Ambrose Bierce on slavery in east and west

Online Reader - Project Gutenberg: "Because the brutality of the civilized slave owners and dealers created a conquering sentiment against slavery it is not intelligent to assume that slavery is a maleficent thing amongst Oriental peoples (for example) where the slave is not oppressed.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

I wish I had had the benefit of the above observation several years ago. In one pithy sentence, Ambrose Bierce, in his essay 'Civilisation' (collected in 'A Cynic Looks At Life') has summed up what took me years of study and reflection. Doubtless living in a slaving economy helped his perspective no end.

Slavery has been universal, but not significant. Only 1 per cent of China's population were slaves, as opposed to a third of Athens's. Indeed, it has been recognised by scholars that slavery created Greek democracy. The latter rested on the former, like a rose on a dung-heap. In Egypt, slavery was practically unknown. Some people point to the pyramids and ask, "Who built those", as one gentleman indeed asked me. Good question. Recent research has established that the pyramids had not been built by slaves.

Biblical narrative of the Jews' captivity in Egypt is interesting. It seems that the so-called 'slaves' had houses and could afford to offer sacrifices. Indeed,experts believe that the narrative prior to the taking of Canaan to be largely myth, in both senses of the word.

Slavery was a western product: after the Greeks, it disappeared under the Hellenistic monarchies, reappeared with the Roman Republic with a vengeance, disappeared under the Roman Empire, then reemerged with the Renaissance....This is western civilisation.

Interestingly, slavery coexisted with political freedom, and never arose under Empires.

Democracy: The Historical Accident

OpEdNews - Article: Democracy: The Historical Accident


(click above for article)


The forum polity – democracies and republics – owes its origin to two major accidents in human history: accidents that were unique to the western world, and which, indeed, created western civilisation in contrast to the others, which were all palace polities.


Excerpt:


"An aspiring European king generally had to contend against three powers for supremacy: the Church, his fellow barbarians - the nobility/aristocracy – and, in more settled times, the merchants.

"Of these, the first was obviously unique to Europe alone – no other civilization had inherited an organized Episcopal, hierarchical Church from a dead empire. This was the beginning of 'civil society' – beyond the state, apart from business, away from politics, an entity autonomous."

the perils of civil society

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your reasoned response: I agree with many of the things you say.

America is plural, no doubt: otherwise, how could someone like Finkelstein or Chomsky have ever written what they have.

I have nothing against America per se: there are aspects of the western civilisation that are disquieting.

I'm sure many Americans dislike the Israel lobby: but that doesn't help the Palestinians or the Iraqis at all.

In fact, I don't blame the Israel lobby one iota, either. The problem is deeper than that: the problem is pluralism itself.

I'm sure you're familiar with the theory of civil society: I have written quite a lot on the subject, and if you visit my web page, you will come across most of them (http://www.geocities.com/if6065/farvardin).

A plural society is characterised by a constant struggle among interest/lobby groups: it's a Darwinian struggle: some lobby groups prosper at the expense of others. Take farmers: US and European farmers have lobbied to make sure third world farmers remain in poverty, and also that US and European consumers pay eight times the world price of sugar, for instance. As you'll find in Finkelstein's book, the Israel lobby has made gains, not only at the expense of the Palestinians, but also at the expense of black Americans. This is normal in a pluralist society.

It took the Israel lobby years (decades) to assert itself in America (during the first Arab-Israeli war, the US didn't lift a finger to help Israel; it was Stalin who supplied Czech
weapons and saved the infant state from destruction.)

Finkelstein observes that it was the Israeli success in the 1967 war that clinched America's support for Israel – this is wrong.

In the book, THE AMERICANISATION OF HE HOLOCAUST, the firs chapter observes how Jewish writers in the early 20th century downplayed their Jewishness. Saul Bellow, in Dangling Man, makes a passing remark on Jewishness; later, however, in What Kind of A Day Did You Have (good story!), Jewishness is prominent. Moral: it takes years for civil society to assert itself. Incremental measures, such as, notably, the radio broadcast of the Eichman trial, led to the lodgement of the Israeli identity (not Jewish identity) in the American psyche. I avoid "Jewish identity" because many devout Jews, such as Rabbi Goldstein and Jews Against Zionism, are against Israel: this is a problem that stems from the French revolution: nationalism (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2607.shtml)

The parallel with trade unions will make it very clearer. Trade unions were banned in 19th century Britain on competition grounds. Then they were legalised, workers got the vote and prominent writers (the Fabian society being the most famous), took up their case, and they became a sacred coy.

Forward tot he 1960s and 1970s. The stranglehold of the unions on Britain was obvious (I was thee during the coal-miners strike in the 70s). Britain "was not working" but government were powerless to do anything. This is a superb example of the tail wagging the dog, how a civic group can control the state itself. What about the business lobby? They were powerless.

Then came Mrs. Thatcher – and she used devious and ruthless measures to crush the inions (hence, Iron Lady). I've nothing against British trade unions – this is merely an example of hoe pluralism can be dangerous.

I have written a great deal: I'm sorry about that. But please bear with me. There are two things I wish to say further.

First, the word 'freedom' is so important in western civilisation because it was the only civilisation to practice slavery on a large scale (I know what you're thinking: who built those pyramids!). Pleas see my article: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~acsrrrm/entertext/5_3/ET53SayeedEd.doc

The only noble exceptions were the Roman Empire (NOT the Republic) and the Hellenistic world – precisely because they were monarchies.

Secondly, there is a widespread perception among westerners, and especially Americans, that the Muslim world hates them. Now, I live in a country of 140 million Muslims (the second largest after Indonesia). Among my friends, all are passionately in love with the west (especially America). Despite all the evidence I have tried to garner and share, not one person has ever evinced any displeasure with the west. I know you will find this incredible: but it is a fact. Most Muslims LOVE America.

I was once planning to go and live in the UAE: I was told by friends there that if I had an American passport, not only would I have better pay, but far greater prestige.

I don't know how this misconception has arisen that Muslims hate the west: SOME do; MOST love the west. Not only for financial reasons; most people I know think western civilisation (especially America) is the fountainhead of all that's good and great.

You can see my pathetic attempts to "enlighten" my compatriots in this essay: http://poeticdiversity.org/main/prose.php?recordID=1176&date=2007-12-01

I will end this overlong piece with a quote from a Palestinian who was resident in Dhaka: "Our biggest enemy is the ummah; I don't blame America."