BS: Colonial Sins

Subject: BS: Colonial Sins
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 01:11 PM

An interesting article claims to present some history of things that quite a few of our nations didn't handle very well. (Note: possible slight understatement?)

The article, as posted, includes a number of images that I think will be helpful for those who want some perspective on the events described, so I'll omit the copy and paste of the text alone.

As I believe that knowledge (and understanding, which may be too difficult for some) of the history of nations behaving badly is important when similar behavior threatens in the present, I suggest the article as a possible addition to what we remember when our "leaders" argue about what they can get by with next.

Colonial sins return to haunt former world powers

John

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 01:31 PM

The article hits some glaring examples of "nations behaving badly" but could add many others, including the elimination of the native Tasmanians, actions by all colonial powers in the Americas, Japaneese occupation of Korea, etc., etc.

It was the nature of colonial powers to regard the natives of less technologically advanced cultures as sub-human. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" articles (esp. 11th ed., 1911) on some of the "lesser" peoples (Negroes, etc.) exhibits this view.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM

The extermination of the Beothuk? The subjugation of the Celts by the Romans?

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 01:44 PM

Jack, we could even include the extinction of the Neanderthal peoples (some authorities).
A sin as old as mankind- who first wrote that?

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 02:28 PM

The original inhabitants of North America, didn't do too well either as I recall.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: gnu
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:48 PM

No, John, they didn't. Jts's post refers to the the worst of it all in that regard. The Beothucks do NOT EXIST... not one... they were ALL killed. It is beyond shameful but it comes from something else JtS posted in the SAME post.

Following up on his same post, that subjugation of the Celts went on for a thousand years. And it goes on today waged upon others. Bullets fly today. People die today. Yeah, the Romans were good but they got nuthin on these warriors. These guys are fuckin unreal. Colonial sins are happening as I type but it's just handled differently by the powers that be... be killing people for money.

Maybe I will go to Walmart and get some potatoe chips and not be concerned with any of it... they ARE on sale, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 08:10 PM

The list goes on from the past. Possibly ignorance, religion, love of possessions, limited national resources, (the list goes on) could be held up to justify some of it in earlier years? But, possibly it's not so easily excused in later years?
Is it occuring now? If so, where, and how is it being justified today?

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 08:28 PM

Don't get me all historical now, but from my studying on it there ain't NO country that can be called "blameless" (or any religion, for that matter).

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: gnu
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 09:27 PM

Ed T... "Is it occuring now? If so, where, and how is it being justified today?"

Afghanistan. We are fighting a religious and civil war! We are fighting "The Taliban." Line up lads! And kill the bastards! Sick fucker that Hair.

See that there Imadinnerjacket on Charley Rose today? He ain't so fucked up unless he is lyin and some of the shit he said ain't lies. I don't trust him but I agree with some of the shit he says. Same goes for others... Bush fer one.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: SINSULL
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 10:37 AM

Still happening now under the guise of "gentrification".

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: keberoxu
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 10:07 AM

Following on from the raising/rousing of
USA consciousnesses, about racism in general
and racism against African-Americans in particular:

the official name is
"the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."
The name dates back to colonial times in general,
the 1600's in particular.

The toppling of statues nationwide,
the new scrutiny for old names and conventions,
focus in particular on the history
of the slave trade that brought to this continent
the ancestors of many of today's African-American citizens.

Ten years ago, according to this report,
this name change was voted on, and the resolution defeated.
This time, however, the state governor has signed an executive order.
Which does not make the name change official:
it makes possible, this November election,
a referendum on the ballot.

CNN, Monday June 22

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 10:17 AM

King Laopold II was responsible for the massacre of up to 10 million Congolese tribesmen and the cutting off of countless numbers of rubber-workers' hands for not meeting their quotas
Over a century later the Belgians are getting around to thinking about removing the statues ereted in his honour   
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 12:09 PM

Keb, A++

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 01:52 PM

the elephant in the colonial room are the Arabs who have suffered from artificial colonial borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 03:21 PM

The nearly extinct Buffalo in other Territories would be Reservations, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 04:04 PM

In many African countries, the European colonists did quite a lot of good. The French for example, built roads, hospitals, schools and introduced refuse collection and access to clean water. (Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire for example)
Once Independence was granted, corrupt indigenous politicians moved in, and bled their countries dry for their own ends. They haven't maintained the infrastructure, many live in Europe and hardly ever visit the land they 'govern'. Private medical facilities are run only for them ('the rich').
I've heard many times people saying they were 'better off under the 'whites'!

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 03:06 AM

THese countries were pulundered for profit for may centuries and the legacy they left behind was one of greed - it is little wonder that tsome of worst elements of the indigenous population took their cue and continued their "good work", especially as those forced to leave made sure that the country ws left "in a safe pair of hands"
inconveniently principled leaders like Nkrumah were removed, with the help of the West - Lumumba was murdered
International leaders in the position, and prepared to make a difference, like Dag Hammarskjöld were 'got out of the way' so that changing countries could "remain the same"
I went though my schooldays being told hat "these countries are not ready to rule themselves" - racism on a global scale
Terms like 'primitive' were used as an excuse to enslave and profit from countries with perfectly workable systems which suited their own conditions far more than those which were forced on them
Countries like Egypt and Ethiopia had civilizations while today's 'modern nations' were swinging in trees - humanity began in Africa
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 03:51 AM

What you say is true of course Jim. The colonists weren't there to help these countries to develop, but to plunder their resources for their own ends. Sadly, there are numerous Lebanese, Chinese and other 'investors' still hanging around in W Africa, getting very cheap labour and exploiting the native people. As a young man, my husband worked in incredibly difficult conditions with 50Kg (!!) sacks of cement on his back in 40 degrees of heat for £30 a month, for a foreign construction company. He very nearly died.
But the upside is that development did take place (probably to benefit the incomers, not the indigenous people!)
Dakar, Accra, Abidjan etc seemed to me to be great modern cities, and there have been some advantages. But abject poverty is still to be seen on the streets. Starving beggars and skinny children etc.
The interesting thing is that deep in the countryside, the people live as they have always done, and they seem content and in reasonable health. In Nafamadougou (husband's ancestral village) they have a dignity and pride in their un-modernised ways.
(But the last time he was there, an old bloke, the 'headman', asked him if he could buy them a tractor in UK and ship it out!)

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Acorn4
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:56 AM

This extract was shared on one of our local folk club facebook pages over the weekend. Bit of an eye opener if it's all true:-

The Irish slave trade began when 30,000 Irish prisoners were sold as slaves to the New World. The King James I Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on its own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 05:50 AM

I'd love to have seen central and South Africa Sen - I made the north several times - never really come down from our two-week trip up the Nile
The overwhelming impression I was left with each tome was of a friendly, hospitable people
I sered my apprenticeship on the Liverpool dock - in those days, many of the crews still had tribal markings - again, you were left with the feeling of friendly, usually gregarious people when they were allowed to be
One of the great advantages o having lived in three of Britain's largest cities was it gave you a chance to meet people from everywhere
In my opinion, much of the poverty in these countries, not just Africa, is predatory Western greed

That's a fascinating lump of information Acorn - many thanks
Just prior to when it began, in 1631, the village of Baltimore, in West Cork was raided by Barbary Pirates, the inhabitants kidnapped and enslaved   
There's a fascinatint (unfortunately not-very-well-written) book entitled 'The Stolen Village', describing it - worth a read anyway
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:28 PM

Abidjan had a bowling alley but villages didn't have clean water, when I was in Cote d'Ivoire...

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jun 20 - 04:58 PM

The villagers have a well, and a manual pump. The water seems okay (according to my husband - I've never been there).
Their way of life makes them incredibly strong, resilient and resourceful.
I've mentioned this before. I had a most enlightening conversation with a pair of dreadful white colonial types from South Africa, visiting in Norfolk with their daughter. They were bemoaning the fact that now that 'the blex' are in charge, they can't employ 'bleck staff' for the equivalent of five pounds per week to do their cooking, laundry and work on the land of their farmstead.
They spoke to my husband with utter contempt and I bristled.
They were constantly afraid they might be attacked by 'maurauding blex' and have their stuff stolen.
I secretly wished this on them, horrid racist exploiters.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 20 - 11:43 AM

"Or did Mr. Oakapple just make it up?"
Why should anybody have - it's a facual description
He might well have used the conditions of those transported to the colonies - firs 'The New World' then Tasmania as examples of slavery - that continued thirty years after slavery ended in Britain
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Mossback
Date: 25 Jun 20 - 01:19 PM

Source or sources, Jim for Mr. Oakapple's cut-n-paste "factual" description?? And which of the many assertions are "factual"??

Its all still tu quoque nonsense.


He might well have used the conditions of those transported to the colonies - irs 'The New World' then Tasmania as examples of slavery -

He might, but he'd be wrong. Those were indentured servants, "redemptioners" or convicts, not chattel slaves owned as property..

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 20 - 02:29 PM

"Source or sources, "
It seem as far as the facts and figurs are concerned, I owe you an apology
I haven't read the book he quotes - I did read a favourable review in a usually reliable Cork paper
The criticism was on whether what undoubtedly took place could be construed as 'slavery' - it was certainly bad treatment
That treatment persisted towards the Irish peasantry persisted from the Plantations - through Cromwell and into up to the point when the Land League moved in to stop the forced evictions
The Perid fllowing the Famine was worse than slavery, in fact, with eveicted tenants forced to dig holes in the ground to stay alive until they could get to the coffin ships
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Mossback
Date: 25 Jun 20 - 04:30 PM

Ta, Jim.

I don't contest that the Irish were often treated like shit throughout the course of history. Nor do you need to tell me about Cromwell, The Famine & its consequences - my Mam's people are from Mayo and Kilkenny.

But that's nothing to do with slavery.


Best,

Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Mr Red
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 05:24 AM

The history of Ireland depends on where you look. The "English" where initially invited in to Ireland by competing and warring "kings". Or more specifically, successful private armies composed largely of English soldiers.

And as with so many conflicts, the successful side came with expectations of the spoils of war. And The "winning" King had hopes of sequestrating the value of the losing king.

Of course cherry-picking history - and writing it - is the forté of the winners. And who chooses the cherry-picking currently?

I well remember an Irish colleague referring to Irishmen being transported to Oz for stealing a sheep. Using the word English for the perpetrators. She was a bit confused when I pointed-out that in England people were also hung or transported for stealing, and her magistrates were certainly Irish. She didn't understand my reference to the similarity between the Oz Strine and the accents of Lundun (innit?) and South East England generally. No hint of Oirish in Ozspeak, so there isn't! Too right cobber.

FWIW school students get +10% for answering exams in Gaelic (she said) even maths! Bias? Hard to deny, but does it represent mathematical prowess? AND life ain't binary, even in maths.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 07:08 AM

"England" is shorthand for 'The English Authorities' - by and large, the Irish tend to get on with English people (when they're not carrying bodhrans)
Enngland was invited to Ireland the way the US was invited into Vietnam by its puppet leaders
They overstayed their welcome by 8 centuries and even then they nicked the family silver when they left

Of course the Irish were treated like shit - go read up the Penal Laws - then try 'The Famine Plot' which more or less proved that the outcome of the Famine was deliberate

Sidney Clements (Lord Leitrim) even managed to re-establish the ancient right of Droit de seigneuriage (first bite of the cherry) when his tenants married

Our favourite kiddies author, the Rev. Charles Kingsley, pretty well summed up how the Irish were regarded by the British

"But I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country. I don’t believe they are our fault, I believe that there are not only more of them than of old, but that they are happier, better, more comfortably fed and lodged under our rule than they ever were. But to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours."
And then we gave them Bernard Manning !
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 12:51 PM

I thought it was Droit de seigneur.

What have the Romans ever done for us? comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 12:56 PM

"I thought it was Droit de seigneur."
Sorry, never could spell the word - that's the one I got from my search
The Romans - I thought they gave us candles ?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 01:33 PM

Incidentally, if anybody would like the definitive study of the Lord Leitrim affair by D.K. Wilgus along with recordings of 2 of the twenty songs made on the assassination' an -mail address will link you to a digitised copy
My favourite story of the landlord was told by my late friend, Tom Munnelly
Tom weent to The Tradition Club to hear two fine Donegal fiddle players back in the seventies
On the way to the bus after the session, he found he was walking behind the two men and saw them stop, climb over the high railings of St Michan's Church in Smithfield and reappear a few minutes later - the Church contians Clements's crypt
As Tom drew level with the railings he saw them walking back through the churchyard zippin up their flys
They recognised Tom from earlier and told him "we always like to pay our respects to His Lordship whenever we come to Dublin"
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Colonial Sins
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Jun 20 - 03:14 PM

Acorn4, that article seems to have been debunked:

Reuters Fact Check