The "the Mortecene, the Age of Death and Killing" stuff is kind of phoney when most evidence seems to show higher rates of killing before the enlightenment than after.
Likewise other stuff - the industrial revolution can't be explained without slavery. I mean it was involved but the steam engine would have been invented anyway. And so on. Making up incorrect nonsense to fit a preconceived hypothesis.
I appreciate Gray calling out the Soviets and others but I think the whole argument is wrong.
The link between Enlightenment values and imperialism/subjugation of Asia/Africa/Americans is far from clear. Enlightenment values aside, conquering people and taking their stuff was just normal at the time. And while imperialism enriched certain people and led to economic growth, it was probably worse from a economic-growth-first perspective (compared to free trade and sovereignty).
Along the same lines, American slavery was highly profitable for some but there is no good argument that it was essential to the US's economic development. Paying workers supports economic growth by increasing productivity and demand.
Over time, this project of attacking the enlightenment/liberalism has started to seem increasingly boring and wrong to me. For one, the vast majority of these critiques rely on Enlightenment values to critique the Enlightenment. So maybe we should be more enlightened! For another, right-wing populism makes liberal capitalism much more attractive.
I don’t have the data to make a rigorous argument but my intuition tells me that slavery quite likely played a considerable role. It just feels difficult to imagine that something they were so deeply invested in for generations wasn’t that important.
I’ve also wondered if the fiction of American exceptionalism is meant to help future generations pretend that the foundation of their success isn’t built upon an incredible horror perpetrated by their ancestors.
> It just feels difficult to imagine that something they were so deeply invested in for generations wasn’t that important.
Southern culture was about having giant houses, partying, and not laboring. They didn't fight for the economics of it but rather to preserve that way of life.
> I’ve also wondered if the fiction of American exceptionalism is meant to help future generations pretend that the foundation of their success isn’t built upon an incredible horror perpetrated by their ancestors.
American exceptionalism isn't a fiction. It's probably a selection effect due to immmigration.
And the "incredible horror" is very real...but I'm not convinced that it was necessary ("built upon") for American success.
My sense is that most immigrants ended up in the north by far, which was richer, more densely populated and had better jobs. Slavery made it significantly harder for free laborers to find work in the south.
It is psychologically interesting that many people claim that slavery was the bedrock for the modern US economic. As if it's not enough to say "slavery was evil" but something more, like "slavery was evil AND without it the US would be a backwater". But I just don't see a lot of evidence for that theory being true.
Basically every civilization was built upon some form of slavery, and unfortunately slavery still takes place in many parts of the world. This was (and is) evil, yet we can’t seem to eliminate it, only push it under the rug. Often we encourage near-slavery conditions in other countries, but technically the work is “voluntary” so we don’t call it slavery. Do brutal work in the tin mines or you won’t have food for your family, and your only other choice is to join an armed militia/gang. That sort of thing.
Of course in the US we still have prison labor, thanks to the 13th amendment loophole, and under-the-table labor by immigrants, who can accept low pay and terrible conditions or get deported. Louisiana’s Angola prison is literally a former plantation and still basically operates as one.
The great hope of modernity, for those who believe in it, is that machines may finally replace slaves. (China’s “dark factories” are an example of how this could work.) Sadly we may hit planetary limits before we manage to automate the worst work, and in catabolic collapse we will almost certainly return to open slavery.
(To be clear, in no way is this a justification of slavery. It’s an indictment of the human race.)
The issue I have with that is that we conflate cheptel slavery and older forms of slavery. We changed the nature of slavery in the 17th century, but kept the same words to describe it.
Some of these are after Viking times. And even so, why should it only count if it’s after Viking times? You get a pass just because?
Besides, you almost certainly use products that use minerals produced under conditions similar to slavery. It is not possible to escape some link to this in the modern globalized world.
I never said it was necessary, only that it was universal.
I suspect that the recent aversion to slavery is more of a function of our relative level of development (and the education that comes with it) than anything else. Morality can only thrive when there is a reasonable standard of living, otherwise people will find ways to justify evil.
Today it seems that we are at a level of development where we can only justify slavery if it is out of sight. I hope we can advance further, but we may be at our limit, as other moral taboos are already breaking down.
I think the reason for it is actually pretty banal. Rationality won. But it didn't win over irrationality, but over superrationality, and we just suffer the horrors of its wrongness.
The "the Mortecene, the Age of Death and Killing" stuff is kind of phoney when most evidence seems to show higher rates of killing before the enlightenment than after.
Likewise other stuff - the industrial revolution can't be explained without slavery. I mean it was involved but the steam engine would have been invented anyway. And so on. Making up incorrect nonsense to fit a preconceived hypothesis.
I appreciate Gray calling out the Soviets and others but I think the whole argument is wrong.
The link between Enlightenment values and imperialism/subjugation of Asia/Africa/Americans is far from clear. Enlightenment values aside, conquering people and taking their stuff was just normal at the time. And while imperialism enriched certain people and led to economic growth, it was probably worse from a economic-growth-first perspective (compared to free trade and sovereignty).
Along the same lines, American slavery was highly profitable for some but there is no good argument that it was essential to the US's economic development. Paying workers supports economic growth by increasing productivity and demand.
Over time, this project of attacking the enlightenment/liberalism has started to seem increasingly boring and wrong to me. For one, the vast majority of these critiques rely on Enlightenment values to critique the Enlightenment. So maybe we should be more enlightened! For another, right-wing populism makes liberal capitalism much more attractive.
I don’t have the data to make a rigorous argument but my intuition tells me that slavery quite likely played a considerable role. It just feels difficult to imagine that something they were so deeply invested in for generations wasn’t that important.
I’ve also wondered if the fiction of American exceptionalism is meant to help future generations pretend that the foundation of their success isn’t built upon an incredible horror perpetrated by their ancestors.
> It just feels difficult to imagine that something they were so deeply invested in for generations wasn’t that important.
Southern culture was about having giant houses, partying, and not laboring. They didn't fight for the economics of it but rather to preserve that way of life.
> I’ve also wondered if the fiction of American exceptionalism is meant to help future generations pretend that the foundation of their success isn’t built upon an incredible horror perpetrated by their ancestors.
American exceptionalism isn't a fiction. It's probably a selection effect due to immmigration.
And the "incredible horror" is very real...but I'm not convinced that it was necessary ("built upon") for American success.
Did the wealth from slavery play an important role in making the U.S. attractive for significant immigration to begin with?
My sense is that most immigrants ended up in the north by far, which was richer, more densely populated and had better jobs. Slavery made it significantly harder for free laborers to find work in the south.
It is psychologically interesting that many people claim that slavery was the bedrock for the modern US economic. As if it's not enough to say "slavery was evil" but something more, like "slavery was evil AND without it the US would be a backwater". But I just don't see a lot of evidence for that theory being true.
Basically every civilization was built upon some form of slavery, and unfortunately slavery still takes place in many parts of the world. This was (and is) evil, yet we can’t seem to eliminate it, only push it under the rug. Often we encourage near-slavery conditions in other countries, but technically the work is “voluntary” so we don’t call it slavery. Do brutal work in the tin mines or you won’t have food for your family, and your only other choice is to join an armed militia/gang. That sort of thing.
Of course in the US we still have prison labor, thanks to the 13th amendment loophole, and under-the-table labor by immigrants, who can accept low pay and terrible conditions or get deported. Louisiana’s Angola prison is literally a former plantation and still basically operates as one.
The great hope of modernity, for those who believe in it, is that machines may finally replace slaves. (China’s “dark factories” are an example of how this could work.) Sadly we may hit planetary limits before we manage to automate the worst work, and in catabolic collapse we will almost certainly return to open slavery.
(To be clear, in no way is this a justification of slavery. It’s an indictment of the human race.)
The issue I have with that is that we conflate cheptel slavery and older forms of slavery. We changed the nature of slavery in the 17th century, but kept the same words to describe it.
> Basically every civilization was built upon some form of slavery
Do you count Sweden here? Denmark? Norway? Are we not civilized or do you claim we had significant slavery in post-viking times?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_slave_trade
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/09/28/slave-trading-past-s...
https://cphpost.dk/2016-09-28/business-education/denmarks-ow...
https://fondaskreyol.org/article/how-the-danish-sold-tamils-...
https://aaregistry.org/story/the-swedish-african-slave-trade...
Some of these are after Viking times. And even so, why should it only count if it’s after Viking times? You get a pass just because?
Besides, you almost certainly use products that use minerals produced under conditions similar to slavery. It is not possible to escape some link to this in the modern globalized world.
The ubiquity of slavery doesn't imply that slavery was necessary for the development of modern countries/economies.
It just implies that, through much of history, people didn't see anything wrong with slavery.
I never said it was necessary, only that it was universal.
I suspect that the recent aversion to slavery is more of a function of our relative level of development (and the education that comes with it) than anything else. Morality can only thrive when there is a reasonable standard of living, otherwise people will find ways to justify evil.
Today it seems that we are at a level of development where we can only justify slavery if it is out of sight. I hope we can advance further, but we may be at our limit, as other moral taboos are already breaking down.
> I never said it was necessary, only that it was universal.
Fair enough!
I'm much more optimistic than you. I think we'll keep muddling along, slowly improving morally for the forseable future.
I hope you are right.
If there was a strong relationship, shouldn't Brazil be much richer, given that a lot of slaves were forced to live & work in Brazil?
Indeed, there was wide spread slavery before Enlightenment, white lords enslaving white peasants all over Europe.
I think the reason for it is actually pretty banal. Rationality won. But it didn't win over irrationality, but over superrationality, and we just suffer the horrors of its wrongness.
[dead]
archive.ph: https://archive.ph/wdEuy