Thoughts on Familial Separation Within Slavery

Thoughts on Familial Separation Within Slavery

One of the most frequent, and longest enduring, critiques of slavery, encapsulating all variants, is the forced dissolution of
bonds of kinship through sale, labor allocation, or selective forced emancipation. The separation of youths from their parents,
brothers and sisters, or relatives more generally seems to inspire a degree of emotional anguish on an instinctual level,
this does not come from a thorough analysis of the ramifications of the contextual distancing of one party from another,
but instead it originates from ones’ own developed familial relations obfuscating a proper view of the subject through the
subjection of reason to emotion. Slavery is a form of government, by far the oldest form of government, and within any
form of governance there will be appropriate and inappropriate pressures that will be put upon those who are governed.
We must assess the likelihood of the outcome, based upon the predictive, or previously demonstrated, results, we are
obligated, per an honest and sincere investment in societal development, to understand the topic, and the pertinent
aspects related thereto thoroughly. In this we must not solely rationalize the moment of transfer, and our potential
sympathies related to this, but the spectrum of potentiality. Why are people sold within slavery? The first thought by
many would be: “Slaves are sold for profit.” Slaves are not exclusively sold to increase ones’ capital earnings, but to
explore the instances of when they are I feel as if we should contemplate a separate question, as a prior topic to the
exploration of the primary point: What is a slave, and what is a slave master? One could also ask: “What should a slave
be, and what should a master be?” Ultimately, within civilization, a slave will be, and should be, the being whose qualities
imply necessary subordination for normative functions, the characteristics that mandate subordination, generally, will
be facets that impede upon a productive existence within an inter-dependent society. These characteristics could be
laziness, decadence, physical or mental inability, or a general incompatibility with the sensibilities of the population
one lives within. A master should be one who is of noted and consistent benefit to the society in which he lives, a
man who exemplifies the traits that his peers aspire to, and someone who can be relied upon to provide constructive
guidance to the most weak willed, weakminded, and unable. In relationship to these general traits, and examining
the topic through a more abstract lens, should the masters’ word not have supremacy over the slave?

If the dichotomy presented in tandem with the concept of the master and the slave is to be representative of anything it is of forethought, soundness of mind, and a proper balancing of the imminent elements of life, coupled with being representative
of the grander guiding principles, goals, beliefs, and being in lock-step with the actions of the grand project of the civilization,
and, likewise, if the term slave is to imply anything beyond an incidental circumstance of arrangement, it is to imply a deficiency
of forethought, a mind that is, relatively speaking, not disposed to proper reasoning, an inability in dealing with the sorted
elements that afflict the slave, solely per his abilities. This is mitigated by his necessary appointment by the civilized to be subordinate to their representative, which is the master. If we, as a civilizational body, believe we have done our part in our assessments, evaluations, along with the actualizing and the rationalizing of a a proper set of values, if we perceive this to be
the case, and a master fails in his guidance of his slaves through an unjust and irresponsible familial separation, or in any
other noteworthy respect, then it is not the failure of slavery, it is only incidentally the failure of the master. The true failure
lies on us, the apex of all sanctioning boards. We, in part, arranged, condoned, and aided in the moral, social, and legal consecration between this master and his slaves, and we failed both parties in our judgements. If, however, it is determined
this familial separation was ultimately appropriate, as all will cede in potentiality, and the master did a service to his former
property where said property is now bound to seek more constructive opportunities in a different land, under a new patriarch,
with superior guidance then we as a sanctioning body have served our purpose. Our represenatives, the former and current masters, have succeeded in their obligations satisfactorily, and the slave has progressed from one status in one dominion
to another under a new sovereign. One aspect of the objections contained within the aforementioned moral revulsion is
the conception of the appropriate familial structure, this familial ideal seems to be contingent upon the ideal of a genetic
link between the parties within slave society, the ancestral link of guardian to child, or between a set of slaves.

I would posit that while shared ancestry can be conducive to the enabling of a feeling of familial oneness, along with
empathy; it’s not a prerequisite for these qualities to emerge and, if we’re discussing the separation of children, a childs’
relationship to their community is not exclusively defined by a direct personal connection with the parentage who conceived
said child. When one considers the ramifications of ones’ formative years in relation to ones’ community it’s very easy
to see how the ties that could bind a child to a biological familial structure can, just as easily, bind them to a society
independent of their biological parentage. The role of a slave is subordination to proper constructive elements within
society, as a slave his fundamental task is not rooted in meaningful familial development, as it is generally conceived.
The role of a family, intertwined by both paternal and inter-generational sentiment, is to act as a cornerstone of society,
all of those within the appropriate conception of the family unit represent those who are established to be of the very
tissue of the societal structure. They act for the collective betterment and security of all therein, to ensure they, in
their respective societal roles, are capable and actualize the roles of leader, master, or guide. The role of the slave
is divergent, his toil is not the same as his masters’, therefore he does not need to be granted the same type of
upbringing or affiliations. The point of the biological inter-generational bind of blood is to secure an indefinite unity,
within collective purpose, to craft an eternal texture and function for all things, the crafting of what is and what
should be is what informs us of the essence of civilization. The point of the slave is to provide “labor” for that
project, biological relations or not. If one considers the historical ramifications of familial separation, with regards
to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the European importation of slaves related thereto, and the the guided colonial
migrations the point of necessary separation is moreso coherent than it otherwise would be as an abstraction.
The African disposition was the antinome of, virtually all, civlized ethical conceptions, in their self-destructive
indulgences they were fixed in a stagnant point of conflict, with inter-territorial chiefdoms waging fratricidal
wars for mere miles of territory and resources.

In separating the barbarian from the barbarous, it was expected that said representatives of all that was antithetical to right
minded conceptions of social propriety could be subdued and reformed. In all expansionist endeavors, whether they be
pursuits of a more moral, financial, or a geographically conquesting type, it is appropriate to ensure that pressures are put
thereupon to alleviate the artificial elements that enable savage dispositions. Those who attempt to enact these mass
alterations of human development must lay a foundation by which a new and refined manifestation of the savage type
can be developed. In our grand construction of civilization, with all of those existing therein a platform of growth, knowledge,
and productive subsistence, should we have impaired our pursuits by consecrating ourselves to a principle, as low as the
type it sanctions, which aids the process of sustaining and enabling the worst variances of the most base of families, as
were manifested by the inter-generational African rearing of posterity? No, we were right to separate them, as right as it
was for the White race to subordinate the African, within that context, it is equally right for him to have protected his investment,
and that entailed not just the procuring of the African, but also a constructive distribution of all therein, the children and
relatives not being exempt. The divorcing of one from another, or one from a set of previous relations, is of the utmost
necessity. Prostrating ourselves to any fixed notion of any particular facet of civilization as a permanent addition, regardless
of its’ immediate ramifications, is the equivelant to a burial prior to a death. Has death come? No. Will the burying itself
be the fatal element? Not necessarily. Has one ensured their demise, regardless? Yes. If we view civilization as a series
of co-reliant investments, with some presupposiitions as to norms, is it not appropriate that we should want a multitude
of excellence as opposed to a static disappointment? Every family is a unit, a unit that is, societally, one out of many, the
thing being not the sum of its’ parts but, instead, the sum of its’ function.

Civilization is the stage, of our handiwork, made from the sweat of our brow, it is, in its’ mudsill, layered by all family units.
Those who stand atop the mudsill should cultivate it for healthier seasons to come, all elements therein should be evaluated,
contextualized, and affirmed on the basis of their seasonal fruits, that is their demonstrated and implied characteristics,
they should be modified, altered, arranged, and delegated upon the same criteria. Those who wish to refrain from altering
societal arrangement, in affect, stand upon the stage of human existence meek and mute, they hear the rhythmic orchestral arrangements behind them, they know the curtains are to close imminently and suddenly, they’re, within degrees, refined in
the expected crafts, yet they stand, in their prideful isolation, without any appreciable motion. They are traitors to the craftsmen,
to all of high ambition, and the “omnipotent” governor thereof. They should be detested above all others, for they, in the
truest analysis of their wretched intent, want us to let this stage of human excellence rot, they intend to disregard all ambition
that’s not meek, mute, and impotent like themselves, and ensure “God” sings in the same tone, has the same chains, and
is perceived with the same characteristics as “Baphomet.” There is not a lower type in all of human expression, whether
in form or function, than those who raise the flag of the vile cause of absolute “human rights,” for those naturally disposed
to be controlled and led. It is unreasonable for us to cede the propriety of ownership and not enable the sovereign to
exercise said ownership, within the restraints of constructive sentiment. It is not exclusively a benefit to the master but
also a welcome addition to the lot of the slave, as the master, with his superior judicious capabilities, can forsee the
problems that will arise by entrusting the slave with the opportunity to rear another, should we, in affect, subject one
of our foremost societal representatives to the social ideals of the slave? We would be mandating upon all of those
positions of mastery a burden he recognized to be of no benefit to a system so necessary, and essential, in its’
ramifications. If we do not grant the master the ability to divorce his subordinates from one another we are,
ultimately, ensuring needless abuses within slave society.

If a master has no ability to separate slaves from their kin, exclusively due to a chance of birth we are then, in affect, mandating
a tolerance of abuse, the point of slavery is not the sanctioning of abuse but, instead, it is the elimination of detrimental
relations. We do not entrust slaves to guide themselves, their actions, holistically speaking, or meaningful elements of our
society, and yet we’re to entrust them with having the deductive and sentimental reasoning of micro-societal organization?
They should not be enabled to control their subjects without the affirmation of the master, and if the master concludes what
is best for all involved is a permanent separation who are we, as situationally detached as we are, to judge the propriety of
the decision? If masters are anything they are those that we believe capable of control, it would be quite unwise and uncaring
of us, both in our prescriptions for the master and the slave, to turn a blind eye to the inner-familial turmoil that our lowest may produce, just for the sole sake of familial preservation. The master should be be informed and judicious in both action and the evaluation of consequences related thereto, if the master is unsuccessful, and his determinations are deeply flawed the master should be evaluated and pressured to pursue reform. Ultimately the sovereign should ensure the health, social adjustment,
and proper development of those thereunder, and while we may be able to influence this process and we may be able to
have a certain a degree of sway, the master must have control for him to have guidance, and we must aid that control, as
much as we aid all control that has the potentiality for great good. Proper unity, familial or otherwise, should never be
disregarded, however, to sanction a societally mandated indecent union, inherently of a lower order, exclusively because
of the familial principle is sure to sow seeds in the very bedrock that is most essential in preserving the elevation of
all civilization.

call to chat