Racism rears its ugly head
- Thread starter over9five
- Start date
wkmac
Well-Known Member
If one wants to move what seems far afield from racism. Slavery and racism are not empirical equivalents. People have enslaved their own kind going back as far as slavery is known in ancient Sumer so a superiority of race as singularity is not necessary for an institution of slavery.
But in the form of an economic slavery, what forces one into the cash nexus in the first place? For that matter, what is economic slavery?
That would be where I'd begin to look as it would relate to 20th or 21st century slavery, if that is the term you prefer to use. You may think you see the form best at UPS in one presentation or another because it's the most familiar to you but step back to see the larger picture and that same form is everywhere in one way or another. Does this mean slavery is also everywhere?
But if true, the real question is, how did it become so? Also what is the definition of the term slavery and the origins of it? One origin is hinted above obviously.
I once read that Slavery requires a shortage of labor and a surplus of land or in economic terms, one factor of production imposing on another based on imbalance. In this case the 3 factors of production being labor, land and capital. But taking the same idea above with slavery and just switching land for capital, could the same effect occur? If so, would the slave side appear different only as a result of being under a different name? Under a form of slavery, would a labor shortage today be determined not by numbers of actual workers available but number of actual workers available at a certain price? If yes, does crashing the value of a labor market become necessary when it's (labor) potential to rise above a certain value point becomes evident? Above a certain value point, would labor refuse to work and instead run off to it's own pursuits and desires? If so, would getting labor to remain require a rise in wages to maintain the labor to capital balance?
If Kings of old piggybacked on the first form of slavery as gaining benefit of wealth and power, could a new form of King also do the same under the new form of slavery? Under the new form of King, what would become of his wealth and thus his power if the new form of slaves became economically satisfied with the product of their labor and then ran off to pursue their own wishes and desires?
If a King's power only remained as a result of the benefits of slavery and his slave holders having the right amount of slaves, would the King bestow privilege and benefits upon the slave holders often to the disadvantage of the slave? Would the King from his POV see the slave holder as to big to fail? But slavery ended as institution, right?
What if we determined that the etymology of the term slave even slightly fit modern conditions, could we say then that we fit slavery in some form? If most failed to see their condition as such, even taught to even see it another way, would this make the maintenance of said system easier? Instead of taskmasters and whip crackers to keep the slaves in line, if the new slaves policed themselves as a result of taught belief, would this benefit the new slave holders? Would new slave holders even demand slaves attend institutions that taught the slaves how to think, believe and act?
If true, is it easier now as the so-called slave fails to fully understand it's condition and thus acts as it's own cage?
BTW: If you look up the etymology of the term wage, salary or hourly rate are the same or both are wages. There is no difference. Wage is a value paid based on time, regardless of hour, day, week or month. Those are terms negotiated or given at the time of hire. Hourly rate and salary are just different forms in which wages can be distributed. Hourly rate and salary are not apples and oranges at least in definition of wage IMO.
But in the form of an economic slavery, what forces one into the cash nexus in the first place? For that matter, what is economic slavery?
That would be where I'd begin to look as it would relate to 20th or 21st century slavery, if that is the term you prefer to use. You may think you see the form best at UPS in one presentation or another because it's the most familiar to you but step back to see the larger picture and that same form is everywhere in one way or another. Does this mean slavery is also everywhere?
But if true, the real question is, how did it become so? Also what is the definition of the term slavery and the origins of it? One origin is hinted above obviously.
I once read that Slavery requires a shortage of labor and a surplus of land or in economic terms, one factor of production imposing on another based on imbalance. In this case the 3 factors of production being labor, land and capital. But taking the same idea above with slavery and just switching land for capital, could the same effect occur? If so, would the slave side appear different only as a result of being under a different name? Under a form of slavery, would a labor shortage today be determined not by numbers of actual workers available but number of actual workers available at a certain price? If yes, does crashing the value of a labor market become necessary when it's (labor) potential to rise above a certain value point becomes evident? Above a certain value point, would labor refuse to work and instead run off to it's own pursuits and desires? If so, would getting labor to remain require a rise in wages to maintain the labor to capital balance?
If Kings of old piggybacked on the first form of slavery as gaining benefit of wealth and power, could a new form of King also do the same under the new form of slavery? Under the new form of King, what would become of his wealth and thus his power if the new form of slaves became economically satisfied with the product of their labor and then ran off to pursue their own wishes and desires?
If a King's power only remained as a result of the benefits of slavery and his slave holders having the right amount of slaves, would the King bestow privilege and benefits upon the slave holders often to the disadvantage of the slave? Would the King from his POV see the slave holder as to big to fail? But slavery ended as institution, right?
What if we determined that the etymology of the term slave even slightly fit modern conditions, could we say then that we fit slavery in some form? If most failed to see their condition as such, even taught to even see it another way, would this make the maintenance of said system easier? Instead of taskmasters and whip crackers to keep the slaves in line, if the new slaves policed themselves as a result of taught belief, would this benefit the new slave holders? Would new slave holders even demand slaves attend institutions that taught the slaves how to think, believe and act?
If true, is it easier now as the so-called slave fails to fully understand it's condition and thus acts as it's own cage?
BTW: If you look up the etymology of the term wage, salary or hourly rate are the same or both are wages. There is no difference. Wage is a value paid based on time, regardless of hour, day, week or month. Those are terms negotiated or given at the time of hire. Hourly rate and salary are just different forms in which wages can be distributed. Hourly rate and salary are not apples and oranges at least in definition of wage IMO.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
That has intrinsic value. What is of greater value, gold or the knowledge of how to feed yourself, construct a shelter from available resources and the ability to clothe yourself? Gold is pretty but it runs out one way or another. Knowledge never diminishes and more often than not only increases. Knowledge is the true intrinsic value IMO!
A friend of mine put that on Facebook....I was dying it was so funny
moreluck
golden ticket member
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, huh? I hate lazy people of any color, WHITE included (so I guess I'm racist against "my people"), yet somehow you say it as I'm partially racist, Unbelievable. Think what you want, I have you on ignore, so I just have to fully ignore your BS from now on.
Buh Bye
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
T.O.S. can't help it. Neo-Liberals like him always cry racism when they are losing the argument.
Hey man, you are the one that OPENLY used the N WORD.
Dont run bro, we were just starting to understand each other. Dont hide behind the others that dont have the Superballs to do such a thing.
A racist is a racist bro. Nothing wrong with the label. If you accept it so can I.
TOS.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
You know when tos & trolls have totally lost an argument , they whip out their N... card .
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Ain't it the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Hey man, you are the one that OPENLY used the N WORD.
Dont run bro, we were just starting to understand each other. Dont hide behind the others that dont have the Superballs to do such a thing.
A racist is a racist bro. Nothing wrong with the label. If you accept it so can I.
TOS.
oldngray
nowhere special
Reports: Some teammates think QB Russell Wilson isn't black enough
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...eammates-say-russell-wilson-isnt-black-enough
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...eammates-say-russell-wilson-isnt-black-enough
dar7776
Banned
There is no such thing as being black enuff! white enff! Mexican enff! Asian enff! Etc.you r what God made you.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
This is the stupidest piece of garbage. Of all the non-imporant issues, this is the biggest.
It does sound like there are some black people who appear to be full-blown racists.
Hmm, I know that the n word is not exclusive to people of color....you, however do not seem to.
Why was it deleted then? Its clear "I" didnt delete it.
Maybe you under estimate the intentions of the word.
TOS.
It's offensive to most people (except black rap stars and their fans), that's why.
We need not argue about this any longer. I know how I view things, and you think you know, but are mistaken about my exclusive hatred of blacks and other minorities, right?
In the words of upstate....Yawn
Similar threads
