Skip to main content
Topic: General Discussions (Read 1511731 times) previous topic - next topic
dodge and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2565
Your move.

https://www.unaa.org.au/2020/06/13/was-there-slavery-in-australia-yes-it-shouldnt-even-be-up-for-debate/

Slavery is the ownership of a person as property.  That has never happened in Australia.

People have been exploited, ill-treated and denied their liberty in Australia - and that still goes on today - but never owned or bought and sold.
righto, i expect that the article I linked is invalid then?

Quote
What is slavery?

Australia was not a “slave state” like the American South. However, slavery is a broader concept. As Article 1 of the United Nations Slavery Convention says:

    Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.

These powers might include non-payment of wages, physical or sexual abuse, controls over freedom of movement, or selling a person like a piece of property. In the words of slavery historian Orlando Patterson, slavery is a form of “social death”.

Slavery has been illegal in the (former) British Empire since the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade of 1807, and certainly since 1833.

Slavery practices emerged in Australia in the 19th century and in some places endured until the 1950s.
Early coverage of slavery in Australia

As early as the 1860s, anti-slavery campaigners began to invoke “charges of chattel bondage and slavery” to describe north Australian conditions for Aboriginal labour.

In 1891 a “Slave Map of Modern Australia” was printed in the British Anti-Slavery Reporter, a journal that documented slavery around the world and campaigned against it.

Reprinted from English journalist Arthur Vogan’s account of frontier relations in Queensland, it showed large areas where:

    … the traffic in Aboriginal labour, both children and adults, had descended into slavery conditions.

So this is also wrong then:

https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/history-of-indigenous-work-sheds-light-on-australian-slavery
Quote
Dr Huggins' articles focus on her own career, as well as the experiences of her mother, Rita Huggins.

"In answer to the recent denial that there was slavery in Australia -- my mother and her 13 siblings were slaves who worked in domestic service and stockwork," Dr Huggins said.

According to the editors, the volume was "pioneering" in this focus on Indigenous women and girls in the workforce. 

So do you want me to state I was wrong, or you are right based on a definition of someone owning a person as property, rather than the person being sold with the property as part of the chattels?

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2566
@Thryleon‍ technically it's wrong because the claims made are based on a non-standard definition of slavery. In his debate he has defined slavery in the broadest possible terms to capture even criminal offences, it may even be capturing voluntary subservience which would be distinct from subjugation.

I have to work for a living, social media would describe me as a slave to the man, but I'm not bound to anyone, I wasn't bought and paid for, I don't have my name listed on a certificate of ownership, I'm paid a wage, whether it's a pittance or fortune is irrelevant, and I can walk away if I'm prepared to abandon my lifestyle.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2567
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2568
We were good owners not like the yanks.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2569
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.

You could probably argue that there is "slavery" and there is "slavery-like", but I would have to agree.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #2570
The Australian Government follows the definition set out in the International Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery of 1926, that is 'the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.  Almost all nations follow the 1926 convention.

There are slavery-like offences, such as forced labour, debt bondage and human trafficking but none involve ownership and, therefore, aren’t slavery.

It’s fine to take an academic perspective and argue that indentured labour is slavery but, legally, it’s not.
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.

So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise.  Is that it?

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson