[What Came Before]

Obviously, Grant and his successors eventually did give up once resolve in the North to continue the occupation began to flag, but they still enjoyed some limited success in establishing a more peaceful and stable environment in the South before they left.  The Force Act of 1871 pretty much wiped out the original Ku Klux Klan, and while the White League and Red Shirts took their place I would contend that they enjoyed their rise in power and influence largely due to the absence of a federal presence.  It's ironic to me that the Confederacy spent the entire Civil War trying to break Union resolve and failed, but after a decade or so of Reconstruction the North just wanted to be done with it.

I think Eric Foner says it best: "What remains certain is that Reconstruction failed, and that for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure."

As an aside, I don't agree with some of Foner's political positions, but Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction is, in my humble opinion, one of the best books on the market today.  If anyone here has not already read it and would like to learn more about Reconstruction I would highly recommend it.  End weird and unsolicited plug in 5,4,3,2,1...

However, I do not see the same pattern of gradual emancipation many see when they look at the institution of slavery in the American South.  Slavery was certainly on its way out in a global sense, but the sheer economic influence of an incredibly small minority, the Southern plantation owners, cannot be overstated.  In terms of the broad economic and industrial power of the North the planters paled in comparison, but that would be like comparing the entire economic output of the West Coast of the United States to a handful of guys from Fortune 500.  The fact that pro-slavery Southerners were fighting so hard in Western Territories like Kansas suggests that they still believed they had something to gain, and the surviving records seem to suggest that birth rates among the native slave population were on the rise even as the price of slaves had been steadily increasing even in relation to their population since the British outlawed the slave trade.

Anyway, this is just my opinion.^  Take it for what it is.

In my experience Americans tend to put a LOT of ourselves into the history of the pre-war era, the Civil War itself, and the years of Reconstruction.  I don't think most of us do it on purpose, but its like the entire interpretation of events has turned into an exercise in the psychological.  And in the spirit of full disclosure: my great-great-grandfather fought for most of the war as a Union soldier which may or may not skew my judgment on the matter.



A small attempt to tie all of this back to the original post: I don't think that American chattel slavery is a good example to use when discussing the institution in the Three Seas.  Slavery in the American South was almost unique in its time in that it was totally informed by skin color and blood, but unlike the sugar plantations of South American and the Caribbean slaves were not traditionally worked to death and had opportunities to increase their numbers.  Slaves could run away, but there was no way for them to hide the color of their skin.  The society that developed around this was a true paradox of gentility and shocking brutality.  It's amazing how these planters were able to compartmentalize their religion, their families, their high station in life, and then see nothing wrong with raping one or more of their female slaves on a regular basis. 

In comparison, the slavery of Earwa seems to be more...egalitarian(?)...in nature.  Certainly, the brutality is there, but I don't think Bakker has ever introduced the racial component which was so critical to chattel slavery in the American South.

[What Came Before]

Well, why do we follow the as yet mostly implicit lines of authority in this forum? Our world is shot through wil iron rods of authority. All of which have complex repurcussions for failing to meet them - so much so they warrant consideration of breaking as much as one might casually consider leaping over the edge of a building, just by standing near it. So - we do so because big sticks line our path on either side?

I don't believe I've tried to impose any implied conduct on members here, Callan? Do you?

On other forums I'd expect this - but hasn't that overly tall Canadian made clear it's precisely when you think things are clear that you can be fooling yourself? You know the lesson, yet here you are at it's scenario?

Yes, contrarians exist. Yes, you don't want to be ruffled by their essentially nihilistic screw over. I get that. And yes, I accept I'll look like one. I only ask that people treat it as a guess that I am being one, not that they KNOW I am. Except I guess people have trouble sanctioning others on a guess - they like to know the other persons a bad guy, cause otherwise they feel they become the bad guy on a failed guess. Depends how bad the sanction is though - on some of the lesser ones (usually the more emperical ones), I wouldn't think the persons a bad guy, even though their guess was wrong and sanction was missplaced. Were all working from guesses so some room for forgiving a guess has to be given, otherwise how the heck can anyone deal with things even a little without eventually by chance becoming a bad guy?

I'm not asking you to change your behavior. Perhaps, I was implying that you could probably help clarify your connotations to people you are communicating with. Not a demand.

We all have our own connotations and the less informative and more abstract we are in our communication with others, the more we end up talking to our selves. I don't have the Callan - Madness Tourist Dictionary and I feel its a mark of respect to the process if I work rigourously to be as clear as possible when I'm trying to communicate Madness to Callan.

Never mind if I do happen to just rave and cause a ruckus, with no practical benefit for anyone from it at all, which is entirely possible and a problem (though the exact defintion of rave and ruckus are pretty much in the eye of the beholder).

I've no issue. I had asked a question and, rather than answer, you seem to have chosen to read into implicit assumptions I may or may not have.

You are more than welcome to embody Joker's philosophies, if you like.

As far as I was interested, if together we entertain a thought experiment where these case studies have truth to offer,

Why should people on average succumb to such a bias? Why, when calmly prompted by an authority figure, would an average scoring participant turn the knob to lethal voltages, especially when correlated by a gradient of terror, ultimately leading to no sound, in a closed room beside them?

Would that be a reflection of fallacies perpetuated in social discourse - appeals to authority are the norm, especially in institutions of education or corporate hierarchies?

Ultimately, these freed slaves were people, often uneducated and with few marketable skills beyond basic farming, and they had to do whatever was necessary to survive in an extremely hostile world. There were slaves who stayed with their old masters for a variety of reasons (they thought it was their duty, they didn't know anything else, the world was a frightening place where you could get lynched, etc.). They had to deal with poor whites who they were now directly competing with for a basic livelihood, a white elite in the South with strong connections to government and a powerful interest in keeping blacks oppressed, a white population in the North with no real love for blacks where the jobs they could get were often wage-slave positions, and a political system which initially supported them (quite successfully at first) before abandoning them to the metaphorical wolves.

+1 - emancipation left freedmen without a social niche, which slavery offered them before. Society didn't account for the displacement?

Gradual emancipation much like Brazil. Children of slaves freed, followed by those reaching the age of 60. Most importantly, compensation paid for by all participant parties to their former owners.

It was a huge rubbing point that slave owners in the South were to pay to end a system that also made the Northeast extremely rich, both in the Slave Trade and in industries such as textile manufacturing. Couple that with the Tariff of 1828 and, from their point of view, it was a lose-lose situation.

Unlike their Northern colleagues, Southern slave owners did not have the option to 'emancipate' their slaves by selling them off.

...

/BTW, I'm not a southerner, just am obsessed with 19th century America

+1 for Perspective. Just some of this forums delicious allure .

In my experience Americans tend to put a LOT of ourselves into the history of the pre-war era, the Civil War itself, and the years of Reconstruction. I don't think most of us do it on purpose, but its like the entire interpretation of events has turned into an exercise in the psychological. And in the spirit of full disclosure: my great-great-grandfather fought for most of the war as a Union soldier which may or may not skew my judgment on the matter.

+1 for Fallacy of Anachronistic Projection when analyzing historical narratives.

Certainly, the brutality is there, but I don't think Bakker has ever introduced the racial component which was so critical to chattel slavery in the American South.

Does the Nonmen enslaving the Emwama of Earwa count?

[What Came Before]

Does the Nonmen enslaving the Emwama of Earwa count?

There is absolutely a strong racist/speciest(?) element in the interactions between the Nonmen and the Emwama, but there would be no real world equivalent to compare it to.  The Nonmen are a different species which just happens to share enough genetic similarities to make breeding with humans a possibility.

Question: do we know if the half-breeds are genetically viable.  I seem to recall reading something that suggested that they are, but I can't remember what it was or where I saw it.  Maybe half-breeds are like mules or ligers?

[What Came Before]

Yeah, the entire Anasurimbor line is allegedly viable half-breeds.

[What Came Before]

Yeah, the entire Anasurimbor line is allegedly viable half-breeds.

And since that first half-nonman child conceived with a house slave (assuming that wasnt the official line for heirs), it would seem likely that there are other people in the world with a tad of the blood as well.

I think Esmi has some, and Moe Sr's concubine as well.

[What Came Before]

Ajokli, What is the other way to have emancipation? Condone slavery for however many years until you achieve emancipation by...some other means?

Gradual emancipation much like Brazil. Children of slaves freed, followed by those reaching the age of 60. Most importantly, compensation paid for by all participant parties to their former owners.

It was a huge rubbing point that slave owners in the South were to pay to end a system that also made the Northeast extremely rich, both in the Slave Trade and in industries such as textile manufacturing. Couple that with the Tariff of 1828 and, from their point of view, it was a lose-lose situation.

Unlike their Northern colleagues, Southern slave owners did not have the option to 'emancipate' their slaves by selling them off.

But as much as one could wag the finger at leaving tons of slaves to their own devices to survive, here couldn't one wag ones finger at condoning slavery for decades longer?

I think either way one takes moral damage.

[What Came Before]

Well, why do we follow the as yet mostly implicit lines of authority in this forum? Our world is shot through wil iron rods of authority. All of which have complex repurcussions for failing to meet them - so much so they warrant consideration of breaking as much as one might casually consider leaping over the edge of a building, just by standing near it. So - we do so because big sticks line our path on either side?

I don't believe I've tried to impose any implied conduct on members here, Callan? Do you?

Yes and yes. Even that were both using english is an implied conduct. Even more implied conducts, more subtle ones, are shod through our use of language.

I was using it as an example, it wasn't to jab in some here and now point. I wouldn't even be on topic to do so. I'm refering to a web of authority lines and just giving an indicator of local lines and how they extend off into the distance as intermeshing with larger lines. I genuinely think it's a hypothetical answer to your "Why should people on average succumb to such a bias?" question - I point at this web. And the spiders that come if you don't adhere to it.

[What Came Before]

So following authority safeguards social structure, in your opinion?

By the way, I would be THRILLED[/b] if people began threads in their native tongues. Even if its just for two people who share another, more comfortable language of expression!

[What Came Before]

Ajokli, What is the other way to have emancipation? Condone slavery for however many years until you achieve emancipation by...some other means?

Gradual emancipation much like Brazil. Children of slaves freed, followed by those reaching the age of 60. Most importantly, compensation paid for by all participant parties to their former owners.

It was a huge rubbing point that slave owners in the South were to pay to end a system that also made the Northeast extremely rich, both in the Slave Trade and in industries such as textile manufacturing. Couple that with the Tariff of 1828 and, from their point of view, it was a lose-lose situation.

Unlike their Northern colleagues, Southern slave owners did not have the option to 'emancipate' their slaves by selling them off.

But as much as one could wag the finger at leaving tons of slaves to their own devices to survive, here couldn't one wag ones finger at condoning slavery for decades longer?

I think either way one takes moral damage.

Indeed, and there is a chance that the choice that results in the long-term benefit (gradual emancipation) will never materialize. There is also the matter of appeasing a populace who is demanding change "right this very second".

However, even supposing one could look at two different universes, one where emancipation was forced and caused a painful process of reconstruction, and one where gradual emancipation prevented the painful aftermath but necessitated a few more decades of clear moral degradation, it would be a matter of opinion to say which option is better. Still, the consequences of each option (like the consequences of any set of temporal forks in the road) will resonate until the end of our species and everything we ever henceforth affect.

[What Came Before]

regarding the Americas.  They were pretty damned technologically advanced at the time.  Some societies in the Americas were unable to progress linearly because they were subject to carrying capacity boom-bust cycles of their immediate environs. 

It's a question of technological utility.  In South America, in the Andes, roads were built at extreme grades, often built as steps, in such environs, wheeled carts are a competitive disadvantage.  This also protected them from european invasions because it was damned difficult for europeans to utilize their technology when the environment is ill suited to it.  Horses and carts don't do so well on a road of stairs that is 10 miles long with a 60 degree grade.  Armor is another good example of their high technology, they used a woven armor (which is what kevlar is) which effectively stopped the low range, low power, rounded musket balls used by the invading Europeans, because the rounds would just bounce off the inch thick densely woven fiber armor of the natives.  The armor was designed to protect from arrows, which rely on a cutting force and it was pretty good at stopping those as well.  Their use of woven technology was phenomenal, unbelievable works of engineering in bridges etc.  However westerners have a tendency to downplay all these achievements because it's a non western approach to tech, so it doesn't count.

1491 is a really great book and should be read by everyone.

But it turned out that even though the Europeans were especially terrible at fighting native americans in south america and ill equiped to beat them, they didn't need to fight because disease managed to wipe out 90% plus of the civilization.  So reduced, they were unable to compete and were eventually assimiliated/conquered--often the europeans were most successful because of political machinations of other natives trying to gain advantage over a long time rival.

[What Came Before]

I think either way one takes moral damage.

Indeed, and there is a chance that the choice that results in the long-term benefit (gradual emancipation) will never materialize. There is also the matter of appeasing a populace who is demanding change "right this very second".

However, even supposing one could look at two different universes, one where emancipation was forced and caused a painful process of reconstruction, and one where gradual emancipation prevented the painful aftermath but necessitated a few more decades of clear moral degradation, it would be a matter of opinion to say which option is better. Still, the consequences of each option (like the consequences of any set of temporal forks in the road) will resonate until the end of our species and everything we ever henceforth affect.

And that's why it's such an interesting car crash! Really, the whole affair was like the aforementioned car crash with the passengers fighting on whose right it is to steer the wheel.

Nice discussion guys. I'm reminded of why I like this forum so much.

[What Came Before]

it's interesting that the whole Feminism/rape question re Bakker has now "Primed" genre audiences to the issue, thus, they are tuned into a frequency that he probably never intended.  For a dude obsessed with cognitive failures, it is ironic that cognitive error in the human makeup could blindside him so (or be triggered/escalated by his blindnesses).

I do wonder how much he sells, the number one seller in SciFi in 2012 was Ender's Game which moved 100,000 units, almost all the rest of the top ten moved around 40,000 units.  Fantasy sells more than scifi, but if he's only moving a few units a week, versus a few tens of units a week, I can see why he's struggling, and just how much impact a seemingly small corner of the market could have on his sales.

But for someone who harps on community so much and wants to communicate with genre readers, how come he's not trying to participate in the community in the way the genre readers are attuned to?   Why hold yourself aloof like a reader of the New Yorker, bakker?

[What Came Before]

Why hold yourself aloof

I bet its as simple as, he doesn't like it and never will. Just a personal dislike of whatever it is that he dislikes that keeps him from the interaction.

[What Came Before]

+1 Ajokli .

In terms of publicity, lockesnow, I'd hazard that Bakker did himself wrong by engaging before there was a positive example.

Though, obviously, rabble-rousing never helped that conversation?

Out of curiousity, have I been doing wrong over at Westeros? I'm always interested in learning as much as possible from social engagements.

I don't think there's a plus amount I can give for the contrast between the two discussions. Thanks for being, everyone.

[What Came Before]

I don't think there's a way to do it right.  To people properly primed every new direction of an argument comes across along the lines of, "I have gay friends, but..."

But I haven't been able to keep up with that thread because there's a 30,000 word post by Lyanna that I don't want to skip and reading something that huge would probably be frowned on at work.