Jump to content
thebutton

Impact Card for Slavery?

Recommended Posts

Well, you can find a ton of stuff on how it's dehumanizing. You can also stem just about anything off of slavery (biopower is the first thing that comes to mind). I don't really run slavery impacts so I don't have specific cards, but here's a dehumanization impact if you need that:

 

 

Dehumanization is the root of environment destruction, genocide, and war. When human dignity is disposable, all other impacts are possible.

 

Berube 1997—June-July, David, professor of communication at the University of Carolina, Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side,

http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm

 

Unfortunately, societal views of human utility are fleeting. Cultural values are simply unfixed. For example, if we were able to decide who would get to swim in the human gene pool "a few centuries ago, men with strong backs and women with broad pelvises would have been the first ones society would have wanted to reproduce. During the industrial age, however, brainpower began to count for more than muscle power" (Kluger, 1997, p. 66). George Annas, an ethicist, argues a lot of what is a better human being is faddish. At this historical juncture, we would be faced with the prospect of letting previous generations of strapping men and women die out, replacing them with a new population of intellectual giants. This seems likely when much of the control over the technology would be in the hands of the nanotechnologists, though assuredly some have broad backs and pelvises. Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record - - and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse....Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's nest of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

Edited by aburo
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who asks for "a terminal impact" to slavery is a douche who you need to call a racist bastard.

 

Okay, well I don't think you can go so far as to say slavery good (or slavery has no impact) is an inherently racist argument. Not that it couldn't be, but slavery can apply to anyone. Historically, slavery was imposed by almost every race. Furthermore, many different races were enslaved. Jews were enslaved in Egypt; Europeans enslaves one another. You can find records of slavery back to ancient Mesopotamia. I'm sure even the first cavemen would do it. I know human trafficing is very much like slavery today, and yes, it's mostly targeted at a specific race. But I don't think the issue of slavery has very much to do with racism. I don't think that reading Bardnt 91 or simply calling them out on racism would actually do anything. If I was judging the round, I wouldn't necessarily see any correlation.

 

Like I said in the earlier post, there are many analytical arguments you can make about the impact of slavery. You can also read stuff on biopower and dehumanization. There are many options you can use if they call you out on "no terminal impact". Remember that it doesn't mean you necessarily need one. If it's a kritik, I think that one impact will be okay to win with. That's because you really should be stressing the framework and alternative. If it's a disad (like if the link is "plan allows for lots of human trafficing" or something like that, just as long as it's unique), then you might need impacts. Maybe there are better impacts you can get than just slavery, or maybe there you can win with just that impact alone (maybe you have defense on all of their other advantages). But just know that there are many ways to spin the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that any author who writes about dehumanization thinks about genocide, the holocaust, and slavery/racism (except Berube, I suppose, who writes specifically for nanotech). I genuinely think you can make your own analytical internal link and then make the argument that your opponents are rejecting slavery as being dehumanizing and that is dehumanizing in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the fact that every nation has enslaved another makes it less racist? Or does it just prove that fucking everyone can be racist?

 

Thanks for proving my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every nation has enslaved another?

 

Obviously. Havent you ever taken history? Every nation in history has enslaved other nations. If I recall correctly every nation has in fact, enslaved every other nation. ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the fact that every nation has enslaved another makes it less racist? Or does it just prove that fucking everyone can be racist?

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

I didn't say that it couldn't be racist though, but only that it's not implictily racist. If someone wants to enslave someone else, I don't necessarily think there is a racist thought behind it. Groups were often enslaved because of economic or geographical reasons. I'm not saying that there weren't slaveholders who weren't racist, but I don't think it was the goal. Like I said, Europeans used to enslave other Europeans for the purposes of colonization and things like that. I don't think that slavery is inherently racist. When slavery used to be legal (or in the parts of the world where you can argue that it's legal today), most of the justifications for it were, in fact, economical. I think maybe an even bigger aspect of it, if that's the way you want to spin it, is racism through capitalism. But there at least has to be some warrent. You can't just call someone out for being racist just because they're arguing the potential benefits of slavery. They aren't in any way being derogatory toward one race.

Edited by aburo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously. Havent you ever taken history? Every nation in history has enslaved other nations. If I recall correctly every nation has in fact, enslaved every other nation. ever.

Shit, I forgot about that. Thanks for setting me strait man, you got my back.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SLAVERY IS KEY TO THE ECONOMY.

Violent Acres. Oct 28th, 2006. “I’m Bringing Slavery Back.”

<http://www.violentacres.com/archives/19/im-bringing-slavery-back>

 

Slavery would also vastly improve the economy. There would be no need to ship jobs overseas if we had perfectly good slaves to do the grunt work here. And we’d get a lot more done, too. Slaves excel in working long hours, 7 days a week, with nothing but a bag of beef jerky to sustain them. Just think of all the things we could proudly stamp ‘Made in America!’ That sticker alone would inspire pride in every American. Here is a graph showing what slaves could do for the economy if given the chance:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

lolz

Edited by rosenblum
bringin the triangle trade back
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery is also not always about race. It started out that slaves were made on the basis of you kicking thier ass in war, not based on skin color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shit, I forgot about that. Thanks for setting me strait man, you got my back.

 

I enslaved you, because it is key to my economy.

 

Edit: We aren't using slavery right now.... so... are slaves "alternative" energy? What if they sing really emo music, ITunes will call them alternative and I will call them energy... hm.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I looked through some backfiles once again and I found this card. It doesn't really give an impact, but maybe you can read Diamond 95 afterward. The warrant to this card is kind of iffy, so maybe you should just go with the "slavery is dehumanizing stuff". Anyway, here it is:

 

A. Slavery destroys the spirit of democracy.

 

Montesquieu on Slavery, from Spirit of the Laws, "In What Manner the Laws of Civil Slavery Relate to the Nature of the Climate",

http://www.uvawise.edu/history/wciv2/monteslave.html

Slavery, properly so called, is the establishment of a right which gives to one man such a power over another, as renders him absolute master of his life and fortune. The state of slavery is bad of its own nature: it is neither useful to the master nor to the slave; not to the slave, because he can do nothing thro' a motive of virtue; not to the master, because he contracts all manner of bad habits with his slaves; he accustoms himself insensibly to the want of all moral virtues; he grows fierce, hasty, severe, choleric, voluptuous, and cruel.

In despotic countries, where they are already in a state of political slavery, civil slavery is more tolerable than in other governments. Every one ought to be satisfied in those countries with necessaries and life. Hence the condition of a slave is hardly more burdensome than that of a subject. But in a monarchical government, where it is of the utmost importance that human nature should not be debased, or dispirited, there ought to be no slavery. In democracies, slavery is contrary to the spirit of the constitution; it only contributes to give a power and luxury to the citizens which they ought not to have.

 

 

B. Democracy is key to solve extinction.

 

Larry Diamond, senior fellow @ the Hoover Institution @ Stanford University, 1995

[http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives.” A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, Carnegie Corporation of New York , December, accessed 2-2-2007]

 

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.

LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another.They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations,and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slavery, culturally and historically, was not about race but about power. Nomadic African triibes would often go to war against each other and which ever tribe won normally enslaved at least part of the other tribe. It wasn't considered racist.

 

Does anyone else know another culture that practiced this?

 

You guess right - North American Indians.

 

Even in american slavery, it didn't become part of a racist dogma till much later. Whites used slaves as a means of economic means, not as a means of "whites are better than blacks" although that mentality was present, it wasn't the guiding mentality of slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slavery, culturally and historically, was not about race but about power. Nomadic African triibes would often go to war against each other and which ever tribe won normally enslaved at least part of the other tribe. It wasn't considered racist.

 

Does anyone else know another culture that practiced this?

 

You guess right - North American Indians.

 

Even in american slavery, it didn't become part of a racist dogma till much later. Whites used slaves as a means of economic means, not as a means of "whites are better than blacks" although that mentality was present, it wasn't the guiding mentality of slavery.

 

Also, you hate Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

terminally non unique. the number of people in slavery now is higher than any other point in human history. link

 

that's why you have to go for decision rule impacts, like all violations of individual liberty must be rejected.

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
terminally non unique. the number of people in slavery now is higher than any other point in human history. link

 

that's why you have to go for decision rule impacts, like all violations of individual liberty must be rejected.

 

That is intense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...