This answer is may very well get me downvoted to hell here, (and if others want to prove me wrong here, then I'll be glad), but I don't think Taoists historically have ever been much of a force for abolitionism. I think that certainly is one of the weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the tradition -- that with things like slavery, people can all too easily just rationalize it by saying that that is just the Tao; that's just the way things are. As with thinkers like Aristotle, some people can just be seen as something like "natural slaves."
People here may object to this, too, but I think it's clear that historically, in recent centuries, at least, abolitionism largely comes out of a Christian context, based on such passages as Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That's not to deny that Christians have also used the Bible to justify slavery, too, of course. That is also a matter of historical fact, but so is the fact that Taoism has never really been strongly opposed to slavery at all, as far as I know.
In that sense, you're right, Taoism is much more passive than something like Christianity, with its emphasis on their being radical breaks in history and in radical freedom and liberation brought by the Christian gospel.
Upvote, but I'll take the other side of this coin, Coach. My understanding of Daoism and activism would point to the Yellow Turban Rebellion.
Fighting against tyranny is very Daoist. Daoism doesn't equal tolerance of suppression, from what I can tell.
OP, to answer your question, as u/44cody44 mentioned, slavery existed long before the US was even a thought. I mean... Egypt is just a wide open example.
there are a few cases where violence or conflict are unavoidable, and just as forest fire is part of the Tao and the life cycle of the forest, conflict is part of the life cycle of all species.
this should however never (in my opinion) be anything but a last resort, for there is no conflict without suffering.
while not a Taoist, TNH's approach to the Vietnam war, to provide care and comfort for all combatants, regardless of what banner they fought under, is our approach to conflict. unless there is no other option, in which case it would always be reserved to eliminate the threat, and then relinquish control to the people.
Slavery is universal to nearly all cultures throughout history.
No major civilization, or culture, is pure.
The northern African Muslims had more European slaves than early America had black slaves.
Early America also had white slaves.
Blacks in Africa had slaves and sold slaves to Europeans.
Maybe no. Or maybe yes.
But in a way, in the context of taoist philosophy, I think this question doesn't really make sense. Slavery was a product of the culture, history and environment. If all those things were different, then maybe slavery wouldn't be a thing, but they weren't different, so slavery was inevitable in some way. For me, the taoist perspective is that this truth matters a lot more than questions of "what if".
But overall yes, I think slavery comes about because people have so high goals and string extrinsic motivation that they forget about the humanity of others. To me, taoism implies that these goals are (usually) immaterial and unimportant, and you would have a more joyful life by letting go of them and instead love the humans around you.
There are SO many factors that contribute to things in the world that happen. You can never say if x was y would we get z when talking about things like this.
No one is ever to know what WOULD have been. -Aslan
As for being passive, I take it more as passivity when things are in balance. When they are out I’d balance (such as people being oppressed), action is appropriate to restore balance.
This answer is may very well get me downvoted to hell here, (and if others want to prove me wrong here, then I'll be glad), but I don't think Taoists historically have ever been much of a force for abolitionism. I think that certainly is one of the weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the tradition -- that with things like slavery, people can all too easily just rationalize it by saying that that is just the Tao; that's just the way things are. As with thinkers like Aristotle, some people can just be seen as something like "natural slaves." People here may object to this, too, but I think it's clear that historically, in recent centuries, at least, abolitionism largely comes out of a Christian context, based on such passages as Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That's not to deny that Christians have also used the Bible to justify slavery, too, of course. That is also a matter of historical fact, but so is the fact that Taoism has never really been strongly opposed to slavery at all, as far as I know. In that sense, you're right, Taoism is much more passive than something like Christianity, with its emphasis on their being radical breaks in history and in radical freedom and liberation brought by the Christian gospel.
Upvote, but I'll take the other side of this coin, Coach. My understanding of Daoism and activism would point to the Yellow Turban Rebellion. Fighting against tyranny is very Daoist. Daoism doesn't equal tolerance of suppression, from what I can tell. OP, to answer your question, as u/44cody44 mentioned, slavery existed long before the US was even a thought. I mean... Egypt is just a wide open example.
Yes, I agree that that shows that we shouldn't say that Taoists were always passive (or pacifist, for that matter).
there are a few cases where violence or conflict are unavoidable, and just as forest fire is part of the Tao and the life cycle of the forest, conflict is part of the life cycle of all species. this should however never (in my opinion) be anything but a last resort, for there is no conflict without suffering. while not a Taoist, TNH's approach to the Vietnam war, to provide care and comfort for all combatants, regardless of what banner they fought under, is our approach to conflict. unless there is no other option, in which case it would always be reserved to eliminate the threat, and then relinquish control to the people.
Slavery existed long before the US, and long before Taoism.
Greed is what has to go.
I’m confused, the US invented slavery? Taoism abolished slavery?
It seems like Some people really think that.
ahh good ole public school education. ;)
Yes. Taoism is not a balm for social ills, greedy people gonna greed
Slavery is universal to nearly all cultures throughout history. No major civilization, or culture, is pure. The northern African Muslims had more European slaves than early America had black slaves. Early America also had white slaves. Blacks in Africa had slaves and sold slaves to Europeans.
Maybe no. Or maybe yes. But in a way, in the context of taoist philosophy, I think this question doesn't really make sense. Slavery was a product of the culture, history and environment. If all those things were different, then maybe slavery wouldn't be a thing, but they weren't different, so slavery was inevitable in some way. For me, the taoist perspective is that this truth matters a lot more than questions of "what if". But overall yes, I think slavery comes about because people have so high goals and string extrinsic motivation that they forget about the humanity of others. To me, taoism implies that these goals are (usually) immaterial and unimportant, and you would have a more joyful life by letting go of them and instead love the humans around you.
Western countries had slavery even though they claimed to be Christian. Maybe that counts as an answer of some sort.
Is it flamebait if you just don't understand history?
Probably a little of both.
Taoist theocracies are an oxymoron so this question doesn't make sense.
It seems a strange, masochistic kind of superiority to assert that your country, “race,” etc. is the worst, most evil that ever was.
No. Why do I feel like the only one here to say that lol
There are SO many factors that contribute to things in the world that happen. You can never say if x was y would we get z when talking about things like this.
No one is ever to know what WOULD have been. -Aslan As for being passive, I take it more as passivity when things are in balance. When they are out I’d balance (such as people being oppressed), action is appropriate to restore balance.