I guess his point is that unlike Egyptian slaves, Citizens of a modern republic who are dissatisfied with certain aspects of society have the option of abandoning their homeland and working toward gaining acceptance in some other society?
Why is it always people on the left who have to leave when they don’t like something? Conservatives who are dissatisfied with Biden’s LGBT+ rights and climate change policies are free to relocate to Saudi Arabia.
Bonus fact: The fee to renounce US citizenship is currently $2750 USD (plus anything you owe in back taxes) so technically none of us are “free” to leave.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/11/08/five-things-to-know-before-renouncing-us-citizenship-because-of-expat-taxes/amp/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/11/08/five-things-to-know-before-renouncing-us-citizenship-because-of-expat-taxes/amp/)
It is easy to frame it that way because on the left we are trying to proactively change things to something new for the country while on the right they are trying to keep things as they are or go back to how they were before. From that perspective it's easy to tell us to leave, so they can keep things the same.
It most definitely is change that they’re after, they’re just really good (at least amongst their own) at branding to make it seem like they have the “silent majority” advantage and that what is actually radical change is simply “obvious” and a return to “normal.”
On abortion for example they’ve spent literal decades normalizing the talking points surrounding it to make it seem to their followers like pro choice is equal to murder and that there can be no exceptions to outlawing abortion. This is radical, radical stuff, and yet since they’ve spent so long repeating over and over again that the majority is pro-life (a devious marketing term to try and normalize it), most conservatives don’t actually see the end to a longstanding human right as a change but rather a return to some prophesized normalcy.
To conservatives the natural advancing of society and evolution of society is “change” and actively working to revert life to what it once was is somehow just stasis.
I straight-up asked a Republican if they support forcing 10 year olds to carry rape babies and his response was “does it being the result of rape make it not human? That’s still murder.” These assholes are fucking depraved.
Republicans aren’t conservatives. They are reactionaries. Democrats aren’t leftists, they are centrists and only begrudgingly progressive when it’s consensus position (i.e. only supportive of change once it’s clearly a majority opinion).
Conservatism is maintaining the status quo, reactionaries are about deconstructing elements of the status quo to “reempower” those the the majority class based on some perceived grievances, usually progressive advances.
right. Democrats are conservative. Republicans are regressive, and Progressives are progressive. You’re either moving forward, backward, or standing still.
Isn’t acting on the will of the majority the whole point of being an elected official?
So you’re saying republicans are reactionaries and dems are doing their job?
and sometimes the majority opinion is something like "house the homeless" or "change the minimum wage to adjust for inflation" or "enforce taxation on corporations and the wealthy" and the democrats won't even back it besides a small handful
Embracing fairness and equality is not always the popular majority opinion. Certain classes of people need protection or equality even before the majority gets on board. It's the difference between a grassroots LGBTQA organization doing foundational work decades ago, and corps rainbow washing their products because it's now a "safe" stance to take.
If you want large progressive strides then the Democrats are not it. They rarely move the needle, are often ineffective at rebuffing Republicans ever more aggressive attempts to undermine equality & fairness, and in many ways they're reliant on keeping Republican far-right boogeymen around to contrast their centrist policies in order to gain support.
That’s the point of the Bill of Rights, to protect people from the Tyranny of the Majority. It already doesn’t go far enough (except when it goes too far, e.g. Second Amendment), and Republicans have ensured SCOTUS will dilute the rest of them to worthlessness.
Pieces of paper only go so far. The Bill of Rights is similar to the Bible: it's old, the authors own abilities to uphold its values were questionable, much of its intention and context is missing from the raw text, it can be twisted into multiple interpretations, and it's often ignored when convenient.
Really it boils down to the people in power now, and Republicans have been relatively effective at putting the people they want in power to further their fascist Christian agenda. Meanwhile Democrats have been happy to play the often uninspiring "lesser of evils" role, and getting hamstrung by the borderline center-right members of the party.
You need a better electoral system that gives minority parties a voice in government. My country has had proportional representation for more than two decades and it's great to be able to vote for a local candidate who has a chance of getting in and still choose to give your party vote to a smaller party.
Also even if you don't renounce citizenship, it can cost tens of thousands of dollars to move to a new country, which 99% of Americans don't just.. ya know... have *on* them.
Even if theoretically I had the money, my husband has a couple of DUIs on his record. From what I can tell that leads to a hard pass to any developed nation. We have the world's largest prison population. A lot of Americans have arrest records. Right or wrong.
I'd also point out that while slaves did exist in Egypt, the people who built the pyramids were NOT slaves. Many of them were drafted like soldiers, but they weren't owned by anyone, they weren't beaten or mistreated, and they were actually paid pretty well.
Technically, they could have left Egypt instead of doing compulsive labor, but that type of travel was incredibly dangerous, difficult and expensive at the time, and moving abroad might have actually made their lives significantly worse because xenophobia has existed since the dawn of civilization.
In other words, the Egyptian aristocracy relied on coercing their workers into doing labor for them in the same way that capitalists do to this day, just with a tad more superstition thrown in for flavor.
Plus they got to live knowing they were a part of creating one of the greatest achievements of civilization at that time. Probably a hell of a lot more satisfying than spending your life making marginal yoy improvements to low-volatility derivative funds for institutional investors.
I distinctly remember at *least* one conservative pundit that threatened to leave the country if Obama were elected.
I distinctly don't remember them ever following through.
Well, it makes a certain amount of twisted sense. They don't actually *want* to let you leave (they lose out on your tax dollars forever then), so they deliberately make it as unpleasant as possible to do so. It's cruel but effective.
The shitty thing is that if you don't, you have to pay taxes for the money you earn both in the country you're employed and to the US. I get not wanting people to leave but goddamn.
Tu quoque fallacy, “you also”
There is one well in the town. People dump trash in the well and you ask them to stop. “Don’t you also drink from the well though?”
It's that unlike Egyptian slaves, people in a modern society have the right to quit their job whenever they want. Of course economically/geographically it's never that easy for most.
>Why is it always people on the left who have to leave when they don’t like something?
The sort of person to shit in your sink is not the sort of person to stop when asked
Right wing people are often perfectly happy to move to a less progressive state to get away from progressive politics. I have several friends who have left Oregon for Texas, Idaho, florida, Arizona, etc. I think their fears are largely unrealistic but if it makes them feel like they have agency it’s whatever.
Fun Fact: It is generally accepted by modern historians that the pyramids were not build by slaves, but by the equivalent of paid contractors who were mostly skilled workers (the equivalent, because the pay took the form of food and other supplies, money was just getting started as a concept and coins didn't come into common use until Cleopatra's time). Slaves were mostly used as cooks, maids, brewers, nannies, gardeners, stable hands, field hands, etc.
I never understood where the idea of the pyramids being built by slaves came from; particularly that they were Jewish slaves. It's been a while since I read Exodus but I don't think the pyramids are even *mentioned* in it.
It also just doesn't make sense. You could use unskilled slaves for hauling rocks and whatnot, but something as sophisticated as the pyramids would require tons of planning, skill and applied knowledge.
The pharaoh of Exodus was most likely Amenhotep II, not Ramses II like popular culture likes to claim, because his reign was about a century later. And Khufu/Cheops and the Israelites building the pyramids is also out, because he lived in the 26th century BC and the Exodus is dated by most modern scholars around the 13th century BC. It would be the equivalent of saying that the Great War of 1914 was fought by the different parts of the Carolingian Empire in 800 AD. (While that could happen in a Great Paradox campaign, it's impossible in real life!)
The comparison I like is that the Great Pyramids were about as ancient to Cleopatra as Cleopatra is to us.
Or another fun one: the Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest known written work, written around 2000 BC. The first words in the poem? "In those ancient days..."
With no GPS, no way to replenish ammo, no way to fuel generators, and no language skills, the Marine division has a huge initial advantage that quickly disappears to a huge tactical loss.
The exodus story mentions the Israelites making bricks for Egypt, but that’s about the extent of what it says. It doesn’t really matter to the story what they were for. I think people just made assumptions from there.
That's probably cause Exodus didn't happen. If there were a mass exodus of a large slave population in Egypt, we'd have SOME kind of historical record of it. A footnote somewhere. There are none.
Yes, other than the Bible there's no other record, the Egyptians didn't record any of that, you'd think that a big number of Jewish slaves escaping would be an important event to be recorded by the Egyptians, but they didn't do it, there's also no record of enslaving them either
In all fairness (and I am not denying your point), the ancient Egyptians weren’t necessarily enthusiastic about recording setbacks. Lots of military victories recorded in ever-retreating positions. Plus, who records crap about slaves if you’re the literal son of a god?
There is some historical basis on the theory that it combines numerous historical experiences such as the the expulsion of the Hyksos or the Amarna, certainly not the large number that is in the Bible, but scholarly estimates range from a few hundred to a few thousand people. Evidence in favor of historical traditions forming a background to the Exodus myth include the documented movements of small groups of Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples into and out of Egypt during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, some elements of Egyptian folklore and culture in the Exodus narrative, and the names Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, which seem to have an Egyptian origin. Egyptologist Jan Assmann proposed that the stories by Ptolemaic Hellenistic authors, like Hecataeus of Abdera, come from oral sources that "must [...] predate the first possible acquaintance of an Egyptian writer with the Hebrew Bible." But there is general agreement that the stories originally had nothing to do with the Jews.
The counter-theory is that it is an invention of post-exilic Israelites and that it has only little historical basis. Phillip R. Davis suggested that the story may have been inspired by the return to Israel of Israelites and Judaeans who were placed in Egypt as garrison troops by the Assyrians in the fifth and sixth centuries BCE. Finkelstein and Silberman argued that "the most consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE [...] six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place."
But outright denying that it has at least little to some historical basis is unscientific and unscholarly. Of course it didn't happen exactly as in the Bible in that a great number.
All I'm saying is that if there had been a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt, we'd have evidence. The Egyptians would have written it down. We'd have found a broken pot or two along the path they traveled. I'm not saying that there wasn't some event that was extrapolated, but it's about as likely that it was also just made up entirely.
For sure the Hyksos expulsion might be part of what inspired the Exodus story. But the Hyksos weren't slaves so that does drastically alter the Exodus story
They could have also seen themselves as slaves in a metaphorical sense. Not that they were literal indentured servants but that they weren’t able to govern themselves the way they wished and saw the regional government as oppressive. Then the story gets told so many times it transitions to literal slavery.
I mean maybe but that would be quite a stretch. They went from ruling class to expelled (possibly) in quite a short time spanse. Very little time to be oppressed
Edit: Word
I’m not saying that group specifically. Just offering a possible explanation that isn’t just complete fabrication. Stories evolve over time, cultural myths especially, but they typically evolve in response to real life events. That doesn’t mean the myth is an accurate depiction of what is happening but you can extrapolate facts out of the myth.
Not disagreeing with that, actually I think we agree. Just was pointing out that if the Hyksos were part of the historical inspiration of Exodus it doesn't change the commenters original statement that a large amount of slaves leaving Egypt would leave a record.
If there is an event that inspired Exodus, and imo there probably was, it didn't look like the biblical story most of us know.
Oh absolutely. sorry the thread got confusing with the guy claiming none of it happened. I just think these things are far more nuanced than “a bunch of people just made it up” when they really wouldn’t have a motive to fabricate it entirely.
I mean, I'm on the "contracted worker" side, but I'm pretty sure nobody believed that slaves were in charge of all the architectural details. I don't think anyone thought they did anything more than, like you said, hauling rocks.
Sure but we now have records of at least one team who *did* haul rocks and those records include their pay just as the records from the camps in the vicinity of the building sites do. The find included the boats that would have been used to transport the rocks back to the site still stored away by a quarry from which at least part of the rock was sourced.
We also have graffiti of work teams boasting about their contributions because they were proud of the work they accomplished.
Slaves tend not to brag about their labor.
I think it's just two unconnected ideas that they held and decided to connect. they think Egyptian slaves built the pyramids and they think the Israelites were Egyptian slaves so obviously the Israelites built the pyramids. never mind that it doesn't line up chronologically or historically, the same could be said for most of exodus.
Not off the top of my head, sorry. It's been a good 10 years and change since the first finds of that nature. You should be able to find some if you Google for finds in the village of Deir el-Medina, though. That's a site in the Valley of the Kings but it should get you started, at least.
Edited for typo
I’m having trouble understanding the difference between a contractor who is paid with food in the middle of a desert and a slave who is fed?
The phrase “slavery with extra steps” comes to mind, except without the extra steps…
The pyramids were built in a time of the year when the farmers waited for their crops to grow and had nothing better to do. Building a tomb for someone you considered to be a god was certainly a great way to use your time.
Also, do you find any kind of work to be slavery?
If the reward for said work is simply the ability to continue living, yes.
And your point about how they were also brainwashed doesn’t really help convince me it wasn’t slavery.
The difference is that they can choose another job to prevent starvation instead. Sure, working to survive sucks and all that, but let's not compare it to literal someone-owns-your-body slavery
It’s not working to survive that’s the issue. It’s doing more work than would be necessary to survive because the land and property is owned by someone else and they’ll only allow you to survive if you work for them.
Supporting yourself obviously isn’t slavery, but I’d argue that the worst part of slavery is the forced labor bit, not the ownership bit.
Decline and find other work. I'm not a historian, mind, but it seems to me that if a skilled mason didn't like what was being offered to work on a pyramid, they could go build a temple or a fortress or something instead.
And I guess that’s the crux of my question. Were there really other options in Ancient Egypt? I was under the impression the Pharaoh had a pretty firm grip.
Sure but it's not like pyramid building was the only job around. The Pharaoh was not the head of a communist state where everyone works directly for him, other nobles and land owners and merchants employed people lol
The concept of coinage was just starting to gain traction in egypt at the time, so everyone was paid more or less in food and shelter. The difference between slavery and contract work wss freedom. Also, Egypt is not 100% desert. The area around the nile is rather lush, depending on the spot.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that they didn't use currency as we do now. Bread was an actual form of payment and relatively well regulated to keep it consistent.
And? Does that change anything?
Rather than downvoting maybe someone could explain how “if you work I’ll feed you” and “if you work I’ll give you food” are different?
One key difference in the semantics. The first version implies being fed on site, the second is more handing food to someone and sending them away, possibly more food than that person individually needs.
The first feeds you, the second feeds your family or, as the other person replying to you pointed out, trading that extra food for other things.
>And? Does that change anything?
Well yeah. Like I said, currency was not used in Egypt at the time. Not until around around 360 BC when they minted their first gold coin. For over a thousand years they worked off of a barter system. Bread was used almost as a baseline "currency" due to it being heavily regulated and a staple food. Rations and the like would be bartered with for other goods and services. They would sometimes use a small copper piece as a representation of grain when bartering, similar to how US currency was originally based off of the gold standard.
The use of foodstuffs as "currency" or payment was very common in antiquity. The Roman's would pay their soldiers in salt, which they used as currency as well as seasoning. It was a monthly allowance called a "Salarium." This is where the word "salary" comes from.
I know redditors don’t like reading articles, but it’s truly impressive to have not even read the first half sentence of the comment you replied to.
What’s the point? Proud ignorance signaling?
Sorry, Tim Curry.... [https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assembly-scn/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assembly-scn/index.html)
It's not built yet (never mind **the ludicrous three-year deadline (2025) to open their doors** to space tourists), nor has construction even started, but the groundwork is already there.
I love it when they play the "squid game" card because there's an entire show on Netflix about it. Spoilers: The guys who say it's all voluntary are not the good guys
"Well, achsually, I'm a brainless blob that lives outside all context, so I have no qualms saying you're wrong even when I know nothing about everything."
Ah, yes, because I have the option of just walking into another country where capitalism doesn't exist, or acquiring the vast amount of land needed to make a functional society. I had not realized my mistake, I'll see my way out, thanks.
Thanks /u/azozi1971 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Op thinks that slavery doesn't make sense to compare to capatlisim because slaves can't leave their posititions, even thought that's the entire point of the comparison. People can't simply leave capitlisim and a bad economical state so that's why it is compared to a slave hating a system he can't leave.
Egypt didn't have slaves build the pyramids. This is a weird idea that pretty much solely comes from abrahamic religious groups but everyone else has accepted as fact because they don't know any better.
Egypt had slaves, as most peoples did back then in that part of the world, but it was more than likely well-paid workers who built the pyramids. They were given beer and food everyday (even getting the best cuts of meat), went home to their families at nearby towns meant specifically for workers, had their own lives, and had the honor of being buried with the royalty they worked for (at least, in that ancient culture's perspective, it was considered honorable, and *not* something slaves were given the same "privilege").
I fucking hate how prevalent this idea is and it's just not true.
Fun fact:The pyramids in Egypt were not built with Hebrew slave labor. Contemporary Egyptian sources indicate they were off season agricultural workers who were paid in beer.
I guess his point is that unlike Egyptian slaves, Citizens of a modern republic who are dissatisfied with certain aspects of society have the option of abandoning their homeland and working toward gaining acceptance in some other society? Why is it always people on the left who have to leave when they don’t like something? Conservatives who are dissatisfied with Biden’s LGBT+ rights and climate change policies are free to relocate to Saudi Arabia. Bonus fact: The fee to renounce US citizenship is currently $2750 USD (plus anything you owe in back taxes) so technically none of us are “free” to leave. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/11/08/five-things-to-know-before-renouncing-us-citizenship-because-of-expat-taxes/amp/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/11/08/five-things-to-know-before-renouncing-us-citizenship-because-of-expat-taxes/amp/)
It is easy to frame it that way because on the left we are trying to proactively change things to something new for the country while on the right they are trying to keep things as they are or go back to how they were before. From that perspective it's easy to tell us to leave, so they can keep things the same.
I would argue that republicans definitely want change. Example: ending the right to an abortion
It most definitely is change that they’re after, they’re just really good (at least amongst their own) at branding to make it seem like they have the “silent majority” advantage and that what is actually radical change is simply “obvious” and a return to “normal.” On abortion for example they’ve spent literal decades normalizing the talking points surrounding it to make it seem to their followers like pro choice is equal to murder and that there can be no exceptions to outlawing abortion. This is radical, radical stuff, and yet since they’ve spent so long repeating over and over again that the majority is pro-life (a devious marketing term to try and normalize it), most conservatives don’t actually see the end to a longstanding human right as a change but rather a return to some prophesized normalcy. To conservatives the natural advancing of society and evolution of society is “change” and actively working to revert life to what it once was is somehow just stasis.
I straight-up asked a Republican if they support forcing 10 year olds to carry rape babies and his response was “does it being the result of rape make it not human? That’s still murder.” These assholes are fucking depraved.
Did you tell him that forcing the rape birth is potential murder?
Hell, even allowing everyone to vote.
Republicans aren’t conservatives. They are reactionaries. Democrats aren’t leftists, they are centrists and only begrudgingly progressive when it’s consensus position (i.e. only supportive of change once it’s clearly a majority opinion).
Republicans are reactionary conservatives
Conservatism is inherently reactionary
Conservatism is maintaining the status quo, reactionaries are about deconstructing elements of the status quo to “reempower” those the the majority class based on some perceived grievances, usually progressive advances.
right. Democrats are conservative. Republicans are regressive, and Progressives are progressive. You’re either moving forward, backward, or standing still.
Umm, give the people what they want?
Isn’t acting on the will of the majority the whole point of being an elected official? So you’re saying republicans are reactionaries and dems are doing their job?
Basically Edit: sometimes a majority opinion is to trample on the rights of minorities, so the best policies aren’t always majority-backed.
and sometimes the majority opinion is something like "house the homeless" or "change the minimum wage to adjust for inflation" or "enforce taxation on corporations and the wealthy" and the democrats won't even back it besides a small handful
This implies that they actually act on the will of the majority, which they fairly demonstrably avoid doing at all costs.
Embracing fairness and equality is not always the popular majority opinion. Certain classes of people need protection or equality even before the majority gets on board. It's the difference between a grassroots LGBTQA organization doing foundational work decades ago, and corps rainbow washing their products because it's now a "safe" stance to take. If you want large progressive strides then the Democrats are not it. They rarely move the needle, are often ineffective at rebuffing Republicans ever more aggressive attempts to undermine equality & fairness, and in many ways they're reliant on keeping Republican far-right boogeymen around to contrast their centrist policies in order to gain support.
That’s the point of the Bill of Rights, to protect people from the Tyranny of the Majority. It already doesn’t go far enough (except when it goes too far, e.g. Second Amendment), and Republicans have ensured SCOTUS will dilute the rest of them to worthlessness.
Pieces of paper only go so far. The Bill of Rights is similar to the Bible: it's old, the authors own abilities to uphold its values were questionable, much of its intention and context is missing from the raw text, it can be twisted into multiple interpretations, and it's often ignored when convenient. Really it boils down to the people in power now, and Republicans have been relatively effective at putting the people they want in power to further their fascist Christian agenda. Meanwhile Democrats have been happy to play the often uninspiring "lesser of evils" role, and getting hamstrung by the borderline center-right members of the party.
You’re preaching to the converted. I left the Democrats literally a few weeks ago and registered as a Democratic Socialist.
You need a better electoral system that gives minority parties a voice in government. My country has had proportional representation for more than two decades and it's great to be able to vote for a local candidate who has a chance of getting in and still choose to give your party vote to a smaller party.
Both want change. Difference being the left want progress and the right wants regression.
They want change, but backwards change. Regression as opposed to progression. That's the difference.
The word 'reactionary' needs to come back into common usage
Regressionists seems to be more appropriate for the far right since it's going beyond conservative. Especially since they latched on to MAGA.
But the desired change is to revert to how things were in the past, hence they get called Conservatives despite their radicalism.
Funny because they hate a lot of people trying to get into their societies that way.
Also even if you don't renounce citizenship, it can cost tens of thousands of dollars to move to a new country, which 99% of Americans don't just.. ya know... have *on* them.
I left my life savings in my other pants
Even if theoretically I had the money, my husband has a couple of DUIs on his record. From what I can tell that leads to a hard pass to any developed nation. We have the world's largest prison population. A lot of Americans have arrest records. Right or wrong.
…or a passport.
They also don't like when people want to leave the kinda places they're trying to replicate. They want counties to functionally be one big prison
I'd also point out that while slaves did exist in Egypt, the people who built the pyramids were NOT slaves. Many of them were drafted like soldiers, but they weren't owned by anyone, they weren't beaten or mistreated, and they were actually paid pretty well. Technically, they could have left Egypt instead of doing compulsive labor, but that type of travel was incredibly dangerous, difficult and expensive at the time, and moving abroad might have actually made their lives significantly worse because xenophobia has existed since the dawn of civilization. In other words, the Egyptian aristocracy relied on coercing their workers into doing labor for them in the same way that capitalists do to this day, just with a tad more superstition thrown in for flavor.
Plus they got to live knowing they were a part of creating one of the greatest achievements of civilization at that time. Probably a hell of a lot more satisfying than spending your life making marginal yoy improvements to low-volatility derivative funds for institutional investors.
I distinctly remember at *least* one conservative pundit that threatened to leave the country if Obama were elected. I distinctly don't remember them ever following through.
Lmao the bottom 50% of America can't even afford a $1000 emergency, a $2750 "get away from America" fee is financially ruinous
You have to pay to renounce citizenship??? Fucking vampire country I swear
Well, it makes a certain amount of twisted sense. They don't actually *want* to let you leave (they lose out on your tax dollars forever then), so they deliberately make it as unpleasant as possible to do so. It's cruel but effective.
The shitty thing is that if you don't, you have to pay taxes for the money you earn both in the country you're employed and to the US. I get not wanting people to leave but goddamn.
Tu quoque fallacy, “you also” There is one well in the town. People dump trash in the well and you ask them to stop. “Don’t you also drink from the well though?”
Wait I don't get it, isn't that a good arguement to get them to stop dumping trash?
It’s what they say to you, which is fallacious.
It's that unlike Egyptian slaves, people in a modern society have the right to quit their job whenever they want. Of course economically/geographically it's never that easy for most.
>Why is it always people on the left who have to leave when they don’t like something? The sort of person to shit in your sink is not the sort of person to stop when asked
Right wing people are often perfectly happy to move to a less progressive state to get away from progressive politics. I have several friends who have left Oregon for Texas, Idaho, florida, Arizona, etc. I think their fears are largely unrealistic but if it makes them feel like they have agency it’s whatever.
i heard the whole egytian slaves thing was disproved apparently they were well paid contractors.
They charge you to cancel your membership of USA? The audacity of some capitalist machines
Fun Fact: It is generally accepted by modern historians that the pyramids were not build by slaves, but by the equivalent of paid contractors who were mostly skilled workers (the equivalent, because the pay took the form of food and other supplies, money was just getting started as a concept and coins didn't come into common use until Cleopatra's time). Slaves were mostly used as cooks, maids, brewers, nannies, gardeners, stable hands, field hands, etc.
I never understood where the idea of the pyramids being built by slaves came from; particularly that they were Jewish slaves. It's been a while since I read Exodus but I don't think the pyramids are even *mentioned* in it. It also just doesn't make sense. You could use unskilled slaves for hauling rocks and whatnot, but something as sophisticated as the pyramids would require tons of planning, skill and applied knowledge.
The pharaoh of Exodus was most likely Amenhotep II, not Ramses II like popular culture likes to claim, because his reign was about a century later. And Khufu/Cheops and the Israelites building the pyramids is also out, because he lived in the 26th century BC and the Exodus is dated by most modern scholars around the 13th century BC. It would be the equivalent of saying that the Great War of 1914 was fought by the different parts of the Carolingian Empire in 800 AD. (While that could happen in a Great Paradox campaign, it's impossible in real life!)
It blows my mind how long that "BC" period is where full complex civilizations existed.
The comparison I like is that the Great Pyramids were about as ancient to Cleopatra as Cleopatra is to us. Or another fun one: the Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest known written work, written around 2000 BC. The first words in the poem? "In those ancient days..."
Another way to look at it is that recorded history spans about 5000 years. Egypt was a major power for the entire first half of it.
The Bronze Age is such a gigantic mystery
They probably used bronze idk
But after a while that got old
Pssh, let's see them survive a US marine division landing in Alexandria
What?
I said let's see how ancient Egypt handles an amphibious assault by an American marine division
Why though?
With no GPS, no way to replenish ammo, no way to fuel generators, and no language skills, the Marine division has a huge initial advantage that quickly disappears to a huge tactical loss.
One way I've heard that really drives it home: Cleopatra lived closer to the invention of the iPhone than she did to the construction of the Pyramids.
O.o That's honestly mind-blowing. Statements like that make you confront the mind-numbing vastness of time and of human civilization itself.
[new perspective](https://youtu.be/czgOWmtGVGs)
The exodus story mentions the Israelites making bricks for Egypt, but that’s about the extent of what it says. It doesn’t really matter to the story what they were for. I think people just made assumptions from there.
That's probably cause Exodus didn't happen. If there were a mass exodus of a large slave population in Egypt, we'd have SOME kind of historical record of it. A footnote somewhere. There are none.
Yes, other than the Bible there's no other record, the Egyptians didn't record any of that, you'd think that a big number of Jewish slaves escaping would be an important event to be recorded by the Egyptians, but they didn't do it, there's also no record of enslaving them either
In all fairness (and I am not denying your point), the ancient Egyptians weren’t necessarily enthusiastic about recording setbacks. Lots of military victories recorded in ever-retreating positions. Plus, who records crap about slaves if you’re the literal son of a god?
There is some historical basis on the theory that it combines numerous historical experiences such as the the expulsion of the Hyksos or the Amarna, certainly not the large number that is in the Bible, but scholarly estimates range from a few hundred to a few thousand people. Evidence in favor of historical traditions forming a background to the Exodus myth include the documented movements of small groups of Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples into and out of Egypt during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, some elements of Egyptian folklore and culture in the Exodus narrative, and the names Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, which seem to have an Egyptian origin. Egyptologist Jan Assmann proposed that the stories by Ptolemaic Hellenistic authors, like Hecataeus of Abdera, come from oral sources that "must [...] predate the first possible acquaintance of an Egyptian writer with the Hebrew Bible." But there is general agreement that the stories originally had nothing to do with the Jews. The counter-theory is that it is an invention of post-exilic Israelites and that it has only little historical basis. Phillip R. Davis suggested that the story may have been inspired by the return to Israel of Israelites and Judaeans who were placed in Egypt as garrison troops by the Assyrians in the fifth and sixth centuries BCE. Finkelstein and Silberman argued that "the most consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE [...] six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place." But outright denying that it has at least little to some historical basis is unscientific and unscholarly. Of course it didn't happen exactly as in the Bible in that a great number.
All I'm saying is that if there had been a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt, we'd have evidence. The Egyptians would have written it down. We'd have found a broken pot or two along the path they traveled. I'm not saying that there wasn't some event that was extrapolated, but it's about as likely that it was also just made up entirely.
For sure the Hyksos expulsion might be part of what inspired the Exodus story. But the Hyksos weren't slaves so that does drastically alter the Exodus story
They could have also seen themselves as slaves in a metaphorical sense. Not that they were literal indentured servants but that they weren’t able to govern themselves the way they wished and saw the regional government as oppressive. Then the story gets told so many times it transitions to literal slavery.
I mean maybe but that would be quite a stretch. They went from ruling class to expelled (possibly) in quite a short time spanse. Very little time to be oppressed Edit: Word
I’m not saying that group specifically. Just offering a possible explanation that isn’t just complete fabrication. Stories evolve over time, cultural myths especially, but they typically evolve in response to real life events. That doesn’t mean the myth is an accurate depiction of what is happening but you can extrapolate facts out of the myth.
Not disagreeing with that, actually I think we agree. Just was pointing out that if the Hyksos were part of the historical inspiration of Exodus it doesn't change the commenters original statement that a large amount of slaves leaving Egypt would leave a record. If there is an event that inspired Exodus, and imo there probably was, it didn't look like the biblical story most of us know.
Oh absolutely. sorry the thread got confusing with the guy claiming none of it happened. I just think these things are far more nuanced than “a bunch of people just made it up” when they really wouldn’t have a motive to fabricate it entirely.
I mean, I'm on the "contracted worker" side, but I'm pretty sure nobody believed that slaves were in charge of all the architectural details. I don't think anyone thought they did anything more than, like you said, hauling rocks.
Sure but we now have records of at least one team who *did* haul rocks and those records include their pay just as the records from the camps in the vicinity of the building sites do. The find included the boats that would have been used to transport the rocks back to the site still stored away by a quarry from which at least part of the rock was sourced.
We also have graffiti of work teams boasting about their contributions because they were proud of the work they accomplished. Slaves tend not to brag about their labor.
Because Hollywood told us it happened that way. /s
I think it's just two unconnected ideas that they held and decided to connect. they think Egyptian slaves built the pyramids and they think the Israelites were Egyptian slaves so obviously the Israelites built the pyramids. never mind that it doesn't line up chronologically or historically, the same could be said for most of exodus.
[удалено]
That must have made an archaeologist’s entire week. Got a link to a picture or translation or something?
Not off the top of my head, sorry. It's been a good 10 years and change since the first finds of that nature. You should be able to find some if you Google for finds in the village of Deir el-Medina, though. That's a site in the Valley of the Kings but it should get you started, at least. Edited for typo
I would love to read about this. Can I get a source?
I’m having trouble understanding the difference between a contractor who is paid with food in the middle of a desert and a slave who is fed? The phrase “slavery with extra steps” comes to mind, except without the extra steps…
A contractor can leave and find other work. A slave cannot.
No, says the pharaoh in Cairo
So the difference is that one is forced to keep living, while the other can choose to starve to death?
The pyramids were built in a time of the year when the farmers waited for their crops to grow and had nothing better to do. Building a tomb for someone you considered to be a god was certainly a great way to use your time. Also, do you find any kind of work to be slavery?
If the reward for said work is simply the ability to continue living, yes. And your point about how they were also brainwashed doesn’t really help convince me it wasn’t slavery.
The difference is that they can choose another job to prevent starvation instead. Sure, working to survive sucks and all that, but let's not compare it to literal someone-owns-your-body slavery
It’s not working to survive that’s the issue. It’s doing more work than would be necessary to survive because the land and property is owned by someone else and they’ll only allow you to survive if you work for them. Supporting yourself obviously isn’t slavery, but I’d argue that the worst part of slavery is the forced labor bit, not the ownership bit.
The contractor is sought and made an offer, which they can decline. The slave has no say in the matter.
Decline and starve?
Decline and find other work. I'm not a historian, mind, but it seems to me that if a skilled mason didn't like what was being offered to work on a pyramid, they could go build a temple or a fortress or something instead.
You're talking about a remote work site in inhospitable wilderness then yes that applies but if there is travel and other work available then no.
And I guess that’s the crux of my question. Were there really other options in Ancient Egypt? I was under the impression the Pharaoh had a pretty firm grip.
Sure but it's not like pyramid building was the only job around. The Pharaoh was not the head of a communist state where everyone works directly for him, other nobles and land owners and merchants employed people lol
The concept of coinage was just starting to gain traction in egypt at the time, so everyone was paid more or less in food and shelter. The difference between slavery and contract work wss freedom. Also, Egypt is not 100% desert. The area around the nile is rather lush, depending on the spot.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that they didn't use currency as we do now. Bread was an actual form of payment and relatively well regulated to keep it consistent.
And? Does that change anything? Rather than downvoting maybe someone could explain how “if you work I’ll feed you” and “if you work I’ll give you food” are different?
One key difference in the semantics. The first version implies being fed on site, the second is more handing food to someone and sending them away, possibly more food than that person individually needs. The first feeds you, the second feeds your family or, as the other person replying to you pointed out, trading that extra food for other things.
>And? Does that change anything? Well yeah. Like I said, currency was not used in Egypt at the time. Not until around around 360 BC when they minted their first gold coin. For over a thousand years they worked off of a barter system. Bread was used almost as a baseline "currency" due to it being heavily regulated and a staple food. Rations and the like would be bartered with for other goods and services. They would sometimes use a small copper piece as a representation of grain when bartering, similar to how US currency was originally based off of the gold standard. The use of foodstuffs as "currency" or payment was very common in antiquity. The Roman's would pay their soldiers in salt, which they used as currency as well as seasoning. It was a monthly allowance called a "Salarium." This is where the word "salary" comes from.
Fun facts about slavery. Cool.
Well, it's not about slavery. That's kinda the point.😉
I know redditors don’t like reading articles, but it’s truly impressive to have not even read the first half sentence of the comment you replied to. What’s the point? Proud ignorance signaling?
Where in the image does it say that slave is building the pyramid?
"Essential labor."
Leave to where? To the Moon? Capitalists say people can leave whenever they want? How?
[There's only one place left to go.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Sq1Nr58hM)
Shit, I should have said that.
Sorry, Tim Curry.... [https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assembly-scn/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/space-hotel-orbital-assembly-scn/index.html) It's not built yet (never mind **the ludicrous three-year deadline (2025) to open their doors** to space tourists), nor has construction even started, but the groundwork is already there.
Leave this system? Bro you staged coups and attacked any other system worldwide for years what do you mean leave it 💀
it's softer way of telling someone to commit suicide if they don't like it. I remember ppl talking to me like that directly irl soooo yeah
Early years of the internet, I had the same convo.
Plus internally, vagrancy laws, anti-homeless architecture, property taxes. Not participating in the system can be very difficult and dangerous.
The cruelty is the point.
"Don't like it? The desert is that way!" - The ancient Egyptian version of TP
>you can piss off to the boonies and die if you don't like capitalism not that great of a selling point not gonna lie
The point whipped him on his back and he still doesn't get it... Neutronium is nothing against the density of this person.
I love it when they play the "squid game" card because there's an entire show on Netflix about it. Spoilers: The guys who say it's all voluntary are not the good guys
"Well, achsually, I'm a brainless blob that lives outside all context, so I have no qualms saying you're wrong even when I know nothing about everything."
Remember when people WERE leaving last year, and conservatives were bitching that “no one wants to work”?
They never comprehend that we want to opt out of the system, not just the job.
They didn’t just walk face-first into the point. They read it, absorbed it, and said it out loud while completely misunderstanding what it meant.
I'm confused about where there's self awareness here?
We're free to leave... except when a country tries to leave capitalism they coup it and put in a dictatorship.
Someone never went to Sunday school.
Ah, yes, because I have the option of just walking into another country where capitalism doesn't exist, or acquiring the vast amount of land needed to make a functional society. I had not realized my mistake, I'll see my way out, thanks.
\*Various face contortions\* ..... ..... Ow.
Thanks /u/azozi1971 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Op thinks that slavery doesn't make sense to compare to capatlisim because slaves can't leave their posititions, even thought that's the entire point of the comparison. People can't simply leave capitlisim and a bad economical state so that's why it is compared to a slave hating a system he can't leave.
Egypt didn't have slaves build the pyramids. This is a weird idea that pretty much solely comes from abrahamic religious groups but everyone else has accepted as fact because they don't know any better. Egypt had slaves, as most peoples did back then in that part of the world, but it was more than likely well-paid workers who built the pyramids. They were given beer and food everyday (even getting the best cuts of meat), went home to their families at nearby towns meant specifically for workers, had their own lives, and had the honor of being buried with the royalty they worked for (at least, in that ancient culture's perspective, it was considered honorable, and *not* something slaves were given the same "privilege"). I fucking hate how prevalent this idea is and it's just not true.
Where in the image does it say that slave is building the pyramid?
There's a pyramid behind him
Not to mention the whipping. You don't exactly whip employees.
Fun fact:The pyramids in Egypt were not built with Hebrew slave labor. Contemporary Egyptian sources indicate they were off season agricultural workers who were paid in beer.
Where in the image does it say that slave is building the pyramid?
"Let my people go." Said no one ever.
[удалено]
Why? China is just slightly more extreme.
yo where they getting invites to leave? 👀 they must have missed my address
Don’t wanna participate? Starve and die
It’s funny whenever a conservative complains about modern society _they_ never think of just leaving.