When slavery was abolished in the United States, all of the former slaves immediately moved to the desolately impoverished category. By the time that they died, would you say that the quality of their lives, and that of their descendants, on average, improved, stayed the same, or was worse than before?
Did it improve? Yes. Did it improve more than the general improvement through advances in technology, medicine etc.? That is at least questionable.
If we look further at unethical experiments done on primarily black communities or prison inmates, again primarily black, such as testing biological warfare agents and pharmaceutics on them, regular lynching and other acts of deadly violence, the whole forced labour in the prison system… It becomes clear, that the government still very much considered the former slaves and their descendants as property, they could largely do with as they pleased.
Wonderful perspective. Now, let’s compare that to the white population in poverty during the same time span.
Can all key differences be attributed to money? The acts of violence and unethical experiments were the result of being seen as property, as you said, which someone in poverty would not have to deal with by default. We can’t ignore the non-economical impacts of slavery.
What percentage of white and black children from impoverished homes went on to get an education or move to a different area? This comparison eliminates the bias from technological advances. If that number is greater than 0, then it proves people in poverty have the oppurtunity for growth, which is not possible under slavery.
If we want to snapshot a single moment by a single metric, yes, not having enough money to move may be comparable to not being allowed to move by your owner. But I don’t think the overall situation is close enough to say they are the functionally the same.
When slavery was abolished in the United States, all of the former slaves immediately moved to the desolately impoverished category. By the time that they died, would you say that the quality of their lives, and that of their descendants, on average, improved, stayed the same, or was worse than before?
Did it improve? Yes. Did it improve more than the general improvement through advances in technology, medicine etc.? That is at least questionable.
If we look further at unethical experiments done on primarily black communities or prison inmates, again primarily black, such as testing biological warfare agents and pharmaceutics on them, regular lynching and other acts of deadly violence, the whole forced labour in the prison system… It becomes clear, that the government still very much considered the former slaves and their descendants as property, they could largely do with as they pleased.
Wonderful perspective. Now, let’s compare that to the white population in poverty during the same time span.
Can all key differences be attributed to money? The acts of violence and unethical experiments were the result of being seen as property, as you said, which someone in poverty would not have to deal with by default. We can’t ignore the non-economical impacts of slavery.
What percentage of white and black children from impoverished homes went on to get an education or move to a different area? This comparison eliminates the bias from technological advances. If that number is greater than 0, then it proves people in poverty have the oppurtunity for growth, which is not possible under slavery.
If we want to snapshot a single moment by a single metric, yes, not having enough money to move may be comparable to not being allowed to move by your owner. But I don’t think the overall situation is close enough to say they are the functionally the same.