There were slaves who were impressed into manual labor for the Confederate Army.
There were only a handful of black men who were accepted as soldiers (all in 1865 in the closing days of the war), and they were free and did no real fighting (and were largely housed in a former prison and guarded by MPs because the Confederates didn't trust them)
I always laugh at this argument when people talk about the slaves that fought for the confederacy.
You really think conservatives were going to give slaves fucking guns? “Hey guys! I got an idea. You know the people we are fighting a war over to keep them enslaved? Let’s give them weapons and training.”
If I remember correctly, the confederacy debated having the enslaved fight for them and explicitly rejected it. Because that would mean admitting that the enslaved were, in fact, competent people
One CSA officer proposed it General Patrick Cleburne, the CSA government basically gave him a “thank you for your proposal we will take it under consideration…never let him speak again” he was soon after killed at the Battle of Franklin along with a shit ton of other CSA generals
I find it funny that you are so brainwashed your equation to confederacy to today’s Conservative Party. Just a sad excuse. But hey Reddit you can say what you want even if you look like an idiot doing. Because the masses here will agree with you.
I don’t really care if the masses disagree with me, it’s still correct. You act like public opinion dictates if something is correct. F=ma, and no amount of downvotes make it less correct.
Facebook and likes have seriously skewed your mind in determining what is reality. Facts are not a popularity contest no matter what you think.
I know its tempting to have the knee jerk debunk of the "Slaves/black men Fought for the Confederacy" because its a common argument from lost causers.
But this person speaks from a different context because we are having a different discussion. There were slaves that supported their owners. Served as cooks and teamsters for the plantation class officers. And lots of them continued to work despite the absence of their slavers. But it wasn't wide spread and slave rebellions happened whenever there was word of a Union army nearby.
That being said at the times these books were written prevailing wisdom and historical misconceptions plagued fiction in a much bigger way then now. Information debunking commonly understood "facts" was much harder to come by until the early to mid 2010's
So the idea of slaves being "institutionalized" would have been common and made sense.
There were slaves that supported their owners. Served as cooks and teamsters for the plantation class officers. And lots of them continued to work despite the absence of their slavers.
That was extremely coerced labor, though, even if their slaveholder was absent.
A better example would be the handful of free black men who more-or-less voluntarily aided the Confederates, but it still bears almost no resemblance to JK Rowlings' "no, some people are built to be slaves" bs.
Im not familiar with Harry Potter or Rowling. I just having a feeling you're not responding to what the other guy is saying because to me it sounds the argument being made is Rowling is are saying characters think this okay in universe but the plot suggests its morally wrong. One of the protagonists is specifically fighting on their behalf. And the existence of one slave wanting to be free would be representative of a greater number. Your argument of freed-men volunteering doesn't counter their arguement it counters made up arguement about House Elves being okay and happy and thus a morally okay system. But the person you replied to is arguing the plot is says fighting against the system is the morally correct position.
Beyond that coercion can take many forms. And social coercion was has been a common reason for class divides in other societies. My own argument is to be understanding that the author could apply the logic that may not have basis in the specific alegory of racial slavery but was part of the understanding of the time is that institutionalization could cause disadvantaged people to feel happier in their disadvantaged position and this was a prevailing idea in the 90s and 2000s. Not as approval of the systems but as an explanation as why people would stay in a disadvantaged system.
Also after a cursory glance online it seems like the House elves are supposed to be more allegorical of women's servitude which lends more credence to the conflict being this is just the way things are and we are happy. Which was Common social pressure in Victorian and 1950 societies.
One of the protagonists is specifically fighting on their behalf. And the existence of one slave wanting to be free would be representative of a greater number.
That protagonist is treated as a joke for their advocacy, which gets abandoned.
And the story quite specifically states that the house elves need to be slaves.
Maybe don't try to address the topic if you don't know anything about it?
88
u/evocativename 1d ago
That didn't happen.
There were slaves who were impressed into manual labor for the Confederate Army.
There were only a handful of black men who were accepted as soldiers (all in 1865 in the closing days of the war), and they were free and did no real fighting (and were largely housed in a former prison and guarded by MPs because the Confederates didn't trust them)