Why would slavery "choke to death?"

[Timsup2nothin]

Technology made slavery obsolete, and that was going to happen no matter what. Machinery serves as a labor multiplier, but produces vulnerabilities. If you try to use it as a multiplier with forced labor you multiply the loss when the labor refuses to work, so a willing underpaid wage slave is superior to a potentially resistant forced slave despite the slightly higher base cost.

Besides, forced labor slaves have food, clothing, and shelter provided, while many wage slaves do not make enough to pay for those items, so they in fact lower labor costs.

 

[bhsup]

Aboriginal is the correct term for original settlers of a land. Native American offends me immensely when used for original settlers as I am a Native American by virtue of having been born here.

 

[Mouthwash]

No, but I gather from Wiki that it's about some kid who convinces a whole town to call pens "frindles"?

Problem is, the Indian/Amerindian thing has been going on for over a century now; the term was first coined in the 1890s, and was popularised in the 1970s/80s, and it still hasn't stuck, so there's not much chance of it spontaneously catching on now. Popular discourse favours "Native American" or "First Nations", while scholarly use is mostly broken down by field and speciality, and there's no indication that's going to change any time soon.

I assume if he used the word "inkpencil" it wouldn't have been quite as successful. Amerindian is hard on the tongue and sounds contrived.

 

[Traitorfish]

Aboriginal is the correct term for original settlers of a land. Native American offends me immensely when used for original settlers as I am a Native American by virtue of having been born here.

 

[bhsup]

Wise words, TF, wise words.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Aboriginal is the correct term for original settlers of a land. Native American offends me immensely when used for original settlers as I am a Native American by virtue of having been born here.

FWIW, they prefer to be called NDNs, as they are increasingly moving away from the term "Native American" (an attempt at a PC term for them invented by guilty-feeling White People in the first place) as they don't wish to be associated with that foreign name either. America isn't what they call the continent, and "Americans" have brought them nothing but pain. In an ironic twist of fate, many are returning to "Indian" as a demonym.

The Canadians call them "First Peoples," which I think is a pretty cool name too, and I believe many there have embraced it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I'm seeing First Peoples more and more, but it's hard to do a singular: a First Person? a First People? a member of the First Peoples?

 

[Phrossack]

If I call them Native Americans, I get corrected and accused of insensitivity. If I call them Indians, I get corrected and accused of insensitivity and confuse people. I think I'll just call them Greeks, rename those Aegean-dwellers as West Turks, and be done with it.

 

[Traitorfish]

FWIW, they prefer to be called NDNs, as they are increasingly moving away from the term "Native American" (an attempt at a PC term for them invented by guilty-feeling White People in the first place) as they don't wish to be associated with that foreign name either. America isn't what they call the continent, and "Americans" have brought them nothing but pain. In an ironic twist of fate, many are returning to "Indian" as a demonym.

The Canadians call them "First Peoples," which I think is a pretty cool name too, and I believe many there have embraced it.

Actually the use of "Native American" actually began with the Native American Church movement, who seemed too hope that emphasising their American-ness would encourage legal recognition of their church and a more permissive attitude towards their use of Peyote. That seems to be why at least some Indian rights activists took a dim view of the term, because they saw it as describing the "good native", which they had not intention of being. And, although the term was popularised by white liberals, it's still a term which many people identify with, so we shouldn't take too hostile a view of it.

I agree that of the terms in use, "First Nations" is probably the least awkward, but it is limited by the fact it really describes the relationship of Indian communities to Canada, rather than Indian communities in themselves, so it's applicability in a historical context can be pretty limited. It makes sense to describe the Mohawks as a "First Nation" today, but not always in the 17th century.

If I call them Native Americans, I get corrected and accused of insensitivity.

I've honestly never encountered that.

 

[Joecoolyo]

NDNs

Took me a while to figure out this meant 'Indian,' it's not very intuitive, I'll tell you that much.

Indian is fine, and any confusion with South Asia can be cleared up with a follow up question or context. I also think Native American is fine. I'm also fine with just labeling people by their individual nation rather than trying to find one blanket term everyone is ok with, since that isn't going to happen.

First Nation makes me think of Canada and Aboriginal Australia, I don't think either of those would work well in discussions of North American Indians within the United States.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm also fine with just labeling people by their individual nation rather than trying to find one blanket term everyone is ok with, since that isn't going to happen.

That's certainly preferable when possible!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually the use of "Native American" actually began with the Native American Church movement, who seemed too hope that emphasising their American-ness would encourage legal recognition of their church and a more permissive attitude towards their use of Peyote. That seems to be why at least some Indian rights activists took a dim view of the term, because they saw it as describing the "good native", which they had not intention of being. And, although the term was popularised by white liberals, it's still a term which many people identify with, so we shouldn't take too hostile a view of it.

Hmm, I read that it was a designation invented by the US government for demographic purposes. Perhaps the gubmit stole the name from these guys?

I agree that of the terms in use, "First Nations" is probably the least awkward, but it is limited by the fact it really describes the relationship of Indian communities to Canada, rather than Indian communities in themselves, so it's applicability in a historical context can be pretty limited. It makes sense to describe the Mohawks as a "First Nation" today, but not always in the 17th century.

That also brings up another problem: endonyms. Some Indian tribes are only known by their European names: Nez Perce, Blackfoot, Mohawk, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hmm, I read that it was a designation invented by the US government for demographic purposes. Perhaps the gubmit stole the name from these guys?

I think it happened on both sides. Some American Indians began to call themselves "Native Americans" so the government starting using it, which gave it official clout so more people started identifying with it, so the government began using it more, and so on. Although I think the government usage is definitely what popularised it among non-Indians, given our lousy record of taking an interest in what Indians might themselves prefer to be called.

That also brings up another problem: endonyms. Some Indian tribes are only known by their European names: Nez Perce, Blackfoot, Mohawk, etc.

Also a good point. Sometimes, European-language names are acceptable, especially if the nation in question have been familiar with it long enough that they've incorporated it into their identity, such as "Mohawk". Others are more contentious, such as "Sioux", which won't win you a lot of friends among the Lakota. It seems the best rule of thumb is to go with the official name of the tribal organisation- although, again, that runs into problems past a certain historical point.

 

[Mouthwash]

Something more thread-relevant: don't Qatar and the other gulf sheikhdoms use slave labor? 80% percent of Qatar's population are expatriates.

 

[Tahuti]

Something more thread-relevant: don't Qatar and the other gulf sheikhdoms use slave labor? 80% percent of Qatar's population are expatriates.

Hard to say. Formally, Qatar has banned the practice, though due to the nature of immigration laws, there are doubtlessy some immigrants that are employed in de-facto slavery positions.

Saudi Arabia actually has still slavery in the formal sense!

 

[Mouthwash]

Hard to say. Formally, Qatar has banned the practice, though due to the nature of immigration laws, there are doubtlessy some immigrants that are employed in de-facto slavery positions.

I'd say more than "some." Look at the whole world cup fiasco.

I don't think Arab culture has the capacity for democracy. Every Arab country, no matter how liberal, still has like one out of three people marrying cousins. It's a tribal way of life, and democracy is completely inimical to clanhood. The Gulf sheikhdoms and Lebanon are the last really productive places in the Arab world, and they owe their success to the same things that made them successful a thousand years ago.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Numbers seem to vary - 15,000; 30,000 - but a quick Google search shows there are thousands of slaves in the United States today.

 

[Tahuti]

I'd say more than "some." Look at the whole world cup fiasco.

I don't think Arab culture has the capacity for democracy. Every Arab country, no matter how liberal, still has like one out of three people marrying cousins. It's a tribal way of life, and democracy is completely inimical to clanhood. The Gulf sheikhdoms and Lebanon are the last really productive places in the Arab world, and they owe their success to the same things that made them successful a thousand years ago.

Note that we Westerners had similar social structures, though we were among the first the diverge from it. Capitalism and Western-style democracy reputedly had origins in the fact that we had a tendency to marry rather distant (in the family descent sense) individuals.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think Arab culture has the capacity for democracy. Every Arab country, no matter how liberal, still has like one out of three people marrying cousins. It's a tribal way of life, and democracy is completely inimical to clanhood. The Gulf sheikhdoms and Lebanon are the last really productive places in the Arab world, and they owe their success to the same things that made them successful a thousand years ago.

Given the historical complaints of European anti-Semites, you'd think a Jew would know better than to generalise about a people's inability to successfully participate in civil society.

 

[Tahuti]

Given the historical complaints of European anti-Semites, you'd think a Jew would know better than to generalise about a people's inability to successfully participate in civil society.

Well, Mouthwash was specifically making the observation that Arabs tend to marry relatives and such practices as cousin marriage tend to make democracy less feasible in such countries. I don't see how this is Anti-Arab at all.