[ExI] The Catholic Impact (was Re: Origin of ethics and morals)

[Stefano Vaj]

On 27 December 2011 21:43, Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> This is disingenuous, because the slave trade was a feature of the
> place.

This is true, and makes for an even closer comparison with
contemporary puppet-governments of the emigrants' countries of origin,
who by allowing and actively encouraging human meat trade gets at the
same time a solution to several problems:
- how to go on with colonialistic, stagnant and feodal economies
unable to generate local development;
- how to deal with a youth obviously dissatisfied with their rule, and
potentially rebellious and/or unemployed.
- how to get an inward influx of hard currency absolutely for "free".

African "kings" used to sell their subjects in exchange for political
support, weapons and imported goods. Italian rulers in the Belle
Epoque did more or less the same. Is really contemporary emigration
any different?

What OTOH can easily prophesised is that those profiting at the other
end from the "opportunity" invariably end up, now as then, with more
problems than they had before.

> It is remarkable there are only small traces of African genes in the
> Middle East and Arabia (AKA they used their (mainly black) slaves like
> the Nazis used the Jews - they were forced to work until they died and
> often they were castrated). The treatment of the slaves in North
> American was paternal compared to the treatment in South America and
> loving compared to the treatment of Muslims.

Yes and no. Slaves and eunuchs in the Arab and Ottoman Middle East
have more than occasionally ascended to positions of power and
influence and living standards that would have been unimaginable in
societies essentially ruled by free men, as in spite of everything
Europe always managed to remain. This is simply a matter-of-fact
remark, and does not imply any opposed-and-symmetrical value judgment
with about eastern vs western slavery sociology.

-- 
Stefano Vaj