BS: Apologies over slave trade?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:36 PM

What! Your people wore grey?!!

Oh, horror of horrors!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 12:26 PM

I fail to see why people have the need to apologise for injustices carried by their ancestors....or why others have the need to hear those apologies....when neither party was involved. It is nonsensical. I refuse to apologise for being white....I refuse to apologise for the fact that my ancestors may or may not have had slaves...I refuse to apologise that my people wore grey. I refuse to apologise for things that I had no control over, things I had no involvement in, things done long before my greatgrandfather was born.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 11:56 AM

Quarcoo,

I'm glad that Mudcat provides us with an opportunity to exchange insights and opinions about this very important subject.

Up unto fairly recently, I hadn't considered how Africans who remained in their country thought about the roles of some Africans in 18th and 19th century chattel slavery. I recognize from your comments that this both an intellectual and an emotional issue for you, as it is for me and as it also may be for people of European descent.

I believe that how and why chattel slavery occurred are too important and too complicated to be reduced to one line sound bites. And though I believe that it would be beneficial to receive apologies from all concerned, it is far more important to work to ensure that modern day slavery is ended and something as vile slavery never occurs again.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Kweku
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 11:29 AM

Good one there Azizi, I agree with you on the aspect of the fact that some Africans also played a part in the slave trade. But let me also point out some thing to you.

One of the major reasons why slavery thrived in West Africa(that is the area I am very conversant with) is because we Africans see ourselves as one big family,therefore the norm for most families in Ghana for example was to allow their children to stay with aunties and uncles as they are in a better position(unbiased position) to raise their children for them. And the practice has died out,mainly due to slavery. And this system is exactly what the missionaries took advantage of. They made we believe that it was normal for our sons to be educated their way whiles at the same time using these people they trained to capture locals into slavery. It is therefore not surprising all the black slave merchants who benefited fromt this trade were all highly educated the western way(and I say this as someone who's hometown is home to some of these merchants). From time to time they would bring back some of the boys they had sent to Europe back to Ghana neatly dressed to impressed upon the locals that they had nothing to loose in exchanging their children for guns,alcohol etc. As these items are jsut token of the agreement to train their children in Europe. Those who realized this evil act were branded as devils and society frowned on them, that is why the missionaries frowned on African traditional religion and branded our worship as paganism. That is why up to now Africans will still try to reach Spain under dangerous conditions which kill most of them daily. The missionaries used their schools and seminary to train people like Bishop Palmer-Buckle to continue to enslave us,that is why Ghana's first president took the schools from the missionaries and placed them under government control.

On the subject of payment or retribution is not necessary,because it can never replaced what we have lost. We need the churches to accept their evil role and relocate with their members(both black and white) back to where they came from. APOLOGIES they can decide not to, but with time Africans will come to realize that the church is the cause of their woes. Soon and very soon.

We Africans have our Ethopian Orthodox Church to worship in.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 29 Jun 06 - 07:29 AM

I've been away from this thread for awhile and just want to make a few comments:

[somewhat off topic] to GUEST,blakprof: Please stick around and continue posting on this and other Mudcat threads, as a member or as a guest. We [Mudcatters]need to hear from more people of color. And I say this recognizing the fact that we [people of color] probably will not agree with each other some or all of the time. But why should people of color agree with each other? [this last a rhetorical question]

****

That said, let me partly agree with Quarcoo's statement that
"slavery was the work of the missionaries and they used their religion as a cover".

However, missionaries weren't the only population of people responsible for slavery...and some missionaries living and working among African peoples are committed to their religious ideals AND have done good works [medical, educational].

Also, though I know little about this aspect of it, it seems to me that the historical actions of Muslims who forced people to convert to Islam and killed and enslaved populations who did not convert {and enslaved persons who did?}, is not the same as what the so-called Christian missionaries did [those who excused their atrocities under the name of Christianity].

Not to mention the current Sudanese experience where Muslims are still enslaving non-Muslims...The fact that race [skin color] is a factor in the Sudanese example with the non-Muslims being enslaved being black skinned and the Muslims being lighter skinned may or may not be a factor-but I rather think it is-since skin color prejudice is one of chattel slavery's terrible legacies that has spread throughout the world including in nations that are ruled by people of color.

Also, Quarcoo, you statement about missionaries does not acknowledge the role that Africans played in enslaving other Africans. The fact is that Africa had slavery before the Europeans came, though it was not that most horrendous form of slavery, chattel slavery.

****

For the record, I agree with Wolfgang's Jun 06 - 05:05 PM comment that "Apologies by countries are about present financial or other advantages". But I would say that forgiving the debt in those nations or really providing financial assistance [instead of making grandstand promises of money] and providing low cost medicine, medical equipment, and medical supplies is a reasonable [to me] way to demonstrate that those nations recognize the heinous nature of chattel slavery.

But I also believe that there is a psychological and metaphysical healing benefit to apologizing and accepting the apology.

And I don't think that expecting or demanding something has to always be a part of the act of apologizing and accepting an apology. It's not always that way on a personal level...

****

Dave'sWife said "I have a friend whose family is Basque. I can tell you that nobody in spain considers them "white". White and black are arbitrary divisions that have no use any more. let's not perpetuate them."

I agree that racial classifications are arbitrary social [and political] constructs whose meaning may vary over time, and from one nation to another.

However, admitting that the referents mean different things to different people, it seem to me that it isn't the referents themselves that are the problem, but the positive and negative value judgements that have been given to these referents.

Because I consider it important, let me close with what I've 'said' on a couple of other Mudcat threads: I'm not working for a time when people are color blind. I'm looking forward to and working for a time when a person's skin color does not matter- on a personal level or on an institutional level.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 10:22 PM

The advantage of the missionary position

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 08:42 PM

Speaking of missionaries, in Hawaii there's a traditional comment that goes something like: "The missionaries came to do good--and they did REAL well!"

The missionaries and their friends ended up owning far and away most of the island real estate that was of value, and almost all of the big business, and kept a heavy foot on it for many decades. Truth to tell, I bet you could look at the 100 richest families in Hawaii and you'd find that most of them derived their riches from the missionaries' machinations.


Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Kweku
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 08:08 AM

I will say it again, slavery was the work of the missionaries and they used their religion as a cover. I hope nobody takes this comment as one coming from a prejudiced mind but from someone who knows that telling his fellow countrymen that the first slave ship was called JESUS would earn him a cold look, or that the Arab moslems did the same thing the Europeans did.

The problem is with people like Bishop Palmer-Buckle who is afraid to confidently tell his countrymen that his church supported the slave trade. My ancestors were taken into slavery by the savagery work of the missionaries so it was in the Ancient Ghana empire by the Arab moslems.

The real people who are supposed to be apolgising are rather acting as sympathisers of the victims. And unfortunately, the worldwide society see them as angels that is why the apology and measures involved in working against slavery has kept long in coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 05:38 PM

Not the main theme but I'm sometimes also a pedant and not only a cynic:

frogprince,
you started the calculation fine but got lost in the middle:

1,000,000,000,000 divided by 31,536,000 = over 31,709 years

Ouch. If you divide a money unit by a time unit you do not get years but money per time. So, the 31,709 you did get is the amount of $ per second you need to get 1,000,000,000,000 within a single year. Good response but that was not the question asked. With 2000 years time you need just 1/2000 per second of what you calculated. And that is quite close to MMario's solution, but I only get roughly 15 instead of 30 years and I don't know why.

However, if one takes a trillion as 10 to the power of 18 (as in many European countries) one gets a very different result.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 05:05 PM

Apologies are meaningless unless they actually come from the people involved in carrying out the Act.
Guilt is not inherited. It makes apologies for the 18th century slave trade, or pardons for soldiers shot for cowerdice in 1914-18 pointless gestures (Bunnahabhain)

I tend to disagree. People argue about these things and ask for apologies quite often with a mind set on today and on more than an apology. The noble thinking mentioned in Azizi's mentioned is rare and only found on a personal level like in the case of Mr. Hawkins that is when it is a mere gesture with no costs except the apology itaself.

A pardon for a soldier shot for cowardice in 1939-1945 is relevant for their widows' pension (that's why Germany retrospectively declared those sentences injustice only quite recently when most widows were dead and the apology was cheap, says the cynic in me). When and why did Germany apologise for the Nazi crimes? When the preparatory talks about compensation were over at an acceptable price. Why do Poland and Chechia not apologise for the ethnic cleaning of Germans after 1945? Because those Germans (and their heirs) still insist upon ownership of their houses and lands.

Ifor has said clearly what this demand for an apology for slavery is about. As a compensation for the slave trade all the African debts should be cancelled. That's in the backs of the minds and not much else. Bobert has also implicitely posted what he thinks the implications of such an apology should be in the USA.

Descendants of the Moors have asked for an apology from Spain for the expulsion of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula some 500 years ago. At the first glance that looks like a decent demand and everybody asks why the Spanish King apologised in Israel for the expulsion of the Jews (also in 1492) but not in Morocco for the expulsion of the Moors. Well, if you read on what the descendants of the Moors want after the apology you understand. They want preferential treatment for immigration to Spain, that's why. The Jews did get the apology for they had no demand beyond that.

Apologies by countries are about present financial or other advantages. That's why they are so hard to get if the business deal behind it (how much costs us the apology and will you keep your mouths shut after that?) is agreed upon.

Apologies are much easier if there are only relatively few people to benefit from the consequences of an apolgy (if the conquerors of a country are now an overwhelming majority and the descendants of the former owners are few) or if all parties know that after the apology there will be no further costly demands (as in the Britain-Ireland case or in Azizi's story of the Bishop).

In all other cases apologies will only be given at either no costs or relatively low costs. I'm cynical but I fear I'm right here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 04:31 PM

pdq...
Your take on the moorish invasion of Spain reads like some racist fantasy..
The clash between the Moors and Christian Spain was not a racial struggle .
Indeed ,some of the most ferocious persecutions involved religion and not race.
Take for example the extermination of the Cathars of Languedoc by the church at the beginning of the 13th century or the massacres of Jews at the time of the first crusade at the end of the 11th century.
Medieval Europe saw itself in religious terms in which Muslims , Jews and pagans were excluded on religious and not racial grounds.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:51 PM

oh great - so now we are back to the all of weatern Europe is "white" argument. Sure didn't seemd that way when they emigrated to the united states - there werew varying degrees of white then and no doubt had been back on the continent.

I have a friend whose family is Basque. I can tell you that nobody in spain considers them "white". White and black are arbitrary divisions that have no use any more. let's not perpetuate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: pdq
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:14 PM

About 75% of the Modern Slave Trade was conducted by Portugese. Another 15% or so by Spanish.

These two groups share the Iberian Peninsula which suffered a brutile occupation by Black/Islamic/Moors.

That is 781 years of Black-on-White atrocities.

The turnaround started as soon as the invaders were expelled in 1492.

You don't suppose this was 'payback time', do you?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE INVASION OF WESTERN EUROPE-
The invasion of Western Europe by a non-White Muslim army after 711 AD, very nearly extinguished modern White Europe - certainly the threat was no less serious than the Hunnish invasion which had earlier created so much chaos. While the Huns were Asiatics, the Moors were a mixed race invasion - part Arabic, part Black and part mixed race, always easily distinguishable from the Visigothic Whites of Spain.

Although the Muslim armies were collectively known as the Moors or Saracens, they were in fact divided up into their own factions. Nonetheless, together they very nearly conquered all of Spain, and were only turned back from occupying all of Western Europe by a desperate White counter attack in France. The story of this seven hundred year long race war is without doubt one of the most arduous ever fought by the Whites in defense of their continent.

WHITE SPAIN INVADED-
In 711 AD, Ceuta fell to the Moors and immediately a Moorish fleet sailed across the strait and seized a beachhead on Andalusia in Spain, their first territory on the European mainland.

The Spanish Gothic king of the time, Roderic, rushed an army south and engaged the Moors in a three day battle at Xeres. The Moors won, and the Gothic Spaniards were forced to retreat, giving the Moors time to land a seemingly inexhaustible supply of soldiers from the population wells of North Africa.

Soon the Moors had assembled a massive army and within a few months had conquered most of Gothic Spain.

THE TRIBUTE OF 100 WHITE VIRGINS PER YEAR-
Only isolated pockets of Gothic resistance held out. In the north an enclave only secured its existence by being forced to enter a treaty with the Moors in terms of which the Goths had to hand over 100 White Gothic virgins a year to the Moorish leaders for use in their harems...

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:29 PM

Guest ifor states:

>>>
The slave trade from Africa to the Americas was on a gigantic scale involving many millions of captives . Surely it was the scale of the barbarity which distinguished it from other slave societies. <<

yes and.. in Rome a slave could purchase his freedom and earn the wages to do it. Slavery in Rome was awful for certain classes of slaves but for some it was more like indentured servitude. Slavery in the Bible too gets a lot of pointing at but you could not kill a slave and there were other societal constraints on Slavery there as well. Slaves in Judea could also purchase their freedom. That doesn't sound much like what happened in the Atlantic Slave Trade now does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 02:05 PM

how do we know that "Killing someone for disagreeing with you was a perfectly acceptable option in all societies"?

Not many where it wasn't, really. Even in Europe, formal duels were commonly fought until the early 19th century, and it persisted as a minor option for longer than that. Germany kept the Mensur until well into the 20th century, although admittedly that wasn't intended to be a duel to the death.

Does that mean that death did not bring grief?

These days, people say they'll never get over their son/daughter/partner dying. It's often said that no-one should out-live their children. And these days, I think that's a good response - it indicates how much you value those people close to you. But if you were a parent back then, you'd *know* that you're going to have something like 15 children if you live long enough to die of old age, of which probably 3 will die in the first year, another 5 maybe before they reach 16, and another 2 in their 20s and another 3 in their 30s from various diseases, agricultural/industrial accidents or military service. After the first 2-3 kids as a woman, you're probably not going to die in childbirth, but you're going to see most of your kids die before you do. As a man, if you live to 50 then you might have had a half-dozen wives over the course of your life, as previous ones died in childbirth.

The only comparable situation today to parenting in pre-medical days is with medical staff, who know that some proportion of their patients will die. They can get attached to them and be sad/upset when they don't make it, but it's something they get used to. If you imagine an entire society like that, where death of friends and close relatives is so commonplace and something you learn how to deal with in early childhood, then I think they simply *couldn't* have felt the same kind of grief over a death as we do today - or the ones who did would have been exceptions to the rule.

As you say Ebbie, we can't know for sure what anyone felt back then. All we can do is find comparable situations in modern day niches, look at people's reactions to them, and extrapolate it to an entire society filled with people with that attitude. As far as death goes, the medical profession is the only example these days - even soldiers don't have the kind of death-toll that a newborn baby had back then. The one constant in humankind seems to be that people learn to deal with whatever situation they're in by adapting their mindset so that whatever unpleasant thing doesn't bother them as much. In this case, the unpleasant thing is death of close friends and relatives. When that stops bothering you - well, how can death of other people you don't know matter?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 11:52 AM

1871 -US President Abraham Lincoln's gold-headed staff was bequeathed by US Consul Dr Smith to John Bright in accordance with the president's wishes.

Despite my hometown prospering with cheap cotton from the Confederate states, we elected a Member of Parliament who was instrumental in swaying the UK support to the North. Lincoln bequeathed his gold headed walking stick to the town to commemorate this fact. Slavery was abolished and we progress in social responsibility.

Bunnahabhain is correct in stating such apology is meaningless. The only people who feel that it is required, dwell in the past, and simply cannot move on in understanding.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM

Apologies are meaningless unless they actually come from the people involved in carrying out the Act.
Guilt is not inherited. It makes apologies for the 18th century slave trade, or pardons for soldiers shot for cowerdice in 1914-18 pointless gestures, which show that their advocates do not understand that then and now are different.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 10:03 AM

Interesting take on that, Grab, and it brings up a couple of questions in my mind. How do we - present day people - actually know what people felt in those long gone days? I'm not disputing it - I'm being serious here - but how do we know that "Killing someone for disagreeing with you was a perfectly acceptable option in all societies"? Does that mean that death did not bring grief? Does it mean that 'Mommy' or 'Daddy' or 'Son' being killed or 'Daughter' dying in childbirth did not bring tears?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Grab
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 09:05 AM

I wouldn't blame a white if he doesn't understand the need for an apology for the crimes committed against Africans.

But who's going to apologise?

The leaders of post-WWII Germany were in a position to apologise for acts committed by their country, because those leaders had been part of the system that committed those acts. (Even if they were civilians in the war, they were part of the society.) The leaders of Japan, it was a slightly different matter - Japan was still a feudal society, so there was no equivalent situation of the regular people electing a government which would go on to do these terrible things.

Certainly we can AND MUST say that what happened in all these various inhuman times was barbaric, and we must do what we can to make sure it never happens again. In that sense, Tony Blair was right to say that British actions in the Potato Famine were disgraceful, and every sane person (from any country) will equally say that the slave trade was a foul, evil thing. But an apology requires that you say you personally are guilty, and I don't believe in racial guilt inherited through umpteen generations. Most Europeans didn't see a penny of the slave trade money - it all went into the aristocrats' pockets, whilst the average bods were labouring for a pittance.

If every current inhabitant of a country had to apologise for what was done by people hundreds of years ago, we'd never be bloody done with it! Danes apologising to the English for a couple of hundred years of rape and pillage, followed by wholesale invasion; Italians apologising for the acts of the Roman Empire; Germans apologising for the acts of the various tribes which sacked the Western Roman Empire; Europeans of every flag apologising for whatever war happened to kill thousands, etc etc etc. Not forgetting the aristocrats apologising for what they did to the poor. And lest I be considered too Euro-centric, don't forget: genocide and human sacrifice committed by the Aztecs against other tribes in South America; routine kidnapping and slavery by Barbary pirates; and the various acts of the Zulu nation, which were as close to genocide as makes no difference.

In other words, we're looking back on people who really thought it was OK to treat other people like that. Human life was cheap and had no more value than the life of an animal. A quarter of the adult men died in war and a quarter of the women died in childbirth. Half the children born died before adulthood. Death from starvation was a regular occurrence, not to mention the various diseases like typhus, cholera and smallpox. Killing someone for disagreeing with you was a perfectly acceptable option in all societies, and most societies would consider people who didn't respond with violence to be cowards.

I don't think people who want an apology for slavery realise quite how little respect for life there was back then. We've only gained our modern respect for life with the benefit of hindsight *after* all this loss of life.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 05:56 AM

Not wanting to understate in any way the evils of slavery, but it should be remembered that during and after Britain's involvement in the slave trade, poor British people were being treated worse than slaves.
Not having any intrinsic value, they could be paid a wage below subsistance and worked to death. There were plenty more paupers to replace them. The orphans were purchased from the parish and put to work for cruelly long hours and again worked to death. Few reached adulthood.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,blakprof
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 05:34 AM

Well the Jews have had their apologies so its quite right that countries not people should apologise for slavery.Listen Europe is what is is today because of slavery,the plantocracy and all the wealth was as a result of slavery.I am black with an English name,why is that?because of slavery for god sake,i dont know my African ancestors all i know is my Englsh names and slave owners heritage from Scotland.Are you saying that an entire generation of blacks robbed of their original identity do not deserve an apology?Remember that there are millions of English people now who don't want to accept the fact that their ancestors were slave owners and that their wealth was as a result.It is time we stop the flimsey excuse of it happened 2 centuries ago,for whites it's dates in their minds but for a black man its as if it happened yesterday.Just do the moral thing and apologise;healing is importnant

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 01:31 AM

For a great book describing how slaves fought back against their masters try "The Black Jacobins "by CLLR James.This book describes the slave revolts on Haiti and is quite inspirational as the slave armies time and time again defeat the professional armies of France,Spain and Britain.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 01:02 AM

Good grief.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 11:54 PM

Ebbie you said, "Incidentally, since it is your usual target, I'm assuming that we are discussing conditions in the USA, not in India."

I think you forgot to add, Meowwwwwww.

I'm talking about slavery as a worldwide situation.

There are many forms of slavery and, yes, it is for profit.

In fact, capitalism depends on the exploitation of other human beings. Slavery is an extreme form of exploitation and it is still happening. Anyone who denies this is speaking in platitudes.

Capitalism could not have flourished without a history of slavery and cannot continue to flourish without it.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:43 PM

I agree with Azizi there about playing games about one atrocity being worse than another. It's a way of diverting attention from the real issues.

It's right to remind people that there are and have been other evils in the world as well as the particular one people focus there attention on, but that shouldn't be used as a way of somehow shifting the blame.

And blame isn't what it shoudl be about. The primary object should be to try to identify what are the characteristics of the the system we live in which have led to these historic crimes by people with whom we share an enormous amount, in societies which in many ways were very similar to ours.

History doesn't repeat itself precisely, but variants on the same theme recur.   Chattel slavery founded on brute force and arbitrary "racial" distinctions probably won't come again in that form, but the the continuing economic and political system which invented it is capable of coming up with more efficient ways of turning people into property and stealing their freedom.

Chattel slavery (only one of a number of different varants of slavery, though arguably the most grotesquely dehumanising for both parties) has a major disadvantage that you can't just lay off workers when you don't need them, and pick them up again when you do, if they have managed to survive. That's a main reason why as a system it is no longer a major player.

But if we tell ourselves that this means that slavery of one sort or another is dead and gone for ever we need a wake up call.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,dax
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 04:22 PM

I do not defend the Christian missionaries in Africa but the biggest religious outrage was by the Muslims. It was them who were the buyers in tribal Africa and they left their religious beliefs behind in many areas. The Irony is that many blacks in America embrace this religion thinking that it was that of their ancestors.
Slavery was not and is not always white on black. It is and was dispicable and eradication, not apology is what should be demanded of all humanity. History is history and we can not change that except to learn from it. That we can't seem to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 03:38 PM

Very true. Two things that are wrong shouldn't be ranked in the order of wrongness. It will never make them right.

I am glad that someone has brought up WW2 slave labour, though. Another sickening episode in the story of the human race.

I'm not sure if anyone in the USA has mentioned the role of your 'founding fathers' and slavery, with right wing (and Christian?) apologists still supporting them in spite of the failure of the American Revolution to get freedom and equality for all - well all men. Women still had (are having) a long struggle.

If we can't learn from history, we'll never learn at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 02:06 PM

When I was in college many years ago, I took a course on African American history. That course's professor was a Jewish woman who as a baby had survived a German concentration camp. During that semester's classes when she presented information from her curriculum, she would invariably interject that Jewish people had it worse than Black people.

I disliked those 'which oppressed people had it worse' exchanges then. And I dislike them now.

Do these exchanges add anything meaningful to these types of discussions? Or do comparing "apples & oranges" get folks bickering with each other while oppression keeps on occuring?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 01:35 PM

Ebbie, where did you find that indentured servitude was for a period of 2 years, 5 years or 7 years. Then how would you explain the major numbers of those folks being tracked down by hired "deputies", many times in a more agressive manner than many slaves were.

(Info taken from histories of Virginia families)

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 01:19 PM

Perhaps so, Uncle Dave O. However, slavery is a loaded word and the people who use it must be circumspect in its usage.

Indentured Servitude was not slavery in implication or in practice. The person could- and usually did - work off the debt. Many a person got to the US that way. When there is hope - however far off (usually it was for a period of 2 years, 5 years or 7 years) the mindset is very different from that of being enslaved.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 12:34 PM

I think it's time to think about a definition of "slavery".

Usually we think of "slavery" as referring to a culturally accepted system by which there can be (and probably is, widely) the legal or at least culturally sanctioned ownership of a person and of the person's descendants.

But think about the widespread historical practice of indentured servitude. That is to say, contractual forced servitude for some period of time, to pay off some debt--as, for instance, a criminal fine, the cost of passage (in the context of the US) to the New World, or various debts resulting in bankruptcy, the debts being bought out of the bankruptcy by a creditor and the debtor forced to labor to pay off the debts, with often exorbitant interest, sometimes amounting to a life sentence. Indentured laborers were often subjected to all of the evils we associate with slavery--violence, extreme labor, execrable housing, and so on. The difference, in effect, between this and slavery is academic.

Then in both the US and UK there were what I would call "industrial slavery", where the mills kept the employees impoverished and so underpaid that they were forced to live on so-called "advances", which could never be paid off under the conditions imposed. In theory these workers were not "owned", but they were anything but free agents. Actually, for the mill owners, this was preferable to holding slaves, because when a worker was "used up" the employer would recognize no further responsibility for him or her, and they could starve for all the owner cared. Many did. The system was so set up that the children, while not technically owned by the employer, had no choice but to continue in the labor, nowhere to go, no alternative means of livelihood.

There have been and are today many variants on these themes, worldwide. When talking about "slavery" we need to think beyond the usual, limited words "slave" and "slavery".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 12:28 PM

Slavery was also a disaster for Africa itself and its many peoples.Millions abducted with enormous misery , anguish and bloodshed.
Whole societies fragmented, destroyed or twisted and progress and stability in the whole regions thrown back.
The Congo was a hell for many Africans with the King of Belgium treating it as his fiefdom to be exploited and ransacked at his command and its people terrorised...and this long after official slavery had ended.
The book The Poisonwood Bible gives a good description of the legacy of colonial rule.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 08:55 AM

Perhaps some of you haven't looked at the site I blickyed to in an earlier post. So here it is again. Please look at it to help answer some of the questions being raised here.

Anti-slavery

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 08:15 AM

Teribus,

Real spending power by the "common man" in the US has been in decline since 1982...

The minmum wage alone has droped in it spending power 42% since 1969...

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:32 AM

so, is that sorry, or basically do you think it was damned decent of us to stop.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 05:26 AM

Years and years ago while the "Roots" saga was being shown on TV in the UK, I don't know whether by accident or design, but you could watch "Roots" on one channel, then switch over and watch a Documentary on the Slave Trade and William Wilberforce on the other channel.

The utter crap that went into the storyline of Roots was clearly shown time and time again. The Slave Trade based on the West coast of Africa was run as a business and was very well documented. As far back as those records go there was only ever two instances where Europeans penetrated the hinterland to capture and take slaves. Normally the slaves were brought to the coast by either Arab slavers, by members of another tribe who were disposing of foes taken in battle, or they were being sold by their own tribal chiefs.

While William Wilberforce, the non-conformist activists and the Society of Friends are credited with much to do with changing the attitude of the British Government to slavery. One significant and import contributer is hardly ever credited with his part in the ending of the slave trade - Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.

"Capitalism is still largely dependent on labour that is enslaved or paid poorly."

Another incorrect sweeping generalisation from dianavan. Have a good think about her statement, if it were true capitalism would have foundered centuries ago. It didn't, because that is not how the game works, anyone doubting that compare social statistics relating to "the common man" and you will find, in general, a constant and steady improvement down through the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 04:28 AM

Ebbie,

$40 an hour is $ 1600 a week (40 hours) or $76,800 a year (48 weeks). If that's poorly paid, can I be poorly paid please?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 04:07 AM

dianavan, in all likelihood I read - and comprehend - as much as you.

I never said there is no slavery - are you comfortable creating straw men? I took exception to your saying: "Capitalism is still largely dependent on labour that is enslaved or paid poorly."

If you had said that capitalism depends on workers being paid poorly - in comparison with owners- I would have agreed with you. Or at least "largely". A worker making $40 an hour, which is not uncommon, is miles away from an owner making a million a year. So yes.

Slavery is different. We read of some illegal workers being enslaved but that is NOT what most illegal workers are faced with. Long hours, yes, low pay, yes, lack of recourse, yes- but that is NOT slavery by any standard that I'm familiar with.

So I don't think you can safely say that capitalism depends "largely" on slavery in any sense.

Incidentally, since it is your usual target, I'm assuming that we are discussing conditions in the USA, not in India.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:40 PM

Ebbie -

Are you saying that capitalism only depends on poorly paid workers but not slavery?

I think capitalism needs both.

What do you think happens to the people who are smuggled into North America? Do you think they apply for their social security card and then go to work at WalMart?

I suppose you think that prostitutes are poorly paid by their Johns and not really slaves. Have you ever heard about massage parlours and porn videos? What about child porn? Do you think that's slavery or just poorly paid kids?

Do you think the kids who work in sweatshops are slaves or poorly paid workers? Who do you think makes many of the consumer goods that we rush to purchase? Have you ever looked into the factories of Indonesia, India, China, etc.?

What about the young brides of India? Do you think they have married freely or do you think that maybe the old men that they are married to just might be using them as household slaves. Its my understanding that many of those brides are beaten to death if they don't co-operate.

In fact, in many countries, women are no more than slaves.

I am sorry to tell you, Ebbie, that slavery does exist. Take the time to read some of the posts above. You may be inspired to look a little deeper into modern day slavery instead of rushing to proclaim that I have made "a very broad statement".

Apologies made by dignitaries, many years after the fact, are meaningless. Its just another whitewash. A way to convince people that slavery only happened in the past. Kinda like those folks that keep saying "Never Again" but can't see what is happening in Darfur.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Pelrad
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:00 PM

I live in Rhode Island, where the academians are suddenly hot to correct our whitewashed history. When I was in public school 30 years ago, slavery was something that only involved the southern American states. 20 years ago it was amended and we were taught that while Newport was a port that slavers passed through on their way to the south, there was no slavery in RI. In fact, our proud little state was an important stop on the underground railroad.

That's all well and good, but the full name of our state is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the majority of the state was plantation fields at one point. Newport was the busiest slaving port in the country, and when Congress banned slave transport our cunning businessmen found a loophole and Bristol became the new hot slaving port. There are still historic houses with basement cells in both these towns. The truth as the academics are telling it now is that little Rhody was up to its eyeballs in both trading and owning slaves.

Recently, these academics traced the bloodline of a speech pathologist who is descended from a slave documented to have come through the Newport slave market on a ship owned by the Brown family. They invited her (the descendant) to visit the state and had a parade, week-long lecture series, and several state dinners in her honor. Seems kind of weird. Are we going to do this for the many thousand more descendants who must be out there in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:20 PM

In the 19th c. slavery practiced by the Ottomans put quite a number of white eastern Europeans on the block. Baker, the explorer who found the (one?) source of the Nile, was accompanied on his explorations by his wife, whom he had bought while on a grand tour in eastern Europe. Much later, they may have been married, but details are hard to find. The author of the book detailing their life together found representatives of Baker's family in England uncooperative.
See Richard Seymour Hall, 1980, "Lovers on the Nile, The Incredible Journeys of Sam and Florence Baker."

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:00 PM

Uncle Dave is right. Slavery still exists. National Geographic ran a good article on the current slave trade not too long ago. Imagine the life of a young child chained to the floor making a rug that you or I get to walk on.

By the way - my understanding is that my great-grandmother - a native American - was sold before she entered the United States. Otherwise I might have ended up a Canadian! So you don't have to be black to be the decendents of slaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:46 PM

I've never heard that missionaries played a significant part in the African part of the Atlantic Slave trade. I could be wrong about that, but my understanding is that the people running the slave trade, both the European slavers and their African collegues, weren't interested in that kind of stuff, and that it was in the later extension of imperialism and colonialism that the role of missionaries became important.

There are two aspects to "apologies". One is that they are a way of making people today aware of some apalling things that have happened in the past of our civilisation, and of the continuing consequences of those things in the present.

And the other is that they are a way for society to accept responsibility to repair the evil consequences of that past history, insofar as it can be done, and to make use of the resources available largely as a direct result of slavery to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 12:17 PM

Quarcoo - Many Americans' beliefs are based on their appalling ignorance of anything outside their national boundaries. A while back in the UK we had a programme on TV in which a visiting American teenager stated that she wouldn't eat our disgusting food because "Can you believe it, they eat chipmunks for breakfast". Apart from the fact that there are no chipmunks in the UK, it's a total fallacy. And that from a member of the nation which inflicted MacDonalds and Burger King on the world.

And for the record, I don't see any point in this 'apology'. The most sincere form of apology is not to grovel in chains, it's to make sure that all slavery is ended and never happens again. Now THAT's an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 12:09 PM

Point well take, Bill...

That is why a larger discussion is long overdue... We need to sort thru a lot various issues, do a lot of research and be prepared to handle the apology in a manner that fits the outcome of the homework...

But sayin' merely that it is difficult as an excuse not to have this discussion is not acceptable...

And not talking about how wealth that is created by the working poor, disporportionatle black, should be divied up is unacceptable...

(BTW, the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has fallen 42% since 1968...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:50 AM

GUEST Penguin Egg said, in part:

The point I am making is that slavery was 400 years ago

Not so. Slavery is going on MANY places in the world, today. Not just "way off in Africa and Asia", but in the "Western World" (like the US, the UK, France, and elsewhere). The UN occasionally gets spastic about it, but little or nothing is done.

And yes, Mr. Hawkins's famous forbear was 400 years ago, but that was not the beginning and certainly not the end of slavery. Sir John Hawkins was a mere incident along the way.

If you care to modify your comment to "State-sanctioned slavery in Europe and the United States was ended about 150 years ago" you'd be close to right. Even then, there are governments today that claim to oppose slavery but turn a blind eye to slavery going on in their own countries.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:49 AM

I've mentioned this before. Britain ended her Slave Trade in 1807, thanks to the efforts (among others) of fellow Hull person, William Wilberforce.

On the subject of apologies, I feel that any apology from me would be meaningless. Neither I or nor any of my ancestors were ever involved in the Slave Trade, as far as I know. They were just poor working-class Yorkshire and Irish people. More relevant apologies could come from the descendents of the 'great families' who made their fortunes out of West India etc plantations and are still living in the huge houses that their immoral profits brought them.

But we all have a duty to learn about the evils of slavery and so apologies of this nature are helping, even just in starting a thread like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Kweku
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:27 AM

Exactly Bill D

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:19 AM

Apologies only make sense when offered BY the offenders, or by official representatives of institutions with specific history of offensive behavior. It is not easy to determine in many cases who should 'apologize' to whom.

The Pope apologizing for treatment of (or neglect or) Jews by the church during the holocast might be appropriate, for example.

What various groups and governments and people who are direct descendants of offenders can do is express sincere 'regrets' that offenses ever happened, along with promises to be aware and work toward a world where such things never happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Kweku
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:15 AM

he who feels it,knows it all

I wouldn't blame a white if he doesn't understand the need for an apology for the crimes committed against Africans. After all we still learn a lot about America and Europe, otherwise the IMF would not give money to our gov't for education. How many Europeans know about the countries in Africa? I can recite the cities in Europe like a CIA agent.

In 2003, I was in Germany and my knowledge and compalin about telephone services shocked the Germans, in 2003 they still thought that we still live on trees. Also in 2002,I heard an American(white) student screaming on the pay-phone mum is not true they are not monkeys,I am calling, using one of their telephone just like what we have back home.

so he who feels it,knows it all

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:07 AM

Clifford Stoll refers to it as "wage indentured servitude"

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 11:05 AM

"Capitalism is still largely dependent on labour that is enslaved or paid poorly. "

That's a very broad statement. Paid poorly, yes. In relation to the owners of the factories and mills, it is increasingly so. But not slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Kweku
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:56 AM

Jerry you a very right there. Maybe in the near future I could organise a trip for people who think slavery was a joke to come down to Cape Coast and Kumasi(armed forces meseum), and feel darkness like cloth hanging to your body. then it can be put to them if they think an apology is necessary.

most people complain about war crimes, but that can NEVER EVER be compared to the slave dungeons.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:45 AM

I agree about the missionaries with you Quarcoo, as they did in Africa they also enslaved the native Americans by alienating them from their traditions and cultural beliefs, this was an enslavement of the spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Kweku
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:18 AM

My grand-mother once told me how the people of Kromantse(Central Region-Ghana) were deceived into taking drinks by missionaries which later landed them in the carribeans. anyone who knows Jamaica very well should know of Kromantse(they also have a town named like that,obviously by the slaves).

The slave thing is not only about the apology, but about the fact that most Africans themselves know very little about the whole saga. if I were to demand an apology it would be from every so-called christian missionaries that steped their foot into Africa and has ultimately led to our current demise.

I demand an apology from these vampires in sheep's clothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:45 AM

Bunnahabhain - 22 Jun 06 - 09:56 AM

"Britian ended the slave trade in British ships and colonies in 1830, and the Royal Navy kept up anti-slavery patrols off African coasts until at least the First World War. We need a similar effort now, for the good of the people involved, and the country."

I believe that Bunnahabhain referred to such actions in another thread about Dreadnoughts. Where it was cited that British Gunboat Diplomacy was worse than that of the United States as the Royal hove into sight bombarded a country overwhelmed it in half and hour added it to the Empire and then charged the local rulers for the shells expended. the incident Bunnahabain was refering to I believe was the destruction of Zanzibar as the main slave trading post on the East Coast of Africa, whose ruler after repeated warnings continued to allow the slave trade to flourish. Rather unfortunate as the populations the Slavers were plundering happened to fall under the protection of that evil British Empire. Not so many did after Zanzibar was taken out of the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:04 AM

The French Revolution got rid of slavery in the French Colonies. Napoleon Bonaparte actually re-introduced it!

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 08:52 AM

Britain has a proud and disgraceful history of slavery. We used slavery, then we outlawed slavery and travelled the west coast of africa to the riddance of slavery.

No apologies neccessary, my father lives in rhodesia and black on black slavery is rife there.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:15 AM

The quote was $1,000 but I think there is also a difference of the usage of trillion, billion and million.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 06:41 AM

"And did you know a trillion bucks is $1,000 per second since the birth of Jesus"

"A trillion is a 1000 billion; and at $1000 a second would only take about 31 years. Since I don't think Christ was born in 1975 that statement is a little misleading."

60 seconds per minute
60 minutes per hour
3600 seconds per hour
86400 seconds per day
31,536,000 seconds per year.
1,000,000,000,000 divided by 31,536,000 = over 31,709 years

That's one dollar a second, not 1000, FP. Oh look, 31 years....

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 02:55 AM

The Romans depended increasingly on slavery for their economic wealth. However,the slaves in Rome came from all corners of the Empire and beyond its extensive borders.
The Atlantic slave trade was different.Slavery had to be "morally"justified by the slave masters, church leaders and the politicians of the time and the justification came in the that black Africans were supposedly subhuman . Here was the justification for the modern racism which has so poisoned many.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 08:58 PM

I don't buy Scoville's argument that since mnay of our ancsestors came to the US after slavery that these immigrants are off the hook...

When we look at the wealth and infastructure of this country that we all enjoy, a disporpoprtunate of it was created on either slaves or black folks during the days of Jim Crow, which wasn't much better...

This I why I think we need a real discussion of our past and what we, as a nation, owe folks who, yes, were freed legally but still enslaved in a system of abuse and discrimination...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 08:33 PM

Slavery had been around for a long time, but the Atlantic slave trade, and chattel slavery as it developed in the Americas, was something else, with some features that were uniquely horrible. It is good that people should be reminded of the part that those jolly "Elizabethan Adventurer" like Sir John Hawkins played in the establishment of this system.

The sheer scale of the slave system that developed from this source, the racial ideology that developed to underpin it, and the juxtaposition of a dehumanising slave centred economy with a highly developed and in the case of the States "progressive" and "democratic" society - these were different from anything that came before.   And they were precursors of what came after, most notably in the shape of Nazism.

The difference between traditional slavery, and the developed slave system is analogous to the difference between the endemic antisemitism that had existed, and the Holocaust. The difference between a horrible hangover from the past and a nightmare vision of a future world where these things would become normalised.

And we need to be aware that the central feature of slavery - using people as property - is not a thing of the past, it is still very much alive and constantly being reinvented and extended.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 08:23 PM

An apology is a nice gesture but it rings hollow when governments are doing very little to halt human trafficing. It almost feels like a "whitewash". I don't buy it for a minute. Seems to me if they are putting so much money into securing the borders against terrorists, they should also be able to bring the slave trade to a halt. Thats not happening, though. Capitalism is still largely dependent on labour that is enslaved or paid poorly.

What the minimum wage these days?

Reminds me of the sinner who asks for forgiveness and turns around and does the same thing the next day.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 07:14 PM

My wife is still involved in it !

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 05:55 PM

History of Chattel Slavery

from http://www.legacy-project.org/index.php?page=event_detail&eventID=17

"...The Portuguese began the practice [of enslaving Africans & importing them for laborin their Western Hemisphere colonies]in 1444; by 1460, they were annually importing 700 to 800 slaves to Portugal from trading posts and forts established on the African coast.

These were African people captured by other Africans and transported to the western coast of Africa. Spain soon followed.

Throughout the 15th century, Arab traders in northern Africa shipped African people taken from central Africa to markets in Arabia, Iran, and India. With the rise of the slave trade to the Americas, wars over the control of African commerce became more intense. During the four centuries of the slave trade, millions of Africans fell victim to this traffic in human lives.

Most were captured by other Africans and exchanged for various consumer goods, and participation in the capture and trade of slaves played a role in the rise of several African kingdoms...

England entered the slave trade in the latter half of the 16th century, and France, Holland, Denmark, and the American colonies themselves subsequently entered the trade as competitors...

Denmark was the first European country to abolish the slave trade, in 1792. Britain followed in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808. At the Congress of Vienna in 1814, Britain exerted its influence to induce other foreign powers to adopt a similar policy, and eventually nearly all the states of Europe passed laws or entered into treaties prohibiting the traffic. The French emancipated their slaves in 1848. The Dutch slaves had freedom conferred on them in 1863.

Most of the new republics of South America provided for the emancipation of slaves at the time of their establishment. In Brazil slavery was not abolished until 1888. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, abolishing slavery throughout the United States, was ratified in 1865.

In 1951 a United Nations committee on slavery reported that the practice of slavery was declining rapidly, with only a vestige of slavery remaining in a few areas of the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 05:19 PM

fyi

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: bobad
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 05:05 PM

As were the Romans before them.

"The Romans also traded for slaves. We know, for example, that a great portion of the Roman wine sold in Gaul was paid for in human currency (as many as 15,000 a year). One aspect of Gallic and German slavery that the Romans found interesting was the willingness [at least from the Roman point of view] of individuals to sell themselves into slavery to pay off their own debts. European tribes also sold their war captives to Roman slave traders and merchants. Finally, the practice of piracy provided a steady supply of slaves. Pirates would routinely kidnap individuals from seized ships and sell them into slavery. Similarly, they could attack coastal towns and villages and sell the population wholesale into slavery. Finally, they often worked with gangs based on the mainland. The gangs would attack and seize the towns, turn them over to the pirates who would arrange the sale of captives in ports with slave merchants, and split the profits with the gangs."

http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/slavery.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 04:51 PM

The Portuguese were in it before the Brits were.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 04:40 PM

Did Britain not start the slave trade ?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 04:09 PM

"And did you know a trillion bucks is $1,000 per second since the birth of Jesus"

"A trillion is a 1000 billion; and at $1000 a second would only take about 31 years. Since I don't think Christ was born in 1975 that statement is a little misleading."

60 seconds per minute
60 minutes per hour
3600 seconds per hour
86400 seconds per day
31,536,000 seconds per year.
1,000,000,000,000 divided by 31,536,000 = over 31,709 years

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Scoville
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 03:06 PM

Never mind that a significant portion of the [white] U.S. population today is descended from people who came over after slavery ended.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 02:55 PM

The slave trade from Africa to the Americas was on a gigantic scale involving many millions of captives . Surely it was the scale of the barbarity which distinguished it from other slave societies. And it was the slave trade and the use of slave labour in the West Indies and the Americas which fuelled the rise of capitalism .As Marx said capitalism was born in blood and gore.
The descendents of slaves do not only need an apology.... the countries of the so called Third World need to have their state debts written off as I don't see why slum dwellers and the rural poor should have to pay with their sweat and labour for the foolish lending policies of western bankers and the corruption of local political leaders and thuggish dictators.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: MMario
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 02:23 PM

And did you know a trillion bucks is $1,000 per second since the birth of Jesus

A trillion is a 1000 billion; and at $1000 a second would only take about 31 years. Since I don't think Christ was born in 1975 that statement is a little misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 02:14 PM

And to bring it up to date:

Anti-Slavery

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 02:01 PM

Actually the UK ended the slave trade in 1807, with emancipation coming much later in 1834.

Hull is home to Wilberforce House, birthplace of William Wilberforce and now a museum about the slave trade. It re-opens next year with a series of other events to mark the Bi-Centenary.

Wilberforce House


A series of 360 degree views

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 01:23 PM

I agree that these apologies for the actions of past generations are pointless.
It looks like Canada will apologise for the head tax imposed on Chinese years ago- may even pay compensation.

History being wrapped in a sanitary napkin.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 01:19 PM

Google Cynthia McKinney + Dyncorp. A hundred thousand women and children disappeared during the U.N. breakup of Yugoslavia initiated by Bill Clinton. 100,000. And Democrat McKinney asked Donald Rumsfeld why his Dept of Defense just awarded Dyncorp a lucrative contract, since the corporations is dealing in the slave trade.

It goes on today, it goes on today, it goes on today. A black woman in the U.S. congress is telling you it goes on today. Quit looking back and think about YOUR kids being sold into brothels.

And check the internet for her video clip...fascinating. She asks why Dyncorp got the contract, she asked why NORAD planes stood down on Sept 11, and she asked why 2.3 trillion dollars had still not been accounted for by the Pentagon (it was the accounting dept of the Pentagon that got blown up on 9-11, by the way). And did you know a trillion bucks is $1,000 per second since the birth of Jesus. And 2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon at the time they blew up their accounting dept.

Rumsfeld didn't answer any of the woman's questions. He excused himself to go to lunch.

End of sermon.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 01:10 PM

I will personally apologize on behalf of my ancestors, some of whom were southern, for any participation in the slave travesty. There was great poverty in my mother's (and father's) side of the family, but they very well could have been overseers, as they were considered, in a very offensive phrase to all concerned "poor white trash." So I am very sorry if any of my family participated in this in any way, which they probably did. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:27 AM

Yes, Peace and I'd add to your statement that effective efforts and not just lip service needs to be mounted to stop slavery that is still occuring in Africa and elsewhere now.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:26 AM

They should.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:23 AM

. . . and some sort of, "Hey! This ain't gonna happen again."

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Bruce Baillie
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:23 AM

...The thing is are the Africans going to apologize for their part in the enslavement of hundreds, if not thousands of Cornish people taken by force from their homes by the Barbary pirates to help build Moulay Ishmaels great palace back in the eighteenth century! Read Giles Miltons excellent book 'White Gold' and you'll see a different side of things!

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:22 AM

Hell, B, Ford never even apologized for the Pinto. So, they allowed many people to be burned to death in the name of profits.

Firestone tires ring a bell with anyone?

However, as was pointed out earlier, one step to fixin' things is an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:18 AM

Even IF during the time that people felt free to enslave other people, because it was legal, because all the 'best' people did it, because they could afford it, because they 'needed' them, because they inherited them, because the enslaved were not 'human' anyway, or for whatever other reason, all we have to do in order to see if they felt guilt in doing so is to picture them treating animals in the same fashion.

Even 500 years ago, people may not have worried much about the wellbeing of their dogs (Even today some people of the north don't feed their dogs in the offseason but let them run free, forcing them to scavenge), their horses and their pigs but they were most certainly aware of the concept of care and protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:09 AM

Well, would you expect a member of the Ford family to apologise in a few centuries time for the pollution caused by motor cars, a trade they had a prominant part in popularisisng?

People and actions should always be taken in context, or they are impossible to judge or interpret.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:56 AM

I see your point. Andrew Hawkins is apologizing on behalf of someone who wouldn't dream of doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:56 AM

In your mind, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:49 AM

The Greeks had slaves, so did the Romans, so did nearly every country in antiquity. Slavery is awful. I am not defending the practice. I am mearly cricising pointless gestures, such as those by Mr Andrew Hawkins, the descendent of Sir John Hawkins. I am also standing up for the right of Sir John Hawkins to be judged by the standards of his own time, and not ours. Sir John Hawkins saw nothing wrong in the slave trade because no-one else did at the time. It is as simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:29 AM

When my wife and I were in Ghana five years ago, we visited a couple of slave "castles" and it was the most stomach-churning experience I've ever had. One of the many revelations was that countries I never realized were in the slave business actually were. My Grandparents were born and raised in Denmark, and I always figured that the Danes would never engage in such a barbarious, evil activity. That illusion was shattered, the more I learned about slavery.

As for the mindset of people 400 years ago, and whether they thought there was anything wrong with slavery or not, that doesn't excuse the practice. And it's hard for me to believe that slave traders couldn't see the evil in their acts. How could you split up a family and sell wife, husband and children to different buyers, and not be moved by the suffering you were causing? How could you look at other humans as nothing more than cattle? How could you lock them in a cavernous dungeon with only a tiny window to allow air and sunlight into the space, with human waste two or three feet deep and think there was nothing wrong with it.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Stand in one of those dungeons and see the stained walls where the filth rose to, and tell me you don't smell the stench of human evil.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:29 AM

Also, didn't the US government provide a formal apology for Japanese internment camps during World War II?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:26 AM

Also, for those who might say that the USA has never made any formal apology, see this excerpt from an article about a formal apology that the US Senate finally made in 2005:

Senate apologizes for failure to pass anti-lynching law
By Robert Marus
Published June 14, 2005


"The United States Senate has offered a belated apology for something it repeatedly failed to do: Stop a century of lynchings that killed thousands of African-Americans and other minorities.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, white mobs would hang or otherwise murder minorities or immigrants accused of real or imagined offenses, almost always without being prosecuted and predominantly in the South.

In an acknowledgement of that history, the Senate's chief sponsors of the anti-lynching resolution, passed June 13, were two white Southerners -- Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and George Allen (R-Va.) -- who were joined by 78 co-sponsors.

"Without question, there have been other grave injustices committed in the noble exercise of establishing this great democracy," Landrieu said, introducing the bill on the Senate floor. "However, there may be no other injustice in American history for which the Senate so uniquely bears responsibility. In refusing to take up legislation passed by the House of Representatives on three separate occasions and requested by seven presidents from William Henry Harrison to Harry Truman, the Senate engaged in a different kind of culpability."

The voice vote means no objection to the bill was recorded. However, while most Southern senators signed on as co-sponsors, six did not. They were Republicans Richard Shelby of Alabama, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott of Mississippi, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

The bill itself cites 4,742 reports of lynchings in the United States between 1882 and 1968. The practice was particularly pronounced around the turn of the 20th century. Opinion polls by the 1930s showed large majorities of the public -- even in the South -- supported making lynching a federal offense. But on all three occasions, Southern senators blocked the House bills from floor votes. They claimed making lynching a federal offense would infringe on states' rights...

The resolution also noted the practice was not limited to the South, or to African-American victims. According to a survey by the Tuskegee Institute, there were documented lynchings in all but four states. In addition, the victims included not only African-Americans but also Jews, Italian immigrants, Latinos, Asians and American Indians.

The anti-lynching resolution comes amid renewed attention to the race-related crimes of the civil-rights era. Earlier this year, federal officials announced they would reopen the investigation into the 1955 lynching of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American from Chicago who was visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was accused of whistling at a white female store clerk.

On the day the Senate passed the resolution, the trial opened for a reputed Mississippi Ku Klux Klan member who allegedly was involved in the famous murder of three civil-rights workers near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964."


http://www.abpnews.com/379.article

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:06 AM

You just spoke for Canucks, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:04 AM

I can not speak for the English but as an citizen of the United States, I am not only embarrassed by my countries history but wish that my fellow citizens had the courage to make a formal apology for participating in slavery...

And, no matter how folks want to whitewash (pun intended) the real story, those folks whop were slaves didn't wish it upon themselves and many flat out wouldn't accept it and either ran or died trying...

And historically lets look at another aspect of slavery in the United States... With the Ammancipation Proclamation, all Lincoln said is "Yer free" but what did free mean in a world where former slaves had nuthin' and were given nuthin'???

Then in 1876 the Union troops pulled out of the South and Jim Crow was born which lasted purdy much until the US Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954...

So for alot of us here in Mudville the direct results of slavery were still going strong during our life times... And it can be argued that they are still going strong... All one needs to do is drive thru any inner city in America...

Yeah, this discussion, as well as a discussion on remdies, is way overdue in the U.S... Can't speak for my UK friends...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:59 AM

"British anti-slavery was one of the most important reform movements of the 19th century. But its history is not without ironies. During the course of the 18th century the British perfected the Atlantic slave system. Indeed, it has been estimated that between 1700 and 1810 British merchants transported almost three million Africans across the Atlantic. That the British benefited from the Atlantic slave system is indisputable. Yet, paradoxically, it was also the British who led the struggle to bring this system to an end.

The history of British anti-slavery can be divided into a number of distinct phases. The first of these stretched from 1787 to 1807 and was directed against the slave trade. Of course, there had been initiatives before this date. The Quakers, for instance, petitioned Parliament against the slave trade as early as 1783 and a similar petition was submitted in 1785, this time from the inhabitants of Bridgwater in Somerset. But by and large these were piecemeal efforts, involving a relatively small number of people. It was the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, organised in May 1787, which set the movement on its modern course, evolving a structure and organisation that made it possible to mobilise thousands of Britons."

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:56 AM

It is too late to apologise for the West to apologise for the slave trade. What we should do is never forget, and take some action against the modern day slavers, the people trafficers. They are selling people into slavery, forced prostitution and worse.

Britian ended the slave trade in British ships and colonies in 1830, and the Royal Navy kept up anti-slavery patrols off African coasts until at least the First World War. We need a similar effort now, for the good of the people involved, and the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:51 AM

The effects of social crimes can linger on for generations - an apology is a first step to any realistic reconciliation. Reconciliation processes are happening around the world between different peoples, and are an essential step in social justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:46 AM

And that's another good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:45 AM

Also see this excerpt from the online article:

An Apology for Slavery; By Carol M. Swain;Saturday, July 16, 2005; Page A17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501559.html


"A national apology would be a collective response to a past collective injustice, and would imply no culpability on the part of individuals living today. America as a nation would apologize for allowing slavery within its borders, with no individual present-day party being singled out for blame.

Already, our failure to acknowledge such a blatant wrong has set us apart from other great nations that have expressed contrition for misdeeds. Consider Germany, which has apologized for the suffering caused by its actions toward Jews and others. More recently Tony Blair apologized on behalf of Britain for its treatment of the Irish during the potato famine of the 1840s. Pope John Paul II apologized for the past sins of the Roman Catholic Church against non-Catholics. Australia apologized for its mistreatment of the country's aborigine population. What, then, would be the great harm in our apologizing for slavery and the Jim Crow racism that followed?

Opponents will sometimes argue that an apology would open the door to claims for monetary reparations. But a national apology would do no such thing. To begin with, the very legality of slavery before passage of the 13th Amendment would make a claim in tort proceedings highly dubious. Then there is the problem of the statute of limitations having long expired. An additional impediment would be the absence of a living wrongdoer to prosecute. Legal precedent is against it. There is little chance that an apology would trigger the legal liability its opponents claim..."

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:44 AM

your ancestors, sure, but what about your descendents?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:39 AM

its all a bit medieval isn't it. walking round doing penance.

I should like to take this opportunity to publicly absolve my ancestors from walking round in guitar strings to apologise for all my crap gigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:38 AM

Good one, Azizi.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:37 AM

UK scientists soon to re-create the Tasmanian race via DNA regeneration experiments.

Surely they are now forgiven for being the first country to successfully eradicate an entire race.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:33 AM

For the record:

"Ghanaian bishop offers apology for Africans' part in slave trade
By TOM ROBERTS

Bishop Charles G. Palmer-Buckle of Ghana introduced an unexpected twist into the consideration of Africa and the history of slavery in the Americas when he apologized on behalf of Africans for the part Africans played in the slave trade. "Please forgive us if in any way we contributed to what you had to suffer," he said.

In an interview with NCR, Palmer-Buckle said his interest in apologizing to blacks in other parts of the world whose ancestors were sold into slavery stems from a 1988 gathering of priests from Africa and elsewhere. At one point in the gathering, they went to one of the "slave castles" in Ghana and when they got to the dungeon, someone suggested that an African priest say a prayer.

He asked everyone to take off their shoes, "because we are on hallowed ground."

And then he proceeded to say, recalled Palmer-Buckle, "It was here my ancestors were sold by their own brothers into slavery." According to Palmer-Buckle, the comment was unexpected, "and the black priests, all of us, felt a certain guilt."

Later in the day, he said, he was approached by a black priest friend from the Caribbean who extended his hand and said, "I am your brother, Joseph."

Palmer-Buckle said he made light of the greeting, but the other priest persisted, "I am your brother, Joseph."

Palmer-Buckle said he once again tried to lightly laugh off the greeting, but it became clear that the other priest was serious. He said, "No, I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into slavery."

It brought the reality home in a personal way, said Palmer-Buckle, that in the saga of the slave trade, some Africans themselves played a horrible role.

And since that day, the now-bishop of the Koforidua diocese has been trying to impress on Africans and others the necessity for an African apology as an essential element to reconciliation and healing for those whose ancestors were sold into slavery.

The day following Palmer-Buckle's apology, during an afternoon reconciliation service, Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Fla., spoke of his own growing connection with Africa during the past decade. He said he took his first trip to Africa 10 years ago and has returned nearly every year since to reconnect with that continent's beauty and history.

"After several visits, I said to myself, 'What a different person I may have been had I known this' " as a child.

Given the reaction, he apparently spoke for many of the nearly 3,000 in the hall when he said that one of the effects of the shame of slavery and bondage was a disinterest in Africa. He recalled that his parents and other adults of that generation were unable to connect with Africa because of the shame. He said he remembers his parents being deferential to whites and "wanting always to please."

He added, "I think I see the shame today in the violence of our youth."

Then referring to Palmer-Buckle's apology, he said he wanted to tell the bishop, "on behalf of African-American Catholics, that I accept his apology," a sentiment that brought a rousing, standing ovation.

"In accepting his apology," Ricard continued, "we begin to travel that long road toward healing and reconciliation, so we can accept the beauty and depth of Mother Africa, so we can accept the beauty and depth of ourselves."

Tom Roberts is editor of NCR.

National Catholic Reporter, September 13, 2002"

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/091302/091302i.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:29 AM

To make another point: Africans were involved with the slave trade, so are they going to apologise to themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:28 AM

"But then no nation is free of guilt here, all have had a hand in the trade at some time or other. And all have been victims. "

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:26 AM

Only 100 years?

When is anyone going to apologise to the English for the 100's of years of depredations by Gauls, Irish, Danes, Norse and Berbers?

But then no nation is free of guilt here, all have had a hand in the trade at some time or other. And all have been victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:25 AM

Why am I a troll? I am offering an opinion, which, if you wish, you can disagree. The point I am making is that slavery was 400 years ago and in that time slavery was accepted as normal, as it has been for most of human history. To apologise for Sir John Hawkins is ridiculous because Hawkins would have seen nothing wrong in what he was doing-and neither would have anyone else at that time. You have to view history from the perspective of the people who were alive at the time. You cannot judge their actions from our perspective. Their mindset was totally different.

What next? Apologies from the UK government over the killing of Joan of Arc and apologies from the French government over the Norman Invasion? This apology craze has to stop. It is meaningless and pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:21 AM

Arabs sustained the slave trade for over 100 years by actively rounding up candidates and holding them for buyers.

Subject: RE: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:09 AM

Troll.

Subject: BS: Apologies over slave trade?
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:04 AM

Found this on the net today:

"Mr Andrew Hawkins from Plymouth, the United Kingdom, who claims to be a direct descendant of England's first slave trader, Sir John Hawkins, will don yokes and chains at the forthcoming Roots International Festival in The Gambia to apologise for the actions of his famous ancestor.

"Hawkins is taking part in a symbolic gesture organized by the London based "Lifeline expedition" who have already walked in chains through former slave ports such as Nantes, Bordeaux, Seville, Lisbon and Charleston South Carolina and from one of whose US "penitence walks" the above picture is taken."

A lot of people will doubtless think he is a good man doing the right thing. I think her is a sanctimonious little prig making a pointless gesture.

Any comments?