Why should facts stand in the way of a good dose of blustering bafflegab? I found an article on Bentham’s thoughts on slavery, the topic of which he did not address much in his writing. But he did write a letter regarding slavery in 1789, when Parliament was debating the cessation and outlawing of the practice. From the article:
Bentham wrote his letter to support Pitt on the subject of compensation [Pitt objected to any compensation for the loss of property] and to oppose any indemnification of those currently engaged in the slave trade. His letter was direct, passionate, and stated his position clearly. He referred to slaves as “sensible and national beings, whose necks by length of time have been moulded to the yoke.” On the subject of indemnification, he wrote:
I observe the traders in human flesh claim an indemnity for the loss of their trade. Might not the same indemnity have been claimed with the same justice by the receivers of stolen goods? Is it worse to steal handkerchiefs and snuff-boxes than to steal men?
It is important to appreciate Bentham’s arguments and his rhetoric, as in the following passage:
What forced them to give their time and money to this employ? Were there no innocent callings to resort to? Is the word trade to be a license for every crime?
Do murder and oppression put off their nature by being made a trade? Is it a property in crimes to lose their guilt by repetition? Does the perseverance of the tormentor, and the insensibility which is the consequence, deaden the feelings of the tormented? By shutting our eyes against cruelty, can we change its nature?
1) Arguing against compensation for slave owners delayed emancipation, this was bad, wrong, etc.
2) Arguing for compensation for slave owners (and then passing bills providing said compensation from public funds) in order to get emancipation done – was bad, wrong, etc. [not mentioned on this caption, but a common argument around the ongoing culpability of the British state, etc.]
That seems at minimum like trying to have it both ways.
“Before glorious worker’s revolution bourgeoisie pigs put boots on proletariat heads. Let us all sing the praises of brave new world of freedom to stamp out the undesirables and make progress. Spit on this exhibit.”
“while contesting the immediate emancipation of enslaved people”
Odd, the only mention of ‘slave’ in the Wikipedia article on him, is about him opposing slavery.
To Jim Baerg @ 1 –
Why should facts stand in the way of a good dose of blustering bafflegab? I found an article on Bentham’s thoughts on slavery, the topic of which he did not address much in his writing. But he did write a letter regarding slavery in 1789, when Parliament was debating the cessation and outlawing of the practice. From the article:
Bentham wrote his letter to support Pitt on the subject of compensation [Pitt objected to any compensation for the loss of property] and to oppose any indemnification of those currently engaged in the slave trade. His letter was direct, passionate, and stated his position clearly. He referred to slaves as “sensible and national beings, whose necks by length of time have been moulded to the yoke.” On the subject of indemnification, he wrote:
It is important to appreciate Bentham’s arguments and his rhetoric, as in the following passage:
Well found.
@2: Wow. Nice!
Thank you for the formatting, Ms. Benson!!! The article is a chapter, here.
Welcome!!
So as I understand it:
1) Arguing against compensation for slave owners delayed emancipation, this was bad, wrong, etc.
2) Arguing for compensation for slave owners (and then passing bills providing said compensation from public funds) in order to get emancipation done – was bad, wrong, etc. [not mentioned on this caption, but a common argument around the ongoing culpability of the British state, etc.]
That seems at minimum like trying to have it both ways.
“Before glorious worker’s revolution bourgeoisie pigs put boots on proletariat heads. Let us all sing the praises of brave new world of freedom to stamp out the undesirables and make progress. Spit on this exhibit.”
clamboy #2
Thanks for finding more detail that confirms that this Dan Hicks guy was lying.