolition.

Just because wealth is, theoretically, endlessly inheritable does not mean it happens in practice. If your great-great grandpa exploited my ancestor, but son of the former then left literally nothing to his son... am I still justified in asking restitution from you?
Social inequality and wealth gaps need constant management and reducing, but framing this in terms of restitution is rarely practical.

I don't disagree. My concern here is one of principle, that the moral culpability associated with the product of exploitation simply dissolves with the passage of time, or with the changing of hands. That blood money is transmuted, by nothing more than the passage of time, into simple money. It strikes me as a form of money laundering, creative accountancy replaced with patience. Stolen goods which have changed hands remain stolen goods, and the current holder has no right to deny their return to the original owner, even if those goods were received in good faith.

This is important to clarify precisely because it allows us to detach culpability from bloodline: it's clearly unsatisfying that culpability should simply dissolve on the death of the original culprits when the wounds remain open, so we can either follow the money or we can treat it as something passed from parent to son, we can treat culpability as either heritable or as actually hereditary, and I'm sure you'll agree that the latter is altogether more dangerous precedent.

 

[aelf]

He clearly explained that you're projecting USA mentality in a different society, and you try to answer back by lecturing him about his inexperience with different societies. That's beautiful in an ironic sort of way.

Don't sell yourself short, man. You can clearly imagine, and produce, MUCH more stupid comebacks than his.

Yeah, maybe yours.

Firstly, a benchmark is not a 'projection'. It simply sets a standard with which you can make a comparison. The USA as a country may not be as secular as some countries, but on the global scale I'd hazard it's close to average. And it's an example many here can relate to.

Secondly, inexperience with multicultural societies is not "inexperience with different societies". If anything, this line of yours seems indicative of inexperience with either English or with general comprehension.

First of all, you're equating "mostly white" with "monocultural", which is nonsensical reductionism. Estonia has rather recent experience of occupation and mass colonization, which, I can assure you, created a host of issues. Maybe not "racial", but certainly "cultural" and "ethnic".
Secondly, yes, I don't have extensive first-hand experience with racial issues in US. I've also always been both candid and aware regarding that, so I don't get the need for you to constantly harp about it.
Thirdly, this kind of distance can be both positive and negative in a discussion, unless one prefers a total echo chamber of course.

So are you going to claim that no society is monocultural?

You're twisting yourself into all kinds of historical and rhetorical pretzels just to try and deny that your society is mostly made up of a single culture, which is a very far cry from multicultural societies. And I'm not the only one to note that your experience (or lack thereof) colours your views on racial and cultural issues.

 

[red_elk]

Modern Baltic states definitely have experience with different cultures, not so much with multicultural society.

 

[Zardnaar]

Modern Baltic states definitely have experience with different cultures, not so much with multicultural society.

It's funny reading accounts or watching interviews of the late USSR or 90s Russia.

Not much experience with foreigners espicially outside Leningrad maybe Moscow.

African students in Kiev got reactions ranging from mild racism to curiosity and an American in rural Russia or Minsk/Ufa was unheard of. They existed but there might be a total of 1 or 3.

People staring doesn't always mean hostility curious maybe. You can get that in rural Japan or China if you're a caucasian. At least outside the tourist spots.

 

[NovaKart]

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch police said on Friday they had arrested a young woman in Rotterdam on suspicion of inciting threats, after a teacher went into hiding following a classroom discussion on the killing of French school teacher Samuel Paty last month.

It was not clear if the unidentified 18-year-old, who police said posted messages on social media, was a student at the Emmauscollege high school in Rotterdam.

Schools in the Netherlands, France and Germany had been asked to hold a moment of silence on Monday for Paty, who was beheaded by a man of Chechen origin in a Paris suburb last month after showing pupils cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

During a classroom discussion at the Emmauscollege, students noticed a satirical cartoon that had been hanging on a bulletin board for years and some took offence.

The cartoon, which won a national prize in 2015, shows a decapitated figure labelled “Charlie Hebdo” sticking its tongue out at a bearded man with a bloody sword.

A photo of the image began circulating on social media and within a day the teacher had gone into hiding due to what police said were serious threats.

On Thursday a second school in Den Bosch said one of its teachers was staying home after a similar incident.

The Rotterdam case was condemned by Dutch lawmakers and sparked a wider political debate.

“It is disturbing that our efforts to promote freedom of expression led to unrest and even threats at schools in Rotterdam and Den Bosch,” Education Minister Arie Slob said in a letter to parliament.

“Intimidation of teachers cannot be tolerated in any way.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKBN27M1TM?il=0

 

[Kyriakos]

Apparently France will ask that the customs union between Eu and Turkey is cancelled: https://www.europe1.fr/politique/di...entre-lunion-europeenne-et-la-turquie-4004339

Would be good if it happens, not sure what Greedmany will do.

 

[innonimatu]

Apparently France will ask that the customs union between Eu and Turkey is cancelled: https://www.europe1.fr/politique/di...entre-lunion-europeenne-et-la-turquie-4004339

Would be good if it happens, not sure what Greedmany will do.

Don't worry. They'll produce white goods in Ukraine, the portion run by the american pet nazis - I'm sure they'll get right along with the germans. Probably working on adding Moldova to the sphere of influence also. Plenty of poor people there, no need to cling to the turks.