 |
| Artist's depiction of the exact amount of energy and thought that went into using Christianity to justify slavery. |
CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "The Science of Justifying Wrong." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 26 Dec 2017. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
Muhammad Rasheed - [WIKI] “Joseph Smith and Brigham Young reasoned that black skin was a result of the Curse of Cain or the Curse of Ham."
Dafuq kind of 'reasoning' was THAT?
[WIKI] "Joseph Smith founded the movement in Western New York in the 1820s."
Oh, okay. Now it makes sense. That was the typical "reasoning" mindset during slavery.
Zod Hamilton - Thats one of the ways they justified slavery by Christian rules.
Muhammad Rasheed - Christianity had nothing to do with that. They pulled that shit out of their ass FOR the slave institution and pretended it was Christianity. Christian Americans led the fight against slavery at every step of the way, and claptrap similar to what Smith "reasoned" was the counter.
Steve Plater - Exploited Christianity is more like it.
Hall Hall - @M. Rasheed... Let’s not hide the fact that Christianity was used by the slave masters to justify slavery. And to keep the black man turning the other cheek.
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The slave owners cheerfully used any and everything to justify keeping their gravy train rolling, while other Christians used their religion to lead the fight against slavery.
2.) The "turn the other cheek" doctrine didn't stop the slaves from revolting in uprisings all the time though. hahaha The slaves knew when people were blowing smoke up their butts.
Obviously the fault isn't with the religion , but with the evil ones who just wanted to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Ken Peck - This theory predates Smith & Young by several centuries. Yes, it was used to justify slavery. You might be interested in this book: Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi
Muhammad Rasheed - So far I'm having issue with how Kendi is using the word "Muslim." Is he aware that it describes the practitioners of a religion, and not a race? Most of the "Arabs" are dark-skinned peoples of varying ethnic groups who spoke Arabic.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kendi wrote: "The lineage of this curse of Ham theory curves back through the great Persian scholar Tabari (838-923) all the way to Islamic and Hebrew sources."
The idea of the Curse of Ham from the bible doesn't inflict "blackness" upon the boy. That interpretation of the tale comes from the Talmud, as Kendi references in the above quote, which is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is that it was the Jews who set up the model for the Atlantic Slave Trade in the first place, and did so with a smooth, and well-practiced fluidity demonstrating that they had been using that method for quite some time.
Muhammad Rasheed - The using of the "Ham's curse" concept -- which never had anything to do with Christianity -- to justify slavery, while the big fight to end slavery was always led by Christians from their own rightly-guided understanding of the bible, means that the fault is with the corrupt and greedy enslavers, not with Christianity.
Ken Peck - Or maybe Martin Luther, who came up with the notion that any idiot could interpret the Bible for himself.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't see your point in context. The concept of the curse of Ham affliction being 'blackness' came from the Talmud, as the rabbis themselves sought to justify why it was okay to trade in Black bodies. Obviously their Christian trading partners eagerly received the concept from them so they could simultaneously get rich and sleep at night.
Dalet Yasharahla - Refer to Revelations 13:10.
Also Mr. Muhammad feel free to research trans saharah slave trade.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dalet wrote: "Refer to Revelations 13:10."
So after a string of verses describing the forces of a ruler of evil sowing mischief in the earth, we find Rev 13:10 explaining that the believers of that time will require the patience and faith "of the saints" as the forces of evil will be captured as slaves and killed just as they did to the believers. If this cherry-picked verse was being used to justify the enslavement of Blacks, then that definitely supports my cartoon's message.
Dalet wrote: "Also Mr. Muhammad feel free to research trans saharah slave trade."
lol I am quite familiar with it. Have you come to make the case that the Arab and/or Muslims also used the bible to justify their own slavery? ;) I am open to hear your argument points.
Throw Down Your Rod.
Dalet Yasharahla - The "cherry picked" verse is actually the opposite of your message. What slavery has the Arab or Muslim had? Simply highlighting the fact that the Arab peoples had us in bondage for about 1400 years ±.
Muhammad Rasheed - The verse is saying that the villain who had previously been enslaving and killing would be himself enslaved and killed, and that the believers would have to have faith and patience. That's what it is saying in the context of the chapter.
The Arab world has continued their slavery, after a short time period in the earliest days of Islam in which it almost faded away. It was brought back by greedy men who acted outside of their religion. That's the most important part. To get them to stop the practice, their blood must be spilled, since the greedily corrupt rarely perform righteous deeds to those they oppress on their own initiative.
Chester Erickson - To be fair, these days the most common proponent of human slavery is muslims. But, you never know, Christianity might get back in the game.
Chester Erickson - To be fair, most slaves taken from africa went to South America, and for a longer time too.
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Any Muslims practicing slavery do so from the same motivations as everyone else doing it: greed. The revealed scripture of the One God does not encourage the practice at all, so any secondary works making the claim are fictions.
2.) The Western legacy families and their supporters, whose ancestors owned chattel slaves before the Civil War, are still continuing and profiting from the enslavement of Blacks today. They just label it something else now, and justify it from a different angle.
Muhammad Rasheed - I fail to see what the South American part has to do with anything. Your use of "to be fair" implies something is being refuted.
Chester Erickson - Well, you're stating that the slaves went to the US land, right? Well, the vast majority of slaves did not go to US. They went to Brazil. So, don't blame only the US, also blame other places where the slaves were sent.
Chester Erickson - [VIDEO] The Slave Trade In Two Minutes
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm an African-American whose ancestor's on both sides of my parental lines were enslaved in the United States of America, Chester. Are you supposed to be saying that I don't have a right to discuss my own people's history because some other people were going through the same thing? Please confirm.
Chester Erickson - Discuss what you want, but please be all-inclusive in your claims.
Chester Erickson - Bias doesn't fit you well. Dig your drawings, btw :)
Chester Erickson - Essentially, the Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying. Not only the Americans.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Discuss what you want, but please be all-inclusive in your claims."
No. That's not a thing. Your South America comment serves only as an attempt to distract from a topic you are uncomfortable discussing. I'm not Brazilian, Chester. I'm a descendant of the slaves of the USA. I may focus on my own ethnic group in such a discussion as I like.
Fake 'Black Code' conversation rules designed to control how and what I can talk about, that are invented on the fly by a white male, are rejected. Please don't do that again.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Essentially, the Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying. Not only the Americans."
I doubt it since there was a very strong cartel involved, under very strict contracts. Who was allowed to trade was strictly enforced.
Chester Erickson - Those who were buying were in Brazil, Caribbean, and (what would become) the US. That's who the Dutch sold to. In any case, I do agree with your point that slavery is codified in the bible. However, it's true that we see it elsewhere, too.
Muhammad Rasheed - The folk who owned and controlled the lands in the Caribbean and much of South America lived in New England.
Chester Erickson - Hm, you'll have to show proof that New England colonies owned South America. Heck, back then, New England was barely a small theater in the greater wars of England and France. What I've read states that South America was primarily colonized by the Spanish.
Muhammad Rasheed - Not "colonies," but New England families.
Businesses owned those lands, and traded the slaves on Wall Street as stocks, with people owning shares even in Europe.
Chester Erickson - However, this is your meme, so don't feel obligated to reply :) You do good work with your drawings, so I don't want to ruffle your feathers.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "Businesses owned those lands, and traded the slaves on Wall Street as stocks, with people owning shares even in Europe"
Interesting. As a skeptic, I will investigate the veracity of these statements.
Muhammad Rasheed - The only thing you posted that "ruffled my feathers" was your attempt to control how and what I wanted to discuss. Other than that, I'm always open to dialog as it feeds my art.
Chester Erickson - Well, I was trying to help you avoid cherry picking, but I understand now that your scope was personal (historical) experience. ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "As a skeptic, I will investigate the veracity of these statements."
It seems odd that you weren't already read up on the topic judging solely by the confidence and passion you initially brought to the thread. You seem to have a whole lot of faith in shallow partisan political talking points. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Well, I was trying to help you avoid cherry picking..."
That wasn't the impression you left on me. I've experienced white men attempting to manipulate the topic of discussion away from uncomfortable truths before. Your "help" actually felt exactly like that.
Muhammad Rasheed - But I do appreciate the attempt to help me though. Good looking out.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "You seem to have a whole lot of faith in shallow partisan political talking points. lol"
It is wise to not take advantage of someone's politeness.
See you in the funny papers.
Cheers!
Muhammad Rasheed - In the future, you may wish to use a little less "nice-nasty/passive aggressive" when mixing your serving of politeness. It may help with your authenticity attempts.
Chester Erickson - Just so you know, in case we ever interact again, I'm a proponent of equality for all. So, in the case of my future arguments, at least give me that benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming I'm some white man trying to oppress you.
Chester Erickson - I'm a skeptic and an empiricist. I'm afraid you won't get much in the way of emotional reactions from me :)
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Chester, in the future, when attempting to engage in conversation with Black people, please do NOT attempt to tell them how and what they are allowed to talk about in an open discussion. It 100% does not come across as if you are a proponent of "equality for all." Just the opposite in fact. I give that advice freely from my heart because I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't really mean to be that way.
Chester Erickson - Hm. Noted. However, I've never had my friends (of various origins) give me such advice in the 50+ years of my life. Perhaps they knew me before judging me. Anyway, thanks for the advice. All things being equal, I'm off to do something else.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "I'm a skeptic..."
You should be MORE skeptical then. Or at least practice turning the skepticism you do have in directions you aren't used to.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "Or at least practice turning the skepticism you do have in directions you aren't used to."
Can you provide an example where I didn't use skepticism?
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Hm. Noted. However, I've never had my friends (of various origins) give me such advice in the 50+ years of my life."
How do you do? I am M. Rasheed. Pleased to meet you.
Chester wrote: "Perhaps they knew me before judging me."
lol I judged you based on how you treated me in this very thread. You may wish to reconsider your usage of a one-size-fits-all approach when you wander outside of your art studio. lol
Chester Erickson - Well, it seems you're back to personal insults. I've got better things to do with my time than listen to that BS. Congrats, though, you successfully moved the goalposts from my OP, for which there is much empirical evidence. Best Regards, Chester.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me why you consider that an insult, while not acknowledging the insult you bopped me with, please.
Muhammad Rasheed - I told you I was insulted by your approach, you said no one ever complained of that before, I advised on being more aware that other people are actually different, and you claimed to be insulted by that.
And here I remember you saying something about not being emotional... At least I THINK that was you.
Chester Erickson - It seems my empirically-verifiable OP is what set you off to begin with, based on your initial reply. I've been trying to avoid antagonizing you, but if you refuse to reciprocate, then I'll argue back. Do us all a favor, and google "muslim slavery today in africa". Please report what you find including, if possible, how you found my claim to be false.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy your work. It's edgy. But I can live without it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Can you provide an example where I didn't use skepticism?"
Yes. Please note the following items:
1.) Someone told you one must be "all-inclusive in your claims" when engaging in discussions.
2.) Someone told you that "Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying."
3.) Someone told you that "Those who were buying were in Brazil, Caribbean, and (what would become) the US. That's who the Dutch sold to."
4.) Someone told you (regarding the slave trade) that "back then, New England was barely a small theater."
All of these bullets are verifiably false. Were you to have practiced more precision while wielding your proud skepticism, it may have avoided you proudly and confidently proclaiming these as truths for the public record.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "2.) Someone told you that 'Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying.'"
And they would, in the three areas I stated.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "3.) Someone told you that 'Those who were buying were in Brazil, Caribbean, and (what would become) the US. That's who the Dutch sold to.'"
Yep, that's true.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "4.) Someone told you (regarding the slave trade) that 'back then, New England was barely a small theater.'"
Yep, the US Revolution was funded by the French. Our troops were trained by the French. The French provided food and supplies.
Chester Erickson - So, I suggest you brush up on history, smart guy.
Chester Erickson - Now, back to my statement about muslim slavery. Would you care to get back to the subject of the OP?
Chester Erickson - Here, let me help you:
https://www.google.com/search... muslim+slavery+today+in+africa
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "It seems my empirically-verifiable OP is what set you off to begin with, based on your initial reply."
I told you the part that upset me. It was the part when you started trying to tell me what I could talk about, that I HAD to include South America in my discourse (or get an "F"?)
Chester wrote: "I've been trying to avoid antagonizing you..."
If that were true, then you would have simply apologized once I told you what the antagonizing issue actually was.
Chester wrote: "...but if you refuse to reciprocate, then I'll argue back."
Active debate is the raw goo I draw from for my art, Chester. It's fine. If you're game (and have the time) then so do I. I always have an open slot for new regulars with different POVs.
Chester wrote: "Do us all a favor, and google "muslim slavery today in africa". Please report what you find including, if possible, how you found my claim to be false."
I addressed that in the two-point post below it. Please tell me why you don't consider it a good enough counter. Wait, is it because it didn't reference South America? *snort*
Chester wrote: "Don't get me wrong. I enjoy your work. It's edgy. But I can live without it."
This comment is out of place here, and unworthy of you. Please stop saying that kind of stuff. Thank you for your earlier compliments, but now it's getting weird and sounding kind of "threat-like."
Chester Erickson - So, regarding your meme, yes, Christians did use the bible to justify slavery. However, muslims are somehow justifying slavery, and the problem is happening *NOW* to real people alive today. So, cheers, to your drawing - you got part of it right. I wonder if you'll put out a drawing showing the other part.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "So, regarding your meme, yes, Christians did use the bible to justify slavery."
The point of the cartoon is to show that there was no real effort in using the bible to justify slavery. The greedy just said whatever and did it because they wanted to. The cartoon is actually a defense of the Christian religion itself regarding the slave trade. The Qur'an wasn't used to justify slavery either, because it doesn't.
Greedy men did greedy stuff is the message. The religions themselves are clean, especially in Islam's case.
Chester Erickson - So you're really going to try denying that slavery has been a part of Islam since at least the 8th century AD? It's still going on today, man. It doesn't matter what the prophet says. It doesn't matter what Allah said. They're *doing it right now*. And, I guess the ultimate question is.. who is going to stop them?
Chester Erickson - I guess I could make the same argument, then, that it was just bad men trading slaves in the US. It wasn't that they were Christian.
Chester Erickson - And, of course you know that slavery is mentioned many times in the Qur'an.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "So you're really going to try denying that slavery has been a part of Islam since at least the 8th century AD?"
Yes. It was actually almost wiped out in the early years because of how it is described in the Qur'an. But it was brought back because of greed. By default that means it was never of the religion, but of the greedy men upholding the economic institution of it.
Chester wrote: "It's still going on today, man."
So?
Chester wrote: "It doesn't matter what the prophet says."
lol Of COURSE it matters.
Chester wrote: "It doesn't matter what Allah said."
Of COURSE it matters what God says. Do you hear yourself?
Chester wrote: "They're *doing it right now*."
Greedy men do a lot of shit outside of the ideals they are supposed to be following on paper. That's not a slight against the ideals, but against them.
Chester wrote: "And, I guess the ultimate question is.. who is going to stop them?"
Slavery has been around almost as long as humans have. At this point it should be obvious that it isn't going anywhere. It's too profitable.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "I guess I could make the same argument, then, that it was just bad men trading slaves in the US. It wasn't that they were Christian."
That's actually MY argument, and the central message of the cartoon.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "And, of course you know that slavery is mentioned many times in the Qur'an."
lol If you're supposed to be implying that someone told you that all of those mentions were somehow pro-slavery, then you may add that bullet to the list of faux-factoids that you should've been skeptical of when you first heard them.
Chester Erickson - Hm, seems to me the message is that they are Christians who use Christianity to justify slavery, while making a profit.
Chester Erickson - Don't play coy, Muhammad. You've read the verses. You know they're not anti-slavery. Don't be deceitful.
Muhammad Rasheed - It was the flip "it's in the bible or whatever" that was the punchline. Obviously he didn't do any research into it; he was just saying shit to hurry up and get back to counting his trafficking loot.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester, I read the verses and that's why I can confidently say what I said. I know my Book, and the message of Allah.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's why I am Muslim.
Chester Erickson - 24:32... this verse is anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - *sighhh*
Chester Erickson - 16:75... this one is anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - So which site are you pulling these from? AnsweringIslam? AnsweringMuslims?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Okay, stand by...
Chester Erickson - just answer the question. are those verses anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - Hold on, I'm looking them up. Loading...
Chester Erickson - you don't know them off the top of your head?
Muhammad Rasheed - No. What am I? The Rain-Man? That's why God created the Internet. lol
Chester Erickson - No, man. Al Gore created the internet ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - (who created him though? And all the parts to make it? c'mon now)
Chester Erickson - oh no, it's an abiogenesis debate :D this'll go nowhere fast ;)
Muhammad Rasheed -
Chester Erickson - Or, does it passively condone it?
Muhammad Rasheed -
Muhammad Rasheed - Both verses acknowledge that slavery is going on in that society at the time of revelation. Neither is actively encouraging slavery. The latter one is just using the concept of 'slave' in an allegorical point, while the former tells the believers who they are allowed to marry to protect their virtue. Naturally if you marry a slave, there's a very high chance you'll end up freeing him/her.
Muhammad Rasheed - Any others?
Muhammad Rasheed - Don't be shy.
Chester Erickson - You didn't answer my question at all. Are the verses anti-slavery?
Chester Erickson - It's a simple yes/no answer.
Chester Erickson - No flourish required.
Muhammad Rasheed - No, they are not anti-slavery because that isn't the point of those two verses.
Chester Erickson - At any point in the Qur'an, is an anti-slavery sentiment proposed?
Muhammad Rasheed - Neither of those verses are about the institution or practice of slavery itself. They don't represent 'slave commands" or anything like that. What else do you have more in line to the point you're trying to force?
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "At any point in the Qur'an, is an anti-slavery sentiment proposed?"
Yup. In fact, I was expecting you to post one.
Chester Erickson - You seem to want to avoid accepting the idea that verses from the quran can be interpreted to condone slavery, and that it's happening right now in the real world.
Muhammad Rasheed - I actually thought you were going to spam me with every single Qur'anic slavery mentions like the trolls always do.
Chester Erickson - No reason to do that. My point is made.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "...that verses from the quran can be interpreted to condone slavery..."
This is also unworthy of you. The message is clear. If someone wants to twist the message to shoehorn their greed into it, that is not a slight against the Book. You know better.
Chester Erickson - Your reply, so far, to the concept of slavery has been:
"Slavery has been around almost as long as humans have. At this point it should be obvious that it isn't going anywhere. It's too profitable."
While that view is rational, it should not be the goal of humanity to passively accept slavery.
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The Qur'an says XYZ
2.) Greedy men do ABC
3.) Non-Muslims: "AH HA!! The Qur'an says ABC because look at THOSE guys!!!"
Is this really how you want to leave this conversation? hahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Your reply, so far, to the concept of slavery has been"
Well, to be fair, my ethnic group is still being enslaved today under a different label, and the same old families and the aristocracy built around it, are still profiting from it at my expense. The last time "humanity" actively tried to stop it resulted in the bloodiest war in American history, followed by a century of terror against my people that ultimately returned us to the shackles in a police state.
I am under no illusions that to free us from slavery will result in an even bloodier war that will last much longer.
Chester Erickson - Regardless of your emotional plea, that does not change the fact that humanity should strive for something better than living in the past. Slavery, at a global level, needs to be abolished.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're very brave to say such a thing after the nature of my "emotional plea." lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Basically, there's too much money involved for it not to take a war to stop it.
Muhammad Rasheed - A global war.
Chester Erickson - Perhaps so. When the alternative is enslavement of others, then it's worth it. However, there are other ways to pursue equality.
Chester Erickson - Personally I believe that we as a species should strive to expand to other worlds and moons, and space. This would be a much more productive use of our time, rather than focusing on the past.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Equality" is the next step after slavery is abolished (again).
Chester Erickson - Equality will only come once more things than slavery are abolished. But, yes, slavery is one of those things.
Muhammad Rasheed - Expand to other worlds and moons, and space while we are still in the process of fucking up this planet? Do you hear yourself? lol
So you're saying we SHOULDN'T finally learn from the lessons of the past to improve, but instead should infest the rest of the solar system with our craziness like the virus Agent Smith described?
Muhammad Rasheed - wow...
Muhammad Rasheed - Remind me not to vote YOU in as POTUS.
Stick to cartooning.
Chester Erickson - Ah, therein lies a difference. I believe that the act of expansion will help us figure out how not to fuck things up. Perhaps give people the space between us we need. And, also prevent an "all eggs in one basket" scenario.
Chester Erickson - "lessons of the past" is not the same as "baggage of the past"
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester Erickson wrote: "Ah, therein lies a difference. I believe that the act of expansion will help make the corporations and politicians richer."
*fixed*
Muhammad Rasheed - It's only "baggage" if you never learn from it and improve. If you learn from and become better then it is just the archive of lessons learned.
Chester Erickson - Do you hate the wealthy?
Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean?
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "I believe that the act of expansion will help make the corporations and politicians richer."
^this.
Muhammad Rasheed - The legacy families that currently compose the 1% are my active enemy in the earth. Those are the descendants and support class of my enslavers.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fuck yeah I hate them.
Muhammad Rasheed - If we "expanded into space" today, it would literally do nothing but make them richer while they gave themselves more tax cuts.
Chester Erickson - Personally, I'm fine with wealth. I'm not fine with people who use their wealth to abuse others.
Muhammad Rasheed - And that's my stance, too.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have a problem with wealth building and wealth builders as a concept. it's THOSE assholes who are my problem.
Muhammad Rasheed - Who have been my problem for the last 500 yrs.
Chester Erickson - Who cares if they get tax cuts? Once we get away from Earth the rules mean nothing. Life will become a hardship, but a *chosen* hardship with the potential of meaning.
Muhammad Rasheed - You read a lot of Jack Vance and Roddenberry...
Muhammad Rasheed - The reality will not match up to your fav sci-fi novels, Chester.
Muhammad Rasheed - Certainly not for me.
Chester Erickson - lol... roddenberry, sure. Yes, it's true that at first the connections to Earth will remain, but over time they will fade.
Chester Erickson - The distances will become too great for a central command structure.
Muhammad Rasheed - Groups of wealthy white men with no "central command structure" rules, on uncharted wilderness...
...and me.
>:(
Forgive me if that concept doesn't make me feel warm & fuzzy.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're gonna hafta get googoo-eyed over that fantasy by yourself, chief. >:(
Muhammad Rasheed - *Been There; Done That*
Chester Erickson - the various directions in which humanity travels in space will become ring species, unable to breed and adapted to their respective environments.
Muhammad Rasheed - (i'll launch the damn nukes myself if i have to)
Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, but WAAAYYYY before we get to the "ring species" part, my people will be forced to relive chattel slavery 3.0. >:(
Chester Erickson - Nah, even though the recent past has been rough, the overall experience of Civilization is a success. Personally, I don't think it's the responsibility of this generation to choose to destroy it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Uncharted wilderness doesn't plant cash crops by itself, you know?
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "my people will be forced to relive chattel slavery 3.0"
We *ALL* will.
Muhammad Rasheed - The "promise to the white working class" will ensure that it won't be you.
Unless I get my hands on the keys to SkyNet or whatever.
Chester Erickson - It's not about profit. It's about survival of this thing we call life.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dude.
It's ALWAYS about profits. That's is the heart & soul of western civilization.
Profits.
Muhammad Rasheed - Massive profits for the aristocracy.
Chester Erickson - Hey... have you ever seen Charlie Chaplain's "The Great Dictator"?
Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. Just clips over the years.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm guessing there's an expansion into space in it? Since you've kinda turned into a one-trick pony now.
Chester Erickson - I am an evangelical for space exploration, yes lol.
Muhammad Rasheed - hahahaha
Chester Erickson - You've probably seen the speech at the end?
Muhammad Rasheed - Not since the '90s...
Chester Erickson - But, no, the speech tells a "different way" to all the people within earshot.
Chester Erickson - Well, there are three options there. Let them win, global war, or get away from them... into space.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're very naive on this item, particularly in your efforts to sell it to an African-American.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Let me break your proposed options down for you...
Chester Erickson - To me, the speech is inspiring. I'll post a video: [VIDEO] The Greatest Speech Ever Made
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) LET THEM WIN
This is what Trump's reign is leading to. A return to some kind of Old World serfdom shit. Letting them win will be the destruction of the American Experiment, and a return to old forms of oppressive government.
2.) GLOBAL WAR
This is the only way to stop #1 from continuing at it's current direction. Since it's the only way, it is my preferred option personally.
3.) ...OR GET AWAY FROM THEM... INTO SPACE
Are you insane? Who's going into space? The wealthy will have the equipment built, a class of space explorers will be cast, and a cast of bondsmen to do the work the Explorer Class doesn't want to do, just like in the slave era! I'm NOT going back, Chester! I'll tear ALLL this shit up first. You can go by yourself and be a space explorer of YOU. Maybe take your dog.
Chester Erickson - The effort to develop the technology to easily move humans into space will keep us extremely busy, and away from war. That effort, by the way, has already begun.
Muhammad Rasheed - I've seen stuff with private corporations making their own space exploration efforts. I believe one was called "Dutch East Martian Trading Company" or something similar. I'll have to look it up. >:(
Chester Erickson - SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are also working on such plans.
Muhammad Rasheed - [WIKI] Dutch East India Company
Chester Erickson - LOL. Yeah, wouldn't surprise me to see new companies pop up like that. At least for a while.
Muhammad Rasheed - dude... >:(
Chester Erickson - Not saying I agree with them. Just saying.. yeah, you would probably be right.
Chester Erickson - And there would also be *honest* corps you can work for.
Chester Erickson - And don't forget about the robots who can already do a lot of work for humans. Their functionality will only improve in an expanding society.
Muhammad Rasheed - They will also be expensive.
Muhammad Rasheed - Will it be cheaper to build a bunch of robots, or throw Black people back in chains?
Muhammad Rasheed - ......................
Muhammad Rasheed - *joins NRA*
Chester Erickson - Probably not so expensive, once they standardize. And cheap to replace, without all of those ethical quandaries associated with slavery. They also work 24x7x365.
Muhammad Rasheed - They also wear out and require regular maintenance. Also expensive.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not going to pick cotton on Ganymede, Chester. #FightMe
Muhammad Rasheed - >:(
Chester Erickson - Let's say a robot costs $1M and they last 10 years. That's not too far off from a human salary.
Chester Erickson - I could calculate the hourly rate, too, but I'm afraid humans won't come out too well there, either.
Chester Erickson - So, we humans are going to need something to do... guess what I would suggest... ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - That's a whole lot of wishy-washy-iffy guess work about robots when they know for a fact how much slaves cost and they are currently 100% fine with slave labor. >:(
Muhammad Rasheed - Them and all of their overseas buddies. >:(
Muhammad Rasheed - I'll watch the Chaplin clip you linked to if you watch the 13th documentary by Ava DuVernay.
Chester Erickson - It's only iffy because there are variables in the model, as there should be. We already have companies selling robots for manufacturing, and we've also got humanoid robots helping out on the ISS, so models and pipelines for sales and manufacturing have been worked out.
Muhammad Rasheed - I KNOW why it's iffy! That's why the very first thing they'll reach for is ME while they tinker with their R2 units. >:(
Chester Erickson - Hm... I'll watch it, but I suspect I've already seen much of the content. Deal!
Muhammad Rasheed - Let me know when you're done. We'll meet back here and make fun of each other's suggestion.
Chester Erickson - To be honest, my wife and I are about to do something for a few hours. But - we'll watch it and let you know later tonight.
Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't mean TODAY. Just let me know when you do.
Muhammad Rasheed - (tmi btw)
Chester Erickson -
Dafuq kind of 'reasoning' was THAT?
[WIKI] "Joseph Smith founded the movement in Western New York in the 1820s."
Oh, okay. Now it makes sense. That was the typical "reasoning" mindset during slavery.
Zod Hamilton - Thats one of the ways they justified slavery by Christian rules.
Muhammad Rasheed - Christianity had nothing to do with that. They pulled that shit out of their ass FOR the slave institution and pretended it was Christianity. Christian Americans led the fight against slavery at every step of the way, and claptrap similar to what Smith "reasoned" was the counter.
Steve Plater - Exploited Christianity is more like it.
Hall Hall - @M. Rasheed... Let’s not hide the fact that Christianity was used by the slave masters to justify slavery. And to keep the black man turning the other cheek.
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The slave owners cheerfully used any and everything to justify keeping their gravy train rolling, while other Christians used their religion to lead the fight against slavery.
2.) The "turn the other cheek" doctrine didn't stop the slaves from revolting in uprisings all the time though. hahaha The slaves knew when people were blowing smoke up their butts.
Obviously the fault isn't with the religion , but with the evil ones who just wanted to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Ken Peck - This theory predates Smith & Young by several centuries. Yes, it was used to justify slavery. You might be interested in this book: Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi
Muhammad Rasheed - So far I'm having issue with how Kendi is using the word "Muslim." Is he aware that it describes the practitioners of a religion, and not a race? Most of the "Arabs" are dark-skinned peoples of varying ethnic groups who spoke Arabic.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kendi wrote: "The lineage of this curse of Ham theory curves back through the great Persian scholar Tabari (838-923) all the way to Islamic and Hebrew sources."
The idea of the Curse of Ham from the bible doesn't inflict "blackness" upon the boy. That interpretation of the tale comes from the Talmud, as Kendi references in the above quote, which is interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is that it was the Jews who set up the model for the Atlantic Slave Trade in the first place, and did so with a smooth, and well-practiced fluidity demonstrating that they had been using that method for quite some time.
Muhammad Rasheed - The using of the "Ham's curse" concept -- which never had anything to do with Christianity -- to justify slavery, while the big fight to end slavery was always led by Christians from their own rightly-guided understanding of the bible, means that the fault is with the corrupt and greedy enslavers, not with Christianity.
Ken Peck - Or maybe Martin Luther, who came up with the notion that any idiot could interpret the Bible for himself.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't see your point in context. The concept of the curse of Ham affliction being 'blackness' came from the Talmud, as the rabbis themselves sought to justify why it was okay to trade in Black bodies. Obviously their Christian trading partners eagerly received the concept from them so they could simultaneously get rich and sleep at night.
Dalet Yasharahla - Refer to Revelations 13:10.
Also Mr. Muhammad feel free to research trans saharah slave trade.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dalet wrote: "Refer to Revelations 13:10."
So after a string of verses describing the forces of a ruler of evil sowing mischief in the earth, we find Rev 13:10 explaining that the believers of that time will require the patience and faith "of the saints" as the forces of evil will be captured as slaves and killed just as they did to the believers. If this cherry-picked verse was being used to justify the enslavement of Blacks, then that definitely supports my cartoon's message.
Dalet wrote: "Also Mr. Muhammad feel free to research trans saharah slave trade."
lol I am quite familiar with it. Have you come to make the case that the Arab and/or Muslims also used the bible to justify their own slavery? ;) I am open to hear your argument points.
Throw Down Your Rod.
Dalet Yasharahla - The "cherry picked" verse is actually the opposite of your message. What slavery has the Arab or Muslim had? Simply highlighting the fact that the Arab peoples had us in bondage for about 1400 years ±.
Muhammad Rasheed - The verse is saying that the villain who had previously been enslaving and killing would be himself enslaved and killed, and that the believers would have to have faith and patience. That's what it is saying in the context of the chapter.
The Arab world has continued their slavery, after a short time period in the earliest days of Islam in which it almost faded away. It was brought back by greedy men who acted outside of their religion. That's the most important part. To get them to stop the practice, their blood must be spilled, since the greedily corrupt rarely perform righteous deeds to those they oppress on their own initiative.
Chester Erickson - To be fair, these days the most common proponent of human slavery is muslims. But, you never know, Christianity might get back in the game.
Chester Erickson - To be fair, most slaves taken from africa went to South America, and for a longer time too.
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Any Muslims practicing slavery do so from the same motivations as everyone else doing it: greed. The revealed scripture of the One God does not encourage the practice at all, so any secondary works making the claim are fictions.
2.) The Western legacy families and their supporters, whose ancestors owned chattel slaves before the Civil War, are still continuing and profiting from the enslavement of Blacks today. They just label it something else now, and justify it from a different angle.
Muhammad Rasheed - I fail to see what the South American part has to do with anything. Your use of "to be fair" implies something is being refuted.
Chester Erickson - Well, you're stating that the slaves went to the US land, right? Well, the vast majority of slaves did not go to US. They went to Brazil. So, don't blame only the US, also blame other places where the slaves were sent.
Chester Erickson - [VIDEO] The Slave Trade In Two Minutes
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm an African-American whose ancestor's on both sides of my parental lines were enslaved in the United States of America, Chester. Are you supposed to be saying that I don't have a right to discuss my own people's history because some other people were going through the same thing? Please confirm.
Chester Erickson - Discuss what you want, but please be all-inclusive in your claims.
Chester Erickson - Bias doesn't fit you well. Dig your drawings, btw :)
Chester Erickson - Essentially, the Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying. Not only the Americans.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Discuss what you want, but please be all-inclusive in your claims."
No. That's not a thing. Your South America comment serves only as an attempt to distract from a topic you are uncomfortable discussing. I'm not Brazilian, Chester. I'm a descendant of the slaves of the USA. I may focus on my own ethnic group in such a discussion as I like.
Fake 'Black Code' conversation rules designed to control how and what I can talk about, that are invented on the fly by a white male, are rejected. Please don't do that again.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Essentially, the Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying. Not only the Americans."
I doubt it since there was a very strong cartel involved, under very strict contracts. Who was allowed to trade was strictly enforced.
Chester Erickson - Those who were buying were in Brazil, Caribbean, and (what would become) the US. That's who the Dutch sold to. In any case, I do agree with your point that slavery is codified in the bible. However, it's true that we see it elsewhere, too.
Muhammad Rasheed - The folk who owned and controlled the lands in the Caribbean and much of South America lived in New England.
Chester Erickson - Hm, you'll have to show proof that New England colonies owned South America. Heck, back then, New England was barely a small theater in the greater wars of England and France. What I've read states that South America was primarily colonized by the Spanish.
Muhammad Rasheed - Not "colonies," but New England families.
Businesses owned those lands, and traded the slaves on Wall Street as stocks, with people owning shares even in Europe.
Chester Erickson - However, this is your meme, so don't feel obligated to reply :) You do good work with your drawings, so I don't want to ruffle your feathers.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "Businesses owned those lands, and traded the slaves on Wall Street as stocks, with people owning shares even in Europe"
Interesting. As a skeptic, I will investigate the veracity of these statements.
Muhammad Rasheed - The only thing you posted that "ruffled my feathers" was your attempt to control how and what I wanted to discuss. Other than that, I'm always open to dialog as it feeds my art.
Chester Erickson - Well, I was trying to help you avoid cherry picking, but I understand now that your scope was personal (historical) experience. ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "As a skeptic, I will investigate the veracity of these statements."
It seems odd that you weren't already read up on the topic judging solely by the confidence and passion you initially brought to the thread. You seem to have a whole lot of faith in shallow partisan political talking points. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Well, I was trying to help you avoid cherry picking..."
That wasn't the impression you left on me. I've experienced white men attempting to manipulate the topic of discussion away from uncomfortable truths before. Your "help" actually felt exactly like that.
Muhammad Rasheed - But I do appreciate the attempt to help me though. Good looking out.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "You seem to have a whole lot of faith in shallow partisan political talking points. lol"
It is wise to not take advantage of someone's politeness.
See you in the funny papers.
Cheers!
Muhammad Rasheed - In the future, you may wish to use a little less "nice-nasty/passive aggressive" when mixing your serving of politeness. It may help with your authenticity attempts.
Chester Erickson - Just so you know, in case we ever interact again, I'm a proponent of equality for all. So, in the case of my future arguments, at least give me that benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming I'm some white man trying to oppress you.
Chester Erickson - I'm a skeptic and an empiricist. I'm afraid you won't get much in the way of emotional reactions from me :)
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Chester, in the future, when attempting to engage in conversation with Black people, please do NOT attempt to tell them how and what they are allowed to talk about in an open discussion. It 100% does not come across as if you are a proponent of "equality for all." Just the opposite in fact. I give that advice freely from my heart because I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't really mean to be that way.
Chester Erickson - Hm. Noted. However, I've never had my friends (of various origins) give me such advice in the 50+ years of my life. Perhaps they knew me before judging me. Anyway, thanks for the advice. All things being equal, I'm off to do something else.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "I'm a skeptic..."
You should be MORE skeptical then. Or at least practice turning the skepticism you do have in directions you aren't used to.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "Or at least practice turning the skepticism you do have in directions you aren't used to."
Can you provide an example where I didn't use skepticism?
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Hm. Noted. However, I've never had my friends (of various origins) give me such advice in the 50+ years of my life."
How do you do? I am M. Rasheed. Pleased to meet you.
Chester wrote: "Perhaps they knew me before judging me."
lol I judged you based on how you treated me in this very thread. You may wish to reconsider your usage of a one-size-fits-all approach when you wander outside of your art studio. lol
Chester Erickson - Well, it seems you're back to personal insults. I've got better things to do with my time than listen to that BS. Congrats, though, you successfully moved the goalposts from my OP, for which there is much empirical evidence. Best Regards, Chester.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me why you consider that an insult, while not acknowledging the insult you bopped me with, please.
Muhammad Rasheed - I told you I was insulted by your approach, you said no one ever complained of that before, I advised on being more aware that other people are actually different, and you claimed to be insulted by that.
And here I remember you saying something about not being emotional... At least I THINK that was you.
Chester Erickson - It seems my empirically-verifiable OP is what set you off to begin with, based on your initial reply. I've been trying to avoid antagonizing you, but if you refuse to reciprocate, then I'll argue back. Do us all a favor, and google "muslim slavery today in africa". Please report what you find including, if possible, how you found my claim to be false.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy your work. It's edgy. But I can live without it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Can you provide an example where I didn't use skepticism?"
Yes. Please note the following items:
1.) Someone told you one must be "all-inclusive in your claims" when engaging in discussions.
2.) Someone told you that "Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying."
3.) Someone told you that "Those who were buying were in Brazil, Caribbean, and (what would become) the US. That's who the Dutch sold to."
4.) Someone told you (regarding the slave trade) that "back then, New England was barely a small theater."
All of these bullets are verifiably false. Were you to have practiced more precision while wielding your proud skepticism, it may have avoided you proudly and confidently proclaiming these as truths for the public record.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "2.) Someone told you that 'Dutch slave masters would sell to anyone who was buying.'"
And they would, in the three areas I stated.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "3.) Someone told you that 'Those who were buying were in Brazil, Caribbean, and (what would become) the US. That's who the Dutch sold to.'"
Yep, that's true.
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "4.) Someone told you (regarding the slave trade) that 'back then, New England was barely a small theater.'"
Yep, the US Revolution was funded by the French. Our troops were trained by the French. The French provided food and supplies.
Chester Erickson - So, I suggest you brush up on history, smart guy.
Chester Erickson - Now, back to my statement about muslim slavery. Would you care to get back to the subject of the OP?
Chester Erickson - Here, let me help you:
https://www.google.com/search... muslim+slavery+today+in+africa
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "It seems my empirically-verifiable OP is what set you off to begin with, based on your initial reply."
I told you the part that upset me. It was the part when you started trying to tell me what I could talk about, that I HAD to include South America in my discourse (or get an "F"?)
Chester wrote: "I've been trying to avoid antagonizing you..."
If that were true, then you would have simply apologized once I told you what the antagonizing issue actually was.
Chester wrote: "...but if you refuse to reciprocate, then I'll argue back."
Active debate is the raw goo I draw from for my art, Chester. It's fine. If you're game (and have the time) then so do I. I always have an open slot for new regulars with different POVs.
Chester wrote: "Do us all a favor, and google "muslim slavery today in africa". Please report what you find including, if possible, how you found my claim to be false."
I addressed that in the two-point post below it. Please tell me why you don't consider it a good enough counter. Wait, is it because it didn't reference South America? *snort*
Chester wrote: "Don't get me wrong. I enjoy your work. It's edgy. But I can live without it."
This comment is out of place here, and unworthy of you. Please stop saying that kind of stuff. Thank you for your earlier compliments, but now it's getting weird and sounding kind of "threat-like."
Chester Erickson - So, regarding your meme, yes, Christians did use the bible to justify slavery. However, muslims are somehow justifying slavery, and the problem is happening *NOW* to real people alive today. So, cheers, to your drawing - you got part of it right. I wonder if you'll put out a drawing showing the other part.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "So, regarding your meme, yes, Christians did use the bible to justify slavery."
The point of the cartoon is to show that there was no real effort in using the bible to justify slavery. The greedy just said whatever and did it because they wanted to. The cartoon is actually a defense of the Christian religion itself regarding the slave trade. The Qur'an wasn't used to justify slavery either, because it doesn't.
Greedy men did greedy stuff is the message. The religions themselves are clean, especially in Islam's case.
Chester Erickson - So you're really going to try denying that slavery has been a part of Islam since at least the 8th century AD? It's still going on today, man. It doesn't matter what the prophet says. It doesn't matter what Allah said. They're *doing it right now*. And, I guess the ultimate question is.. who is going to stop them?
Chester Erickson - I guess I could make the same argument, then, that it was just bad men trading slaves in the US. It wasn't that they were Christian.
Chester Erickson - And, of course you know that slavery is mentioned many times in the Qur'an.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "So you're really going to try denying that slavery has been a part of Islam since at least the 8th century AD?"
Yes. It was actually almost wiped out in the early years because of how it is described in the Qur'an. But it was brought back because of greed. By default that means it was never of the religion, but of the greedy men upholding the economic institution of it.
Chester wrote: "It's still going on today, man."
So?
Chester wrote: "It doesn't matter what the prophet says."
lol Of COURSE it matters.
Chester wrote: "It doesn't matter what Allah said."
Of COURSE it matters what God says. Do you hear yourself?
Chester wrote: "They're *doing it right now*."
Greedy men do a lot of shit outside of the ideals they are supposed to be following on paper. That's not a slight against the ideals, but against them.
Chester wrote: "And, I guess the ultimate question is.. who is going to stop them?"
Slavery has been around almost as long as humans have. At this point it should be obvious that it isn't going anywhere. It's too profitable.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "I guess I could make the same argument, then, that it was just bad men trading slaves in the US. It wasn't that they were Christian."
That's actually MY argument, and the central message of the cartoon.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "And, of course you know that slavery is mentioned many times in the Qur'an."
lol If you're supposed to be implying that someone told you that all of those mentions were somehow pro-slavery, then you may add that bullet to the list of faux-factoids that you should've been skeptical of when you first heard them.
Chester Erickson - Hm, seems to me the message is that they are Christians who use Christianity to justify slavery, while making a profit.
Chester Erickson - Don't play coy, Muhammad. You've read the verses. You know they're not anti-slavery. Don't be deceitful.
Muhammad Rasheed - It was the flip "it's in the bible or whatever" that was the punchline. Obviously he didn't do any research into it; he was just saying shit to hurry up and get back to counting his trafficking loot.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester, I read the verses and that's why I can confidently say what I said. I know my Book, and the message of Allah.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's why I am Muslim.
Chester Erickson - 24:32... this verse is anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - *sighhh*
Chester Erickson - 16:75... this one is anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - So which site are you pulling these from? AnsweringIslam? AnsweringMuslims?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Okay, stand by...
Chester Erickson - just answer the question. are those verses anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - Hold on, I'm looking them up. Loading...
Chester Erickson - you don't know them off the top of your head?
Muhammad Rasheed - No. What am I? The Rain-Man? That's why God created the Internet. lol
Chester Erickson - No, man. Al Gore created the internet ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - (who created him though? And all the parts to make it? c'mon now)
Chester Erickson - oh no, it's an abiogenesis debate :D this'll go nowhere fast ;)
Muhammad Rasheed -
The Holy Qur'an 24:32 -- Marry those among you who are single or the virtuous ones among your slaves male or female: if they are in poverty Allah will give them means out of His grace: for Allah encompasseth all and He knoweth all things.Chester Erickson - Ok, now... is that verse anti-slavery?
Chester Erickson - Or, does it passively condone it?
Muhammad Rasheed -
The Holy Qur'an 16:75 -- Allah sets forth the Parable of two men: one a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and the other a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof freely, privately and publicly: are the two equal? By no means; praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.Chester Erickson - Same question as with last verse... is it anti-slavery?
Muhammad Rasheed - Both verses acknowledge that slavery is going on in that society at the time of revelation. Neither is actively encouraging slavery. The latter one is just using the concept of 'slave' in an allegorical point, while the former tells the believers who they are allowed to marry to protect their virtue. Naturally if you marry a slave, there's a very high chance you'll end up freeing him/her.
Muhammad Rasheed - Any others?
Muhammad Rasheed - Don't be shy.
Chester Erickson - You didn't answer my question at all. Are the verses anti-slavery?
Chester Erickson - It's a simple yes/no answer.
Chester Erickson - No flourish required.
Muhammad Rasheed - No, they are not anti-slavery because that isn't the point of those two verses.
Chester Erickson - At any point in the Qur'an, is an anti-slavery sentiment proposed?
Muhammad Rasheed - Neither of those verses are about the institution or practice of slavery itself. They don't represent 'slave commands" or anything like that. What else do you have more in line to the point you're trying to force?
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "At any point in the Qur'an, is an anti-slavery sentiment proposed?"
Yup. In fact, I was expecting you to post one.
Chester Erickson - You seem to want to avoid accepting the idea that verses from the quran can be interpreted to condone slavery, and that it's happening right now in the real world.
Muhammad Rasheed - I actually thought you were going to spam me with every single Qur'anic slavery mentions like the trolls always do.
Chester Erickson - No reason to do that. My point is made.
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "...that verses from the quran can be interpreted to condone slavery..."
This is also unworthy of you. The message is clear. If someone wants to twist the message to shoehorn their greed into it, that is not a slight against the Book. You know better.
Chester Erickson - Your reply, so far, to the concept of slavery has been:
"Slavery has been around almost as long as humans have. At this point it should be obvious that it isn't going anywhere. It's too profitable."
While that view is rational, it should not be the goal of humanity to passively accept slavery.
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The Qur'an says XYZ
2.) Greedy men do ABC
3.) Non-Muslims: "AH HA!! The Qur'an says ABC because look at THOSE guys!!!"
Is this really how you want to leave this conversation? hahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester wrote: "Your reply, so far, to the concept of slavery has been"
Well, to be fair, my ethnic group is still being enslaved today under a different label, and the same old families and the aristocracy built around it, are still profiting from it at my expense. The last time "humanity" actively tried to stop it resulted in the bloodiest war in American history, followed by a century of terror against my people that ultimately returned us to the shackles in a police state.
I am under no illusions that to free us from slavery will result in an even bloodier war that will last much longer.
Chester Erickson - Regardless of your emotional plea, that does not change the fact that humanity should strive for something better than living in the past. Slavery, at a global level, needs to be abolished.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're very brave to say such a thing after the nature of my "emotional plea." lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Basically, there's too much money involved for it not to take a war to stop it.
Muhammad Rasheed - A global war.
Chester Erickson - Perhaps so. When the alternative is enslavement of others, then it's worth it. However, there are other ways to pursue equality.
Chester Erickson - Personally I believe that we as a species should strive to expand to other worlds and moons, and space. This would be a much more productive use of our time, rather than focusing on the past.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Equality" is the next step after slavery is abolished (again).
Chester Erickson - Equality will only come once more things than slavery are abolished. But, yes, slavery is one of those things.
Muhammad Rasheed - Expand to other worlds and moons, and space while we are still in the process of fucking up this planet? Do you hear yourself? lol
So you're saying we SHOULDN'T finally learn from the lessons of the past to improve, but instead should infest the rest of the solar system with our craziness like the virus Agent Smith described?
Muhammad Rasheed - wow...
Muhammad Rasheed - Remind me not to vote YOU in as POTUS.
Stick to cartooning.
Chester Erickson - Ah, therein lies a difference. I believe that the act of expansion will help us figure out how not to fuck things up. Perhaps give people the space between us we need. And, also prevent an "all eggs in one basket" scenario.
Chester Erickson - "lessons of the past" is not the same as "baggage of the past"
Muhammad Rasheed - Chester Erickson wrote: "Ah, therein lies a difference. I believe that the act of expansion will help make the corporations and politicians richer."
*fixed*
Muhammad Rasheed - It's only "baggage" if you never learn from it and improve. If you learn from and become better then it is just the archive of lessons learned.
Chester Erickson - Do you hate the wealthy?
Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean?
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "I believe that the act of expansion will help make the corporations and politicians richer."
^this.
Muhammad Rasheed - The legacy families that currently compose the 1% are my active enemy in the earth. Those are the descendants and support class of my enslavers.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fuck yeah I hate them.
Muhammad Rasheed - If we "expanded into space" today, it would literally do nothing but make them richer while they gave themselves more tax cuts.
Chester Erickson - Personally, I'm fine with wealth. I'm not fine with people who use their wealth to abuse others.
Muhammad Rasheed - And that's my stance, too.
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have a problem with wealth building and wealth builders as a concept. it's THOSE assholes who are my problem.
Muhammad Rasheed - Who have been my problem for the last 500 yrs.
Chester Erickson - Who cares if they get tax cuts? Once we get away from Earth the rules mean nothing. Life will become a hardship, but a *chosen* hardship with the potential of meaning.
Muhammad Rasheed - You read a lot of Jack Vance and Roddenberry...
Muhammad Rasheed - The reality will not match up to your fav sci-fi novels, Chester.
Muhammad Rasheed - Certainly not for me.
Chester Erickson - lol... roddenberry, sure. Yes, it's true that at first the connections to Earth will remain, but over time they will fade.
Chester Erickson - The distances will become too great for a central command structure.
Muhammad Rasheed - Groups of wealthy white men with no "central command structure" rules, on uncharted wilderness...
...and me.
>:(
Forgive me if that concept doesn't make me feel warm & fuzzy.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're gonna hafta get googoo-eyed over that fantasy by yourself, chief. >:(
Muhammad Rasheed - *Been There; Done That*
Chester Erickson - the various directions in which humanity travels in space will become ring species, unable to breed and adapted to their respective environments.
Muhammad Rasheed - (i'll launch the damn nukes myself if i have to)
Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, but WAAAYYYY before we get to the "ring species" part, my people will be forced to relive chattel slavery 3.0. >:(
Chester Erickson - Nah, even though the recent past has been rough, the overall experience of Civilization is a success. Personally, I don't think it's the responsibility of this generation to choose to destroy it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Uncharted wilderness doesn't plant cash crops by itself, you know?
Chester Erickson - M. Rasheed wrote: "my people will be forced to relive chattel slavery 3.0"
We *ALL* will.
Muhammad Rasheed - The "promise to the white working class" will ensure that it won't be you.
Unless I get my hands on the keys to SkyNet or whatever.
Chester Erickson - It's not about profit. It's about survival of this thing we call life.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dude.
It's ALWAYS about profits. That's is the heart & soul of western civilization.
Profits.
Muhammad Rasheed - Massive profits for the aristocracy.
Chester Erickson - Hey... have you ever seen Charlie Chaplain's "The Great Dictator"?
Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. Just clips over the years.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm guessing there's an expansion into space in it? Since you've kinda turned into a one-trick pony now.
Chester Erickson - I am an evangelical for space exploration, yes lol.
Muhammad Rasheed - hahahaha
Chester Erickson - You've probably seen the speech at the end?
Muhammad Rasheed - Not since the '90s...
Chester Erickson - But, no, the speech tells a "different way" to all the people within earshot.
Chester Erickson - Well, there are three options there. Let them win, global war, or get away from them... into space.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're very naive on this item, particularly in your efforts to sell it to an African-American.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Let me break your proposed options down for you...
Chester Erickson - To me, the speech is inspiring. I'll post a video: [VIDEO] The Greatest Speech Ever Made
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) LET THEM WIN
This is what Trump's reign is leading to. A return to some kind of Old World serfdom shit. Letting them win will be the destruction of the American Experiment, and a return to old forms of oppressive government.
2.) GLOBAL WAR
This is the only way to stop #1 from continuing at it's current direction. Since it's the only way, it is my preferred option personally.
3.) ...OR GET AWAY FROM THEM... INTO SPACE
Are you insane? Who's going into space? The wealthy will have the equipment built, a class of space explorers will be cast, and a cast of bondsmen to do the work the Explorer Class doesn't want to do, just like in the slave era! I'm NOT going back, Chester! I'll tear ALLL this shit up first. You can go by yourself and be a space explorer of YOU. Maybe take your dog.
Chester Erickson - The effort to develop the technology to easily move humans into space will keep us extremely busy, and away from war. That effort, by the way, has already begun.
Muhammad Rasheed - I've seen stuff with private corporations making their own space exploration efforts. I believe one was called "Dutch East Martian Trading Company" or something similar. I'll have to look it up. >:(
Chester Erickson - SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are also working on such plans.
Muhammad Rasheed - [WIKI] Dutch East India Company
Chester Erickson - LOL. Yeah, wouldn't surprise me to see new companies pop up like that. At least for a while.
Muhammad Rasheed - dude... >:(
Chester Erickson - Not saying I agree with them. Just saying.. yeah, you would probably be right.
Chester Erickson - And there would also be *honest* corps you can work for.
Chester Erickson - And don't forget about the robots who can already do a lot of work for humans. Their functionality will only improve in an expanding society.
Muhammad Rasheed - They will also be expensive.
Muhammad Rasheed - Will it be cheaper to build a bunch of robots, or throw Black people back in chains?
Muhammad Rasheed - ......................
Muhammad Rasheed - *joins NRA*
Chester Erickson - Probably not so expensive, once they standardize. And cheap to replace, without all of those ethical quandaries associated with slavery. They also work 24x7x365.
Muhammad Rasheed - They also wear out and require regular maintenance. Also expensive.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not going to pick cotton on Ganymede, Chester. #FightMe
Muhammad Rasheed - >:(
Chester Erickson - Let's say a robot costs $1M and they last 10 years. That's not too far off from a human salary.
Chester Erickson - I could calculate the hourly rate, too, but I'm afraid humans won't come out too well there, either.
Chester Erickson - So, we humans are going to need something to do... guess what I would suggest... ;)
Muhammad Rasheed - That's a whole lot of wishy-washy-iffy guess work about robots when they know for a fact how much slaves cost and they are currently 100% fine with slave labor. >:(
Muhammad Rasheed - Them and all of their overseas buddies. >:(
Muhammad Rasheed - I'll watch the Chaplin clip you linked to if you watch the 13th documentary by Ava DuVernay.
Chester Erickson - It's only iffy because there are variables in the model, as there should be. We already have companies selling robots for manufacturing, and we've also got humanoid robots helping out on the ISS, so models and pipelines for sales and manufacturing have been worked out.
Muhammad Rasheed - I KNOW why it's iffy! That's why the very first thing they'll reach for is ME while they tinker with their R2 units. >:(
Chester Erickson - Hm... I'll watch it, but I suspect I've already seen much of the content. Deal!
Muhammad Rasheed - Let me know when you're done. We'll meet back here and make fun of each other's suggestion.
Chester Erickson - To be honest, my wife and I are about to do something for a few hours. But - we'll watch it and let you know later tonight.
Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't mean TODAY. Just let me know when you do.
Muhammad Rasheed - (tmi btw)
Chester Erickson -
No comments:
Post a Comment