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?
- 0 Posts
- 853 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: September 25th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Being physically owned is functionally different from struggling to afford your choice of housing and cuisine. I am really not sure how you would like me to elaborate the complete lack of bodily autonomy and freedom. Being provided bare necessities does not functionally negate the inability to get educated, to choose a profession, to leave a property, to not get physically abused, to be separated from your family, to be denied thr right to marry, to be sold.
It’s his stepfather, but okay.
3·4 days agoDone today, it would acknowledge the valid existence of different sexual and gender identities, which would be an absolutely monumental shift in messaging. Even during Democratic leadership, it would be signal support for rights and equality, instead of diagnosis and demonizing.
My autisitic son insists that pink isn’t a real color and has no business being included in any rainbow.
If the White House in the US raised the same flag today, would it have meaning?
It wasn’t meant as any sort of insult, more of the trope of overanalizing innocuous things.
You sound like a high school English teacher.
Okay, I can settle for mosquitos and wasps going extinct.
It used to be, then language naturally evolved.
Or not. Fuck Target too.
2·9 days agoI’m sorry if basic facts come across as criticism? My headline today: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c20xel1e97gt
1·11 days agoYou think old poor don’t have crushing credit card debt?
2·12 days agoI tried switching my family over, but being unable to install it on a second device or tablet was a deal breaker.
Realistically, gene editing will never be affordable for the vast majority of the world’s population. But today, abortion is chosen up to 93% of the time instead. If the alternative is a live, healthy birth, I can’t see any ethical issues.
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.