Time on the Cross is a study that analyzes history from the perspective of economics and data. The most obvious problem with this study is that the author ignored the moral bottom line. From a one-sided perspective, the historical events are analyzed, and the conclusions drawn are unethical. By providing some correct economic data, it is not enough to justify the behavior of black slaves. Getting partial correctness in terms of economic data is not comprehensive. For example, black people can get a certain amount of money as cheap labor, but their legal rights in social status, marriage, religion, etc. are not guaranteed. This is where the research is incomplete.
In addition, this set of analysis theory has certain white supremacy. They suggested that the introduction of slaves and the provision of cheap labor had an idea to increase productivity. Blacks, like whites, are not lazy and even better at agriculture. I think this is also a manifestation of racism. First, they were not immigrants, but abducted to the American continent. They don’t have legal overseas labor contracts, basically, they belong to their owners. Second, they argued that slave owners were kind to slaves. This theory is even more contradictory. Because most black people are slaves and farmers, they belong to disadvantaged groups. How can they leave a lot of study and historical data to prove how their rights are being exploited? Will the exploiting class be willing to record evidence of how they are exploited? What is the measure of kindness? I don’t think a lot of inside information will be recorded in economic data. Third, the drive of capitalism. I think the research is based on capitalism. The idea that using cheap labor in plantations can increase the economy is the idea that money is paramount. Whites cannot import slaves by force. After their own training, they can make blacks better. Physical work such as planting. The logic behind it is simple. No white person is willing to do hard plantation work, and training and appropriate punishment can make black people work, and analyze productivity improvement from the perspective of economics. Why can’t white people hire white people for agricultural work? I think there may be two reasons. First, white people’s salaries are higher than black slaves. Second, few people are willing to do hard work. Black people are willing to do labor not because they are willing or enthusiastic about agriculture, but because they are abducted and they have to do it. This is a kind of squeezing and exploitation. I think that the economic income generated by squeezing and exploitation should be viewed separately, and not be confused with the general economic income generation.
This brings me to a new question. The black slave system has been overthrown, but his essence is that the upper-class society of capitalism is no longer willing to choose to do some hard work, and it is not uncommon for them to use overseas low-cost labor in exchange for more benefits. For example, Boeing employs engineers in India, but only pays them $ 10 an hour, and they use this barrier to get more valuable creations at a lower price. On YouTube, their advertising dividends to North American creators are much worse than those to the rest of the world. Indian creators receive only one-tenth of their income compared to North American creators.
In future work, I think we should face up to the legal rights of each worker. The world will work with people from various industries and countries because of various trades and cooperations. To increase productivity and efficiency is unethical. What’s more, it should not be qualitative for others. For example, black people are good at planting and Indians are good at engineering work. This is a manifestation of racial discrimination. Only in the hearts of everyone, the values of equality for all, will our scientific research and social environment be more harmonious.