BDSM, Feminism, and Politics

[Ragoczy]

My reference to the US experience was not intended to indicate that I was only speaking of slavery as practiced in the US.

I seemed so, from the references to the Republic and States.

My point was that slavery as an institution (irrespective of the particular form practiced in one country in recent centuries) goes back as far as recorded history: a fact that was repeatedly referenced by anti-abolitionists. They pointed out, quite correctly, that many of the great and noble civilisations of the past had rested on slave labour, and concluded from this that (a) slavery is a civilised and enlightened institution, and (b) civilisation could not survive if it were abolished. History has not supported either conclusion.

Historical analysis is difficult because of context and hindsight. It's easy to say something like "See, such-and-such wasn't necessary or useful" hundreds of years later or ignoring the changes in societies, the world and technology that made such-and-such no longer useful or necessary. This is not a defense of slavery or oppression of women, but is simply my opinion that analyzing an event outside of the historical context can cause us to overlook things.

Take the Vietnam War, for instance. There are those who say the US never should have fought it and those who say that the US should have fought it differently and won. Both sides have valid points.

But I wonder, had the US not fought that war, would it have encouraged the Soviets to expand their influence further and faster, thus providing them with more resources and allowing them to achieve their stated goal of world domination?

Had the US prosecuted the war more vigorously, allowing the military to do its job instead of quarterbacking from across the globe, would a US victory and its implications have scared the Soviets into thinking they had no alternative but a nuclear option?

It's possible that the US involvement in Vietnam and the defeat there was the best possible outcome for the world -- even that "civilization" would not have survived had events not unfolded as they did.

Just because slavery was ended in Year X without the collapse of civilization, one can't draw the conclusion that it could have been abolished in Year Y (or never been instituted at all), without catastrophic impact to general civilization.

We can state a moral absolute that the institution (slavery or oppression of women) was wrong, but not conclusively that the reason or justification, based on its impact, was entirely incorrect.

[leo9]

I seemed so, from the references to the Republic and States.

Yes, I could see that was misleading with hindsight.

Historical analysis is difficult because of context and hindsight. It's easy to say something like "See, such-and-such wasn't necessary or useful" hundreds of years later or ignoring the changes in societies, the world and technology that made such-and-such no longer useful or necessary. ...

Just because slavery was ended in Year X without the collapse of civilization, one can't draw the conclusion that it could have been abolished in Year Y (or never been instituted at all), without catastrophic impact to general civilization.

And I did not intend any such conclusion. When I refered to those who pointed out the antiquity of slavery, and who concluded that because it had lasted for so long it must and should last forever, my point was that they failed to recognise that the world had changed. Whether or not slavery was a good thing in Classical times, that was not a justification for it in the Nineteenth Century.

By the same token, the fact that many (not all) past civilisations have been male-dominated does not prove that such a culture is morally or practically desirable in the Twentyfirst Century.

[Ragoczy]

And I did not intend any such conclusion. When I refered to those who pointed out the antiquity of slavery, and who concluded that because it had lasted for so long it must and should last forever, my point was that they failed to recognise that the world had changed. Whether or not slavery was a good thing in Classical times, that was not a justification for it in the Nineteenth Century.

By the same token, the fact that many (not all) past civilisations have been male-dominated does not prove that such a culture is morally or practically desirable in the Twentyfirst Century.

This I agree with, thank you for clarifying.