Slavery apologists resemble the GOP

Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable.

My answer: GOOD. Let it collapse. Let anything built on the blood and tears of others with no rights collapse. Sooner the better. Rebuild a more fair marketplace out of the ashes, one that doesn’t require slaves. We can all do without cotton and tobacco until we figure it out — small price to pay. Should I even have to say this?

Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society. This affluence trickled down to slaves who received food and shelter they wouldn’t have otherwise had (?) and protection in old age.

My answer: GOOD. Even if it did lead to more unemployment and a “French Revolution” style uprising, (which ending slavery of course didn’t lead to) that’s still far better than having one color leech off of another color based on skin color as if these people were animals with no rights. Come on, people. Wtf?

Defenders of the GOP policies routinely make similar arguments as the pro-Slave propagandists. They say “if you do the ‘right’ thing, people will get hurt, and if people get hurt, how is it the ‘right’ thing after all? In your effort to be ‘moral’ you are making things worse because you are too stupid to see how reality actually works.”

The best retort to this insidious bit of circular logic is twofold: 1) It’s worth the sacrifice to ensure fairness and justice for the longterm. 2) You exaggerate the negative effects of reform on the reformers, which is the only card you can play. Your motives are transparent and your arguments are bullshit.

Bottom line, let the majority decide, and if you insist on pumping out bullshit propaganda, may it be met with loud and smart rebuttals so that your poison doesn’t brainwash or scare the under-educated into supporting candidates who secretly despise the majority.

Let’s call it like it is: the pro-slavery movement was built on a belief that blacks are not people and that their lives don’t matter as much. Better that they toil and suffer as long as the noble whites live in luxury. And today’s rich conservative class movements are built on a belief that lower class and poor members of society are not human and that their lives don’t matter as much. Better that they toil and suffer as long as the rich can get richer faster to quench their endless appetite for more obscene wealth.

The main difference between the two arguments is that under the meritocracy myth, the rich get to shame and blame the poor peoples’ struggle as “their own fault” whereas the pro-Slave movement couldn’t really “blame” people for being born black. The rich can point to a clear and open path for anyone who wants to better themselves, “here just look at this listicle about success by Warren Buffett on saving money. You have your roadmap now. If you don’t follow it, that’s on you.”