SPOILER ALERT!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! Mesa and South Africa

n7axw wrote:
David is right to point out that Lincoln did not enter the war to abolish slavery. Preserving the union was indeed his foremost goal. But it is also true that Lincoln despised slavery and ran as the standard bearer of an anti-slavery party and made anti-slavery speeches himself.

Don

namelessfly wrote:For most of human history, CHANGE was virtually non existent. There was little technological innovation. Populations oscillates around equilibrium level. People generally lived their lives in the same manner as their great-to-the-tenth grandparents had. When change occurred, it was usually a very unpleasant change such as war, famine, earthquakes, floods or war.

The rapid advancement of technology makes change inevitable. However; the progressive argument that change should be promoted because it is inevitable is a logical fallacy. Change has to be evaluated on at least practical if not moral criteria.

The Southern States and Mesa have historical events, particularly the Hatian Slave Revolt, to inform their opinions and judgements. One can argue that the danger of a slave uprising makes the abolition of slavery imperative. However; the Hatian Slave Rebellion was itself the result of liberalized policies. The Haitian slave masters just like Southerners such as Thomas Jefferson were in the habit of having sex with their black slaves which resulted in Medes race children. The Hatian slave holders freed their hybrid children, educated them and allowed them to enjoy many rights.

Given Honorverse technology, I find it extremely difficult to imagine how genetic slavery can be economically viable beyond people adapted for harsh environments or sex slaves. Even so, voluntary genetic modification of one's own children motivated by the lure of high hazardous duty pay or colonization opportunities. There is no shortage of sex workers in a free society either.

One factor that might mitigate conflict on Mesa is the realization that the carnage inflicted by operation Hudini was orchestrated by a secretive cabal.

hanuman wrote:You're talking about technology being a major driving force of change. That's true, but what do you think flint knives were, or stone scrapers, or pottery wheels? Those were technological innovations as well, you know. Modern technology doesn't DRIVE change, it simply gives change impetus; in other words, it's a driving force behind the RATE of change.

hanuman wrote:
Namelessfly, your statement re human history cannot be further from the truth. Change is and always has been a constant and inevitable factor of human life. The only way for ANY human society to completely avoid any form of change would be not only to completely avoid outside influence but to impose such rigorous standards of behaviour that daily life and interpersonal interaction would become virtually impossible. Whether it was contact with merchants from another land, or a nomadic clan of shepherds setting up camp just outside one's village, or an invasion by another kingdom, or buying a new houseslave on the market, ancient societies were forever exchanging ideas, cultural memes, goods and people.
...

Tenshinai wrote:

hanuman wrote:
Namelessfly, your statement re human history cannot be further from the truth. Change is and always has been a constant and inevitable factor of human life. The only way for ANY human society to completely avoid any form of change would be not only to completely avoid outside influence but to impose such rigorous standards of behaviour that daily life and interpersonal interaction would become virtually impossible. Whether it was contact with merchants from another land, or a nomadic clan of shepherds setting up camp just outside one's village, or an invasion by another kingdom, or buying a new houseslave on the market, ancient societies were forever exchanging ideas, cultural memes, goods and people.
...

And as has been found more and more, even in the pre-historic times, long before agriculture and the shift towards more fixed settlements, even then trade has been shown to have existed over vast distances (central Europe to central Asia proven, even further likely but not entirely proven).

And the smaller the scale of population, the more radical the influence of trade tend to be.


And when looking at far more recent history( a century or a few back), there is often the belief that people were born and then lived and died within a rather small area.

Having been part of historic research that among other things looked at that, that´s a complete myth. Even just looking at my own family records i found that even with clear focus with maybe 20-30km around here and 2 other locations, many of my ancestors often married hundreds of km away, and then sometimes starting that new family in a brand new place, completely elsewhere.

Moving 500 km, or even over a 1000 km even in the 15th century was found to essentially be nothing extraordinary...

cthia wrote:
President Lincoln being black himself may explain much of that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African- ... am_Lincoln

The academic consensus of historians rejects most of the specific claims below that the men may have had some African ancestry, the consensus acknowledging the long history of interracial relations in the United States.

Hutch wrote:

cthia wrote:
President Lincoln being black himself may explain much of that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African- ... am_Lincoln

I would note for the record that the section it is in is "Unverified" and I quote from the site:

The academic consensus of historians rejects most of the specific claims below that the men may have had some African ancestry, the consensus acknowledging the long history of interracial relations in the United States.

Making bald-faced statements of fact where fact is not established is something I think even your niece would not approve of.

Spanking complete, press on.

biochem wrote:Just wanted to point out that there is a VERY important difference between slaves in the southern US and those exploited by debt slavery in company towns. In the south individual slaves could be sold away from their families at the whim of the owner. The sale of a family member was considered by the slaves themselves to be the worst of the various types of suffering that they endured. So while those exploited by company towns suffered greatly, at least they didn't need to worry that their children would be sold.

Hutch wrote:

cthia wrote:
President Lincoln being black himself may explain much of that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African- ... am_Lincoln

I would note for the record that the section it is in is "Unverified" and I quote from the site:

The academic consensus of historians rejects most of the specific claims below that the men may have had some African ancestry, the consensus acknowledging the long history of interracial relations in the United States.

Making bald-faced statements of fact where fact is not established is something I think even your niece would not approve of.

Spanking complete, press on.