Giusi wrote:
> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> 6.120...
>> On Sun 22 Jun 2008 01:22:44a, Giusi told us...
>>
>>> "Wayne Boatwright" > ha
> However, I see no reason why whites would>>> necessarily celebrate the end
> of slavery. We weren't slaves.
>>> I am so confused. Who said that?
>> I was the one who made the previous statement.
>>
>>> It seems to me that if the majority of white people hadn't wanted an end
>>> to slavery, it would not have ended.
>
>> While it's true that there were some slaves in the North, the majority
>> were
>> in the South. I'm sure you know that the "war between the states" was
>> essentially the war between the North and South. There was only a small
>> minority of southerners who were against slavery.
>>
>> My ancestral family were plantation owners and slave owners. Much of the
>> economy of the South was dependent on these vast plantations and the
>> ablity
>> to work them. Without slaves it was impossible in that structure.
>>
>> Please note that I am not advocating slavery by any means. However,
>> whites
>> were not slaves and, especially in the South, they had no particularly
>> good
>> reason to celebrate the abolishment of slavery. It meant the demise of
>> the
>> economic and social structure they had known for generations.
>>
>> The North and its Union Army and its allies were larger and had more
>> resources. It was only natural that they would win. Because they won is
>> nnot a reason why *all* whites should celebrate the Emancipation.
>>
>> If this makes you think that I am a racist, I assure you I am not. I
>> simply have no personal reason to celebrate this. I have truly good
>> friends of various races, including blacks, and I do not differentiate
>> between any of them.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright
>
> Wayne, I could not cut that statement and still get you to explain it to me.
>
> If slavery had not been abolished, your black friends and probably some you
> don't realize it about, would be slaves. They would be bought and sold and
> their children would be chattels as well. They would be bred like animals
> to bring out certain qualities. If they escaped, they would be chased down,
> sometimes tortured and killed.
>
> To me that says they aren't really human beings. We are in the 21st
> century. Never mind who your ancestors were, would you go along with that?
>
> While it was true that the system could not go along as it had without
> slavery, it could and did go along with paid workers. They were legally
> entitled to, if they didn't always receive, the same rights we have. So
> instead of a few who were rich off the sweat and blood of others, more
> people divided the result. It happens that one of my two closest friend IS
> a plantation owner in Mississippi, so I am not ignorant of how much
> paternalism still exists among the societies. But even so, I think
> abolishing slavery was and is a good thing for white people as well as Black
> people or Jews or Poles or Gypsies or whoever was enslaved by anyone. So I
> would feel a lot closer to you if you'd say, "Hell, yes, let's celebrate the
> emancipation of slaves!"
>
>
Try looking around the rest of this old earth. Slavery still runs
rampant in some countries, primarily in Africa. Some Arab nations didn't
free their slaves until 1962 but kept them on as unpaid servants as they
"were to old to turn loose without a job." There are still slave markets
running today, none I know of in the US or any of the other Western nations.

Skin color has nothing to do with it, the Romans and Greeks enslaved any
captives and bought and sold them on the open market. The Spanish
enslaved, raped, and murdered, untold thousands of Native Americans in
all of the Americas where they were. Native American tribes enslaved
other tribes people. It appears from history that slavery was the norm
for a very long time. I would certainly hope that mankind is enlightened
enough to not enslave others but wouldn't bet on it around the world.