Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Probably that slavery was only an American thing. Slavery in America was small compared to other countries, including Africa.
This is true. A lot of folks don't realize just how small it was in America compared to Brazil. The vast majority of slaves we shipped straight to Brazil
Back on topic, thinking of the biggest lies, it's very hard to beat religion.
Probably that slavery was only an American thing. Slavery in America was small compared to other countries, including Africa.
I have never, not once, heard that 'slavery was only an American thing'. While I don't doubt that someone somewhere has asserted as much, it can hardly be a great lie when hardly anyone makes such a claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
This is true. A lot of folks don't realize just how small it was in America
compared to Brazil. The vast majority of slaves we shipped straight to Brazil
Huh? Who is 'we'?
While Brazil did import far more slaves than any other destination, they most certainly did not receive a 'vast majority' of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Of roughly 11 million slaves brought to the New World, less than 40% were received in Brazil. That's not even a non-vast majority.
Of all the New World destinations, the combined total number of slaves delivered to British North America totaled about half a million. This is largely a function of the fact that by the time the tasks for which slavery was best-suited there, such as on cotton and sugar cane plantations, had begun to emerge on a large-scale in the American market, the slave trade had been banned in the United States (1808). By comparison, sugar was the primary Brazilian export by 1600, before the North American colonies were even up and running. Now, despite a relatively small number of slaves imported, by the census of 1860 there were nearly four million slaves in the United States. Such specific Brazilian numbers are not available, but estimates of the slave population in Brazil around 1860 vary between 2.5 million and 4 million.
Why?
Because in the United States, the slave population experienced a natural increase. In fact, an explosive one. The population of slaves in the United States (not counting new imports) was doubling every quarter century. In other countries and colonies of the New World, the local slave populations experienced a natural decrease. The continued importation was required to perpetuate the total population, whereas in the United States the vast majority of slaves by the 19th century were home-grown. This was specifically done by slaveowners to increase their capital (that's repugnant terminology, but that's all those people were to them - a financial asset they could either work or sell off).
The point is that in the end, the United States had at least as many slaves as had Brazil. So to just point to the number of imports is blatantly misleading.
For instance, older Baby Boomers had to face the reality of the Vietnam War and as they turned 18 boys had to face the possibility of being drafted and sent overseas. However, America was largely out of Vietnam by 1973 so younger Boomers, say from 1956 onward never had to face the possibility of being drafted to Vietnam.
Think about that, a kid is born in 1954, turns 18 and gets drafted, is taken away from his parents, is sent overseas and dies in faraway Vietnam. But had he been born just a year or two later, he never would have been drafted at all and would most likely be alive today.
Someone born in 1954 would not have been drafted, so they would not have died in Vietnam. Guys registered for the draft when they turned 18 but were not drafted until they turned 19. The last draft call was on December 7, 1972, and the authority to induct expired on June 30, 1973. There were 646 inductees in 1973.
The Big Lie(TM) in capital letters would have to be the whole 20th century. Pretty much all of it is crap when you start drilling down into it.
With fake news being all the rage today, I think the 21st Century is a more suitable nominee for that prize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creamer1
Left vague on purpose, as I do not exactly known what the greatest lie is.
Is it slavery? Moon landing? The cover-up of genocide on Native Americans, then using their names for everything a large Cheesequake etc?
Discuss.
Unpopular answers can make good candidates for 'greatest lie', so I'll choose (among other contenders): Naturalism. Atheism.
From the atomism and materialism of Democritus and Epicurus, to the empiricism of John Locke, to the naturalized epistemology of the 1920s Vienna Circle, to state atheism under Communism, to anti-academic buffoonery by the cult of Dawkins (verificationism).
All of these are ideas that have been shown to be intractably flawed by their own authors, or holding back science, or falsified by cosmology and physics, or demonstrated to have humanitarian consequences far more horrific than any ideological conflict.
The view of today's status quo is that naturalism (and atheism) are synonymous with science, rationalism and progress.
The reality is that naturalism in its various incarnations has been a constant impediment to knowledge theory since the 18th century. Even now it hampers progress in our understanding of quantum physics. That discrepancy makes it a 'great lie' even today.
Last edited by Hightower72; 04-03-2018 at 01:21 PM..
Reason: Merged with previous post
I have never, not once, heard that 'slavery was only an American thing'. While I don't doubt that someone somewhere has asserted as much, it can hardly be a great lie when hardly anyone makes such a claim.
Huh? Who is 'we'?
While Brazil did import far more slaves than any other destination, they most certainly did not receive a 'vast majority' of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Of roughly 11 million slaves brought to the New World, less than 40% were received in Brazil. That's not even a non-vast majority.
Of all the New World destinations, the combined total number of slaves delivered to British North America totaled about half a million. This is largely a function of the fact that by the time the tasks for which slavery was best-suited there, such as on cotton and sugar cane plantations, had begun to emerge on a large-scale in the American market, the slave trade had been banned in the United States (1808). By comparison, sugar was the primary Brazilian export by 1600, before the North American colonies were even up and running. Now, despite a relatively small number of slaves imported, by the census of 1860 there were nearly four million slaves in the United States. Such specific Brazilian numbers are not available, but estimates of the slave population in Brazil around 1860 vary between 2.5 million and 4 million.
Why?
Because in the United States, the slave population experienced a natural increase. In fact, an explosive one. The population of slaves in the United States (not counting new imports) was doubling every quarter century. In other countries and colonies of the New World, the local slave populations experienced a natural decrease. The continued importation was required to perpetuate the total population, whereas in the United States the vast majority of slaves by the 19th century were home-grown. This was specifically done by slaveowners to increase their capital (that's repugnant terminology, but that's all those people were to them - a financial asset they could either work or sell off).
The point is that in the end, the United States had at least as many slaves as had Brazil. So to just point to the number of imports is blatantly misleading.
You'd be surprised how many Americans believe this - especially minority Americans born in this country (those born outside the country often have different information). You'd probably also be surprised about how many Americans don't know that slavery exists today - for example the extant problems in Mauritania in Africa.
With fake news being all the rage today, I think the 21st Century is a more suitable nominee for that prize.
Unpopular answers can make good candidates for 'greatest lie', so I'll choose (among other contenders): Naturalism. Atheism.
From the atomism and materialism of Democritus and Epicurus, to the empiricism of John Locke, to the naturalized epistemology of the 1920s Vienna Circle, to the state atheism under Communism, to the general buffoonery of the cult of Dawkins (verificationism).
All of these are ideas that have been shown to be intractably flawed by their own authors, or holding back science, or falsified by cosmology and physics, or demonstrated to have humanitarian consequences far more horrific than any ideological conflict.
The view of today's status quo is that naturalism (and atheism) are synonymous with science, rationalism and progress.
The reality is that naturalism in its various incarnations has been a constant impediment to knowledge theory since the 18th century. Even now it hampers progress in our understanding of quantum physics. That discrepancy makes it a great lie even today.
Your fanciful hyperbole again makes it difficult to take your positions seriously at first glance. One has to filter out the rather silly exaggeration and overstatement and then re-read to see what you are saying. Ex cathedra pronouncements peppered with ornamental adjectives are not persuasive rhetoric, it tends to elicit questions of witness reliability. Drop them and your arguments are more persuasive. No-one wants to hear your worn axe-grinding - but your actual argument, yes.
Your fanciful hyperbole again makes it difficult to take your positions seriously at first glance. One has to filter out the rather silly exaggeration and overstatement and then re-read to see what you are saying. Ex cathedra pronouncements peppered with ornamental adjectives are not persuasive rhetoric, it tends to elicit questions of witness reliability. Drop them and your arguments are more persuasive. No-one wants to hear your worn axe-grinding - but your actual argument, yes.
I had fun reading your comment.
"Intractably flawed" I'm afraid is not hyperbole. The failure of naturalized epistemology is one of the most significant events in the history of analytic knowledge theory. This is something from which the naturalists of the 20th century never really recovered, and set the stage for the trainwreck of contemporary anti-intellectualism we refer to as the New Atheism.
To give you scope of what this means, most foundational beliefs atheists hold to today that encourage them to consider themselves cultural intelligentsia, mentally superior to people of faith, stem from theories by this movement that are now proven untenable.
This was a source of continuous embarrassment to its original proponents, such as AJ Ayer, who would admit later in an interview:
Quote:
MAGEE: Now logical positivism must have had actually some real defects. What do you now in retrospect think the main shortcomings of the movement were.
AYER: I suppose the greatest defect ... is that nearly all of it was false. (hearty laughter from the two of them)
MAGEE: I think you need to say a little more about that.
AYER: Perhaps that’s being too harsh on it. I still want to say that it was true in spirit in a way, that the attitude was right. But if one goes for the details, first of all the verification principle never got itself properly formulated. I tried several times and it always let in either too little or too much, and to this day it hasn’t received a properly logically precise formulation. Then, the reductionism just doesn’t work. You can’t reduce statements, even ordinary simple statements about cigarette cases and glasses and ashtrays, to statements about sense data, let alone more abstract statements of science...If you go in detail very, very little survives. What survives is the general rightness of the approach.
"Far more horrific" concerns the humanitarian cost of Communism compared to estimates for religious or other ideological conflicts.
The worst possible way to respond to this is to dismiss it as hyperbole or ornamental rhetoric. That makes you look silly given the statistical discrepancies involved. A better rebuttal is to argue adjustments for historic population, modes of oppression and so on.
An even better rebuttal is to argue some kind of disjunction between state atheism and Communism, but that will need its own topic.
Last edited by Hightower72; 04-03-2018 at 03:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
