Well all counties are reorganized and resized periodically. Just look into the redistricting in England during the 1800s with the “rotten boroughs”. Also, its possible that the borders like most regions are vague and poorly defined.
I know that France restructured into departments, but I am refering to the size of Alsace-Lorraine as it was prior to the French Revolution. Go to http://img.www.france.com/maps/france.jpg I admit that Alsace itself by the looks of it was already fully annexed, but there was still a part of Lorraine that was not.
@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:
Probably not. With Alsace-Lorraine there were some marginally Germanic speakers(not Germans but Germanic speakers). To the extent that it was more German than french though is suspect. On the otherhand Poland was Polish and the Germans would not have wanted to integrate Poles within their national identity. Already at this time mass amounts of Eastern migration from Poland was entering Germany and was causing friction. If you suddenly annex this group you must incorporate them within the nationalist framework which would’ve been hard for Germany to do given its political climate at the time. More likely is a Polish superstate composed of Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Rumelia and even possibly Latvia would’ve been what they would’ve done. Poland would’ve been strong enough to serve as a buffer against Russia but not strong enough to resist Germany.
Good point. I was unaware of the immigration/ethnicity problem. Now a buffer state does sound much more likely than an annexation.
oh boy. :o yeah thats not good.
Slavery in and of itself is not wrong. The Bible had strict regulations on slavery but it was still condoned. It was even possible to buy your way out of slavery.
How can a slave get any money to buy himself out of slavery? If you think slavery isn’t wrong then why don’t you work for crappy food and water? Slavery is a horrible thing!
Slavery became wrong when it was based on genetics and not actions. Enslaving an enemy soldier as a servant is not wrong. Enslaving a person because they have more or less melanoma in their skin is wrong.
Melanoma is cancer. Pigment is the word. I guess enslaving enemies is better than sacrificing them to the gods. Oh, and guess how slave traders got slaves? Warring African tribes would enslave their enemies and then sell them to the slave traders! So technically, that slave trade was based on war, not race. It is ok now?
I think I’d have to put Alexander not dying near the top of the list. Then he could have come back and conquered Northern Europe…
I doubt if Alexander would have conquered Northern Europe. He probably would have gone after the Carthigians and/or Romans if he had lived longer.
I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.
Joseph earned his way out of slavery and jail to rise into a very powerful positin in Egypt. For an example.
Families could raise the ransom to purchase loved ones out of slavery.
Gladiators could earn their freedom in the ring.
Some slaves were well loved and incorporated into families throughout ancient times. Where do you think maids and butlers came from?
It only became bad in the incarnation of the plantation slaves where slavery was based not on past deeds but rather on genetics and was inherited through many generations without any hope of escape.
However, don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating slavery. I’m just trying to shed some perspective on it.
I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.
A serious question, although it may sound provocative:
How can one say “Slavery is not inherently evil” and “Bringing Freedom to the population of a country is inherently good”?
How can the second be good if the first is not evil?
I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.
Wow… I’m at a loss… I am not sure what rational explination could exist to justify owning the life of another human. Wow…
I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.
Wow… I’m at a loss… I am not sure what rational explination could exist to justify owning the life of another human. Wow…
maybe if they’re stupid enough . . . :lol:
@F_alk:
I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.
A serious question, although it may sound provocative:
How can one say “Slavery is not inherently evil” and “Bringing Freedom to the population of a country is inherently good”?
How can the second be good if the first is not evil?
Good question. I don’t exactly have an answer to that, but I can speculate that freeing slaves is good, but being a slave is not necessarily bad anymore then being poor is bad, but it’s still good to give them money.
@cystic:
I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.
Wow… I’m at a loss… I am not sure what rational explination could exist to justify owning the life of another human. Wow…
maybe if they’re stupid enough . . . :lol:
You borrow $5 million from Joe Blow. You can’t pay it back. Instead of going to jail or having your family impoverished you offer to be his slave until you’ve worked off the debt or he forgives it.
Just one, historically accurate, scenario when slavery is not a bad thing.
You don’t put women and children on the street, the bad man is punished, and it turns out to be a win-win in the end.
It may be a fine line but there is a line between Slavery and indentured servatude. That said, both are pretty f’d up.
It may be a fine line but there is a line between Slavery and indentured servatude. That said, both are pretty f’d up.
Isn’t the terminology a matter of semantics? Being required to work for no pay is slavery, regardless of the circumstances behind it. However, as I mentioned before, buying your way out of debt with enslaving yourself is a noble gesture and not an evil act, while, enslaving a man based only on the color of his skin is a hideious and heinious act.
That’s why I say slavery, in and of itself, is not necessarily evil. It’s more a matter of what is done to the slave, why the person is a slave and what the prospects of the slave is. That is, if the person committed a crime or became in debtted to the master or was captured on the field of battle, forced into a life of slavery (but family was taken care of and they were not slaves - if they existed) and they had the possibility (a hope) of eventual freedom, then that instance of slavery is not evil.
Can someone lock this so she doesn’t further expand on why killing the Jews wasn’t in itself wrong or something even more absurd?
Can someone lock this so she doesn’t further expand on why killing the Jews wasn’t in itself wrong or something even more absurd?
naaaa
She is providing bucketfuls of evidence to support some of my theories.
Isn’t the terminology a matter of semantics?
no. slaves are property, for no reason other than power. i.e. i have a big gun, and lots of other people with guns who support me, so i decide that i want you to work for me. without pay. forever, or until i get tired of beating you when you collapse from exhaustion. indentured servitude is a way of offering your physical labor to repay a debt. unfortunately, it is all too easily perverted by greedy people.
the major difference is choice. indentured servants choose to enter into their status, for a predetermined time. slaves dont have a choice.
Can someone lock this so she doesn’t further expand on why killing the Jews wasn’t in itself wrong or something even more absurd?
Janus: yes, indebted “slaves” can be abused by ruthless people. However, it isn’t the status of the slave that makes the function of slaves evil, but rather the status of the master that makes the function evil.
Too many of you are stuck with the mindset of the black slave trade as your only reference to slavery without even looking into history to see instances when slavery saved the lives of hundreds of thousands.
The israelites were slaves to the egyptians. In response, they were fed during the famine, they were sheltered from teh elements and were allowed to live until they were released by the Pharoh.
The soldiers of conquered armies, conqured by the Romans, were normally turned into slaves. These slaves then traded the use of their bodies for food, lodging and training in various aspects of life from building roads and aquaducts to military training to knowledge of books and bathes.
Joseph was sold as a slave in the Bible and was awarded the privelage of saving his family from death and rising to power in the local government.
And yes, there were also the evil practices of slavery when women were forced into harems, men beaten for pleasure, long hot days in the sun harvesting cotton.
When you take away someone’s free will it is not a good thing. If someone wanted to work for room and board that’s fine. Also, people could have gotten food, shelter and training without being a slave. Why would Moses struggle so hard to have his people freed if the Israelites were happy?
Cuz slavery isn’t in itself evil man, haven’t you been reading all this?
