TIL: Today I Learned

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the Afircan slavery were the first racial based enslavement which previously Slavery mostly religiously based (ex: the Christian enslaved the Pagan). Are you sure the Catholic institution against it? Isn't Portuguese and Spanish Jesuits who went to Japan also carried with them African slave? the most notable is Yasuke, who is a William Adams like African slave (turned Samurai) who was originated from East Africa.
I said ‘natives’. I.e. the peoples who were being conquered by the Spanish and Portuguese across the New World. I know about Yasuke, but that was in Oda Nobunaga's time, generations after the conquest of the continent, and Yasuke was African.

The various Native American tribes were never called ‘slaves’. They were forced to unpaid labour (mita), or assigned as ‘yanaconás’ to the service of Europeans, but they were never officially slaves even if (of course) they were unfree.

The Negroes brought over from Africa were, however, called slaves, explicitly.
 
Yes you put everything in a correct perspective, I understand now the logic behind why the natives American not enslaved like the African. So behind it there is the work of Catholicism. Really interesting.
 
Perhaps the Spanish Portugese approach was more in line with medieval europe, whereby I don't know all nuances of differences across Europe.

In the medieval Low Lands and the Holy Roman Empire (and I think also France, UK), all at that time the feudal system and Catholic area, there were several grades.
I am not exactly sure about which English words apply, because most of the time in English texts it is simply serf or peasant. And for my feel serf used as catch it all.

If you look at the basic rural set up, you have a lord (the small ones more a farmer with rights) that has in Dutch "lijfeigenen" and "horigen", and in my awkward Englis translate into "body-owned ones" and "belongers".
There is a huge difference between these two kinds of serfs. The "lijfeigene" more in the direction of a plantation slave, the "horige" more in the direction of a small peasant that rented his land (tax) and had duties to do for the lord.
Or more in Carolinguan law terms: two kinds of un-free: one bound to the land (the "horige or more fundamental a "laat") and one bound to the land & the lord (the "lijfeigene" or "full serf")
Both had a really huge range in what it actually was.

With the more slave like serf, the "lijfeigene" there were many variations as well, from more to less free.
But basically they had the right to own and accumulate money, the right to found their own family and the right not to be sold (no family separation !), unless sold together with the land they lived upon. In any other sense AFAIK they were like plantation slaves.

Perhaps the most simple way to show that for that small medieval peasant is the number of different words in use during the Holy Roman Empire in German language:
* you had the free peasants called: Bauer, Vollbauer or Hufe. They owned their land, but had to pay taxes, and had duties.
What I know about old medieval documents in NL is that these Hufe peasants, in Dutch "Hoevenaren", were named as witnesses in important transactions for nobility.
The rest was also bound to the property, the "earth" of the lord (they could not travel away).
* peasants with good holdings: Meier, Freisassen, Schulzen, Fester, Grundholde, Hintersassen, Hörigen, Hintersättler, Hintersässen, Hintersiedler, Beisassen,
* peasants with small holdings: Kossaten, Kleinhäusler and another couple of names.
* the landless "peasants" another list of names

Most of the rights these serfs and peasants had were a hybrid between property thinking of the lords and human-social considerations of the Catholic church. Going into many details like what happens when a "lijfeigene" marries a "horige" or a free farmer, what status do the children get, etc, etc. What price to pay the lord for status-equal and status-unequal marriages, etc, etc.

Perhaps for our USians and other English speaking people living in former UK colonies: medieval europe was a highly regulated society !
Not only these societal laws, but also for example the regulations on quality controlling the food bought in towns on town-markets ! The town council felt, was expected to, took, responsibility for the food health of its citizens for food bought at the town market (not on what their citizens bought or did outside that market).

The people that left Europe to the New World, the new colonies, left all those regulations behind them, and invented the wheel themselves with some remnants of the Old World.
Not only the farmer settlers... but also the wealthy adventurers, starting plantations. In principle they were unbound by rules of the past. More the libertarian type than the people staying in Europe.
I guess it made a difference, also for the slave approach, from which European country these adventurers came and how the nature of connection with the mother country was.
 
Last edited:
Those Swedenborg books are bizarre. There was a lecture by Borges in which he wondered why Swedenborg's new theology never gave birth to a massive new religion (that was Swen's goal, given in his view he was ordered to do so by Christ himself). One good reason would be his claims that most other solar system planets have humanoid populations. Unless there is some massive cover-up/conspiracy, at least that part of his 'divine revelations' is false.
Tbh his entire theory seems way too close to madness. If one starts sinking in such a hole, they are not likely to ever go out again.

In Borges' opinion, though, the main reason Swen's theology is so obscure is that he was skandinavian and nothing really becomes influential if it comes from there ^_^
 
Perhaps the Spanish Portugese approach was more in line with medieval europe, whereby I don't know all nuances of differences across Europe...

I really appreciate your enthusiasm to the topic and your lengthy reply, seriously. I'm not really developing myself recently, hence my knowledge not adding much for like 2-3 years, hence I'm glad I can learn new thing here it is refreshing.

However from what I can remember, I cannot provide for you any reference, the social structure of Colonial South American is pretty much similar with the serf system in Europe that you describe. It is seems that you are right, they used the European's serf system as a model. But from that I come to a very interesting conclusion regarding this, can it be also possible that unlike their treatment to the African American, their treatment to the natives American are somewhat less about racial but it is more about closed social class conflicts much like a caste system? Noted that mix marriage is somewhat also much more common between White and Natives than between European with the Afro American. The system that used for the native is the same system that they use against their own race, the different is that the land-owner was always white, the class hierarchy follow by second generation white (mixed) then third generation white, till it goes down to the serf. Just like in Indonesia, but in South America they are much easier to integrated because of religious reason.

Is it make sense?
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking before the conquest of the new world and the emergence of the Atlantic slave trade there was no enslavement of people simply because they were of a certain ethnicity or religion (let alone skin color). In Christendom it was acceptable to enslave heathens, but there was no (by the nature of things, could not have been) general policy of enslaving heathens or a presumption that heathens were slaves. Racial slavery emerged in the specific context of the Americas because, at least in North America, natives were found to be totally unsuitable for slave labor. Bringing in Africans was seen to be a better solution: they stood out at a glance, could not speak any languages in the Americas, didn't know the lay of the land or how to live in the open. Even so an explicitly racial order of slavery did not emerge until Bacon's Rebellion in the Virginia colony which saw white and black indentured servants (at that time there were few if any differences in status between black slaves and white indentured servants, obviously excepting the permanence of their condition of unfreedom) join together to attack the elites and the social order. After that you see the colonies pass a wave of "black codes" which formally codify racial caste, establish the legal presumption that blacks are slaves, and deny many rights and freedoms even to free blacks.
 
I know I'm treading into dangerous territory by asking this, but if it's thought that off-balance gut bacteria might be related to autism, might vaccines be indirectly the cause of autism: i.e. in some kids, vaccines throw the gut bacteria off, and then that causes autism?

I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up being sorry I even wondered this out loud.

Oh boy, this is dangerous ^^.
This is an interesting hypothesis. I would not exclude it. Might as well be that specific vaccines might be able to cure autism. I would not have an idea about a good cohort with a good setup to test either hypothesis though.
BUT: Do not forget: The initial publication claiming a connection between autism and vaccines was retracted, because the methodology was faulty. There is no apparent statistical connection between autism and vaccines.
 
I really appreciate your enthusiasm to the topic and your lengthy reply, seriously. I'm not really developing myself recently, hence my knowledge not adding much for like 2-3 years, hence I'm glad I can learn new thing here it is refreshing.

However from what I can remember, I cannot provide for you any reference, the social structure of Colonial South American is pretty much similar with the serf system in Europe that you describe. It is seems that you are right, they used the European's serf system as a model. But from that I come to a very interesting conclusion regarding this, can it be also possible that unlike their treatment to the African American, their treatment to the natives American are somewhat less about racial but it is more about closed social class conflicts much like a caste system? Noted that mix marriage is somewhat also much more common between White and Natives than between European with the Afro American. The system that used for the native is the same system that they use against their own race, the different is that the land-owner was always white, the class hierarchy follow by second generation white (mixed) then third generation white, till it goes down to the serf. Just like in Indonesia, but in South America they are much easier to integrated because of religious reason.

Is it make sense?

About how it went in US, I don't know much, and Lexicus answered.
And yes I am interested in how this went in SA. Also how the development was from colonial time to modern time today. Theory (constitution) and practice. (reason also I wrote down a bit on that medieval period here)

What you said about the race/class system in colonial Indonesia, I can only confirm. There were in the early colonial time only a few Dutch whites, and they needed locally a group of people loyal to them. This went mostly natural from mixed offspring (mostly male white with female Indonesian) and the privileges did the rest to establish a loyal in-between class. Converting to christianity played a role as well in the amount of privileges.
After the occupation in WW2 by the Japanese, the following freedom revolt by Sukarno, this indo class was expelled together with the Dutch from Indonesia. Not all indo's wanted but in roughly 10 years most were in NL. The total became 300,000 indo immigrants for NL. So yes: a racial class the Dutch VOC needed and as racial group easy to mark and to be expelled by Sukarno.

What I find so striking is how easy practical needs of the powerfull with a good dose of superiority feeling just shapes this whole system of classes, of grades of privileges.
A written constitution for a base line is needed but is not enough. And it only addresses race.
When those indo's came back to NL, they were for the old colonials, the ones with the habit of feeling superior, still an underclass. But not for the average citizen in NL. They were mostly the more timid and more socially civilised among us.
Perhaps it is even so that you need an upperclass, that superiority feeling, to keep up the concept of an underclass.
 
The total became 300,000 indo immigrants for NL.

That's huge

So yes: a racial class the Dutch VOC needed and as racial group easy to mark and to be expelled by Sukarno.

I don't think they are expelled, coincidentally my uncle married with Indo (mix Dutch-Indonesian) the mistress is from Dutch while the Husband is Kenil, which is a pretty rare case back then. Yes most of her family were back to NL, but I don't remember any forced migration like what happened between Greek and Turkey.

You are right, the Dutch uses racial group, nobility and religion to creates a class system that define social role. This is not alien only for the Dutch, but also the Hokkian Chinese, the people of Ambonese from Maluku Island and those people from Manado, they are known to be the allies of the Dutch while the last two race that I mentioned they consist most of the Kenil especially Ambonese.

But there is no repercussion from Indonesian people post independent toward them, actually the Indonesian have a strange relation toward their ex-occupier, instead of developing disdain and hate like the relation between Japanese-Korea, they strangely celebrated their former overlord namely the Dutch and the Japanese. Pretty much like how the Japanese view the American post-war.

However when they repelled the Japanese there are more repercussion to that, people just start going out and slaughter as many Japanese that they can find, because during that short period of Japanese rule the suffering is very intense. The old Javanese people used to say that, "the suffering of 3 year Japanese occupation is equal to the hundreds years of the Dutch's occupation". But after a while, given that Soekarno is an avid Japanophile himself (like me?), our relation with Japan is quite good.


Perhaps it is even so that you need an upperclass, that superiority feeling, to keep up the concept of an underclass.

It is just an illusion that is created as a tool to rule easier, if that makes sense.
 
I don't think they are expelled, coincidentally my uncle married with Indo (mix Dutch-Indonesian) the mistress is from Dutch while the Husband is Kenil, which is a pretty rare case back then. Yes most of her family were back to NL, but I don't remember any forced migration like what happened between Greek and Turkey.

Expel the wrong word (wish my English would be better).
It took a period from 1945 to 1962 (New Guinea).
As I understand it:
Until 1950 it was mostly to help the people that suffered from the concentraton camps of the Japanese, and whereby the intention/expectation of the Dutch government was that they would go back to Indonesia.
But the independence movement grew strongly already and with the formal independence in 1950, the circumstances became more "unpleasant" for indo's. It was not so much a government top-down expelment, but more the societal repression and outbursts of more radical groups. There were also many Indo's in civil society positions or a company that stayed at first, thinking it would all blow over. I guess it happened everywhere in a bit other way (Indonesia has so many islands and tribes).
And the Ambonese are certainly for the Netherlands a special case. They were as separate tribe used by the colonial government as elite troops. The freedom war left scars in Indonesia.

It is just an illusion that is created as a tool to rule easier, if that makes sense.
yes
sadly enough it works
 
The freedom war left scars in Indonesia.

They forget about it, if they still commemorate what happened in Aceh when the Ambonese launch the scorch the earth tactics that results to a catastrophe that even cringes the Dutch and many other in other regions (the Ambonese were so active), there will be a huge conflict in Indonesia. Even I don't know who is worst the Ambonese or the Eastern Javanese Kingdom on assisting the defeat of the Aceh and the massacre that happened during Puputan war in Bali, but now no one remember about it, the noble is still celebrated and respected by the people, given they are not as well respected and as politically active like Hamengkubuwono Jogjakarta, but people still hold them in high regard.

People move on here, but they found new problem or provocation ahead, if you know what I mean.
 
There is no apparent statistical connection between autism and vaccines.
There is none (i.e. it has been positively established that there is none) or the report that said there was had to be retracted (so who knows, either way?)?

I'm actually not big on this issue either way (I know it generates strong feelings on both sides), but the thought that you could mitigate autism by altering gut bacteria makes me wonder if gut bacteria could be causal.

For starters on a follow-up study, you've got what would seem to be the premise of this study, which is that there are people who have both gastrointestinal problems and autism. One could investigate how broadly that holds true.
 
I'm going to take this time to advance the idea that those ******* suburban moms who claim Big Pharma gave their kids autism like they're (the parents are) bearing some kind of terrible burden are horrible ableist parents directly reproducing some of the same ideas that led Nazi Germany to euthanize the disabled.
 
Last edited:
Well at least a lot of the measles breakouts are in areas where vaccinations were ignored. I know it sounds a tad harsh, but maybe common sense will prevail in the future.
 
I'm going to take this time to advance the idea that those ******* suburban moms who claim Big Pharma gave their kids autism like they're bearing some kind of terrible burden are horrible ableist parents directly reproducing some of the same ideas that led Nazi Germany to euthanize the disabled.

I'm autistic and I feel like a burden to everyone.
 
Well at least a lot of the measles breakouts are in areas where vaccinations were ignored. I know it sounds a tad harsh, but maybe common sense will prevail in the future.
I get more skeptical of "common sense" with every passing day. In the case of the New York outbreak, it was some kind of religious dogma, so nothing sensible about it. The link to autism was such a colossal fraud, iirc, the guy actually went to prison, and yet people still think whatever they want to think. Forced vaccinations is probably too fraught a public policy, but I have no problem with a town saying that posing a danger to the community is not a valid personal choice that the rest of us have to tolerate.
 
Yes, if the death of a child doesn't lead to enlightenment, then nothing will.
 
There is none (i.e. it has been positively established that there is none) or the report that said there was had to be retracted (so who knows, either way?)?

The study, which claimed there was a connection, had to be retracted.
I don't think you can prove the absence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I'm not aware of any study showing a relationship (but then again, I never looked), but to my knowledge there must be studies showing no relationship.

I'm actually not big on this issue either way (I know it generates strong feelings on both sides), but the thought that you could mitigate autism by altering gut bacteria makes me wonder if gut bacteria could be causal.

For starters on a follow-up study, you've got what would seem to be the premise of this study, which is that there are people who have both gastrointestinal problems and autism. One could investigate how broadly that holds true.

I think there have been studies on that. I'm also pretty convinced that people with autism probably have different gut microbiota, but that could be a correlation, because most of these people have probably a non-standard diet.
I am aware of a mouse study, where they tested this. They took mice, which show autistic behaviour (like non-engaging with peers, more fear, etc); if this is a good model for human autism...different question, but the best we have. Some genetic factors like in human autism are present in these mice too, AFAIK.
Then they gave these "autistic" mice a fecal transplant from healthy mice, and symptoms seemed to get better (but only temporary, IIRC).
So there might be a causative factor, but what it is, is still unclear.
Human follow up experiments for this would be interesting, but you'd probably not get it through any medical-ethical commitee (METC). The persons are unable to consent (a legal guardian would be though), and given that it's not a life endangering situation, I cannot see any METC approving this.
 
Yes you put everything in a correct perspective, I understand now the logic behind why the natives American not enslaved like the African. So behind it there is the work of Catholicism. Really interesting.
Perhaps the Spanish Portugese approach was more in line with medieval europe, whereby I don't know all nuances of differences across Europe.
It actually was very nuanced and changed in the (roughly) for centuries of Spanish and Portuguese domination of the continent, many times. There was no such thing as a unified regime in either empire, and while the pre-Columbine populations were certainly not mere painted savages they were and are still somethimes claimed to be, they certainly were brutal themselves. Many of the systems of unfreedom or partial freedom employed by the conquerors were the defeated peoples' own practices and institutions. Words such as mita and yanaconá, for example, are taken from native languages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom