1. Most people can see the obvious problems with this, but worth noting that insidious thing here is that in defining Hemings etc. as "slaves who agreed to be slaves" (or more Freudenly as "salves") goal is to shift moral onus from slave-owners to enslaved.https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1122269282539274240 …
-
-
4. A lot of the most productive work on slavery since WWII has grappled with slavery: with trying to see how even within an oppressive system the enslaved resisted, not just in rebellion but other means (slow working, flight, culture).
Show this thread -
5. But the tradition of emphasizing slave agency (which really goes back to WEB Du Bois & runs through Leslie Owens & Gutman) never talks about slaves choosing their status -- it's all about resistance within the system not Hanson's individualistic model of deal making.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's also weird to talk about any deal with a person who doesn't have the option of walking away from the deal. Their choices were either be a slave, or be a slightly more valued and perhaps better-treated slave.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hey but he’s smart: GRE 1991: Verb 770/99% Quan 780/94% Anal 730/92% 1980: Physics 960/98%
-
Some people who are good at taking tests are the most socially awkward dumbasses on the entire freakin' planet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes but that's how economists always handle agency.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.