Black people are currently screwed over by the system, and I don't think it makes much difference whether those people are the descendants of slaves, or are immigrants from Somalia.
I'll bet Afro-American would disagree as to whether there is "much difference" between Americans who are the descendants people brought there against their will and enslaved for generation after generation and people who choose to come to America from Somalia today!
I'll bet Afro-American would disagree as to whether there is "much difference" between Americans who are the descendants people brought there against their will and enslaved for generation after generation and people who choose to come to America from Somalia today!
Some Black Americans disagree, certainly. When Barack Obama was elected President, there was plenty of discussion about whether he was "really Black" because the black part of his heritage comes direct from Kenya, and not via slavery. And if you're talking about the generational wealth that Black American families haven't amassed because of past racist practices, then that clearly doesn't apply to people who are immigrants, because their ancestors were somewhere else.
But the contemporary racist doesn't much care whether you're a black person descended from a long line of Black Americans, or whether you're a black person fresh off the plane. They care about what you look like.
(You cite an example of a Black woman who has several white rapists as ancestors. She clearly hasn't derived any benefit from the "white" part of her ancestry. Why would it make any sense at all to treat her differently from someone whose ancestors hadn't been raped by white "owners"?)
I can't think that allocating payer and payee status by the fraction of someone's ancestors that fall into whatever category is remotely sensible.
The US gvt paid $1.5 Billion to those Japanese-Americans interned in WWII. If an extra tax increase had been needed to pay for it over X years (it wasn't) wouldn't it have made sense that Japanese American's would be exempt? And wouldn't it also have made sense that brand new immigrants still had to pay that tax?
I believe there is a bill going through to set up a commission to look at reparations for slavery? Suggestions include the value of 40 acres and a mule with interest accruing since 1865 for every descendant of slaves, to student loan forgiveness and free tuition, to the US gvt paying for initial housing down payments for descendants of slaves
It makes no sense that the recipients of restorations should have to pay for it themselves through their tax dollars. But in the case of someone who is more genetically slave-owner than slave but identifies 100% with her slave ancestors rather than her more numerous slave-owning ancestors, should they be paying restorations through taxes or receiving them?
I can't think that allocating payer and payee status by the fraction of someone's ancestors that fall into whatever category is remotely sensible.
The US gvt paid $1.5 Billion to those Japanese-Americans interned in WWII. If an extra tax increase had been needed to pay for it over X years (it wasn't) wouldn't it have made sense that Japanese American's would be exempt? And wouldn't it also have made sense that brand new immigrants still had to pay that tax?
No. You could possibly argue one of the two, but not both. If your logic is "Japanese Americans are the victims, so clearly they shouldn't help pay for it", then the same logic says that post-War immigrants had no part in the victimization, so should also be exempt.
But in general, it makes no sense at all to push the responsibility down to the individual level. The responsible party is the US government. The people who pay the US government's debts are US taxpayers. If some of those people are also recipients of reparations, that's OK. (And is, of course, what happened. The fact that there wasn't a specific tax increase to pay for this is irrelevant. It was paid by the US government, which means it was paid by the ensemble of US taxpayers.)
I can't think that allocating payer and payee status by the fraction of someone's ancestors that fall into whatever category is remotely sensible.
The US gvt paid $1.5 Billion to those Japanese-Americans interned in WWII. If an extra tax increase had been needed to pay for it over X years (it wasn't) wouldn't it have made sense that Japanese American's would be exempt? And wouldn't it also have made sense that brand new immigrants still had to pay that tax?
No. You could possibly argue one of the two, but not both. If your logic is "Japanese Americans are the victims, so clearly they shouldn't help pay for it", then the same logic says that post-War immigrants had no part in the victimization, so should also be exempt.
But in general, it makes no sense at all to push the responsibility down to the individual level. The responsible party is the US government. The people who pay the US government's debts are US taxpayers. If some of those people are also recipients of reparations, that's OK. (And is, of course, what happened. The fact that there wasn't a specific tax increase to pay for this is irrelevant. It was paid by the US government, which means it was paid by the ensemble of US taxpayers.)
If people chose to become citizens of a country that has in the past committed acts of atrocity then they can't just opt out of taxes that have to repay that atrocity just because their ancestors weren't there when it happened. Likewise they can't opt out of paying for other past debts of their new country.
If your theoretical Somalian had come to the UK in 1980 then her taxes would have still been paying off the Napoleonic Wars, she wouldn't be exempt.
If Canada, which ISTM has the most pro-immigration policy in the west, ends up becoming majority non-white then that doesn't mean that Canada as a country can chose to stop payments to the native-peoples just because there aren't enough descendants of the first white Canadians to pay; the new immigrants have to take on Canada's existing obligations. It also doesn't mean that Canada can start taxing native-peoples to pay the money it owes them either.
If reparations are owed to descendants of slaves then it is to descendants of slaves not to anyone who is of African decent. If you are not due reparations and your country owes them then you have to pay, whether you or your ancestors are guilty or not. Otherwise who is going to pay?
And I've just been told that Canada requires new immigrant citizens to affirm the treaty rights made by their new country with the native peoples as part of their oath. In other words they take on the responsibilities of the Country to uphold the special treatment of certain other peoples who the government has decided (rightly ISTM) deserve special treatment, whether money, land, not paying taxes even though they are Canadian citizens too:
I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
Including the Constitution Which recognizes and affirms
The Aboriginal and treaty rights of
First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen.
1) Two poinrsvif pedantry: Treaty Annuity payments are an obligation of the Crown and pertain to whomever is the Csnadian taxpayer at the time.
2) The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is limited to areas west of the Ottawa River, the Appalachian/Mississippi Water Divide and the Hudson's Bay Company's former Rupert's Land. It doesn't apply per se in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the 1763 boundaries of Quebec. The big treaty hole in Canada is British Columbia.
just a side comment for Australians who remember things in the 1990's: Every time I see this thread title, I think about Clutz (Clayton Utz) and the "Document Retention Policy" drafted for Philip Morris.
Meanwhile, the English were a little rough on the black footballers who could not score the winning goal against Italy.
My point? Your racism shows.
And what does it show to talk about “the English” in this context?
Those black footballers are English for starters. That being the exact reason they were in the English team.
Tell that to your compatriots who jumped all over them.
I am not English. I am Australian.
Throwing a bunch of emotive posts into this discussion on a completely different topic is not remotely helpful.
And when you ascribe racism to an entire nation, including the victims of the racism and others who condemned the racism and just other black English people, plus apparently a few random hangers on such as myself, you really aren’t helping anything. For one thing you’re employing exactly the same concept that “English” means “white” that the racists are using.
It's true what Orfeo says. Its also true that in any of our WEIRD countries sportspeople are liable to be attacked on the basis of their ethnicity at any moment. In Australia, what football crowds do to Aboriginal players from time to time is just as bad as what happened to the England side.
It's true what Orfeo says. Its also true that in any of our WEIRD countries sportspeople are liable to be attacked on the basis of their ethnicity at any moment. In Australia, what football crowds do to Aboriginal players from time to time is just as bad as what happened to the England side.
Indeed. Whichever one of the documentaries about Adam Goodes I managed to get through (over about 4 sittings) was thoroughly depressing.
But the contemporary racist doesn't much care whether you're a black person descended from a long line of Black Americans, or whether you're a black person fresh off the plane. They care about what you look like.
Do you have any data for this? I have an anecdote. When I lived in Chicago I knew a lovely couple from Nigeria, Femi and Affi (Femi was the guy and Affi his wife). He was studying at seminary. He has a gorgeous, mellifluous, and very-obviously-African accent. One day while he was walking down the street in Chicago, he was approached by three hostile white guys who started smacking him and taunting him and trying to get him to fight. He stopped and said, "Gentlemen, why do you do this?" Hearing his voice, they stopped dead, and one of them said, "Oh. Our fight isn't with you." And they ran off.
It made no sense to him at all. We had to give him a small but painful lesson in American race relations.
But the contemporary racist doesn't much care whether you're a black person descended from a long line of Black Americans, or whether you're a black person fresh off the plane. They care about what you look like.
Do you have any data for this? I have an anecdote. When I lived in Chicago I knew a lovely couple from Nigeria, Femi and Affi (Femi was the guy and Affi his wife). He was studying at seminary. He has a gorgeous, mellifluous, and very-obviously-African accent. One day while he was walking down the street in Chicago, he was approached by three hostile white guys who started smacking him and taunting him and trying to get him to fight. He stopped and said, "Gentlemen, why do you do this?" Hearing his voice, they stopped dead, and one of them said, "Oh. Our fight isn't with you." And they ran off.
It made no sense to him at all. We had to give him a small but painful lesson in American race relations.
I've met at least one American here in Korea who told me that he hated African Americans, but liked Blacks from Africa.
Then again, this guy was a bit of an anomaly as American racists go. Contra the standard propaganda, he disliked Jews, but thought Arabs were great, and shrugged off 9/11 as "just a small group of people".
Meanwhile, the English were a little rough on the black footballers who could not score the winning goal against Italy.
My point? Your racism shows.
Um, your statement almost appears that you don't believe that "the black footballers" are just as much English as any English person who were "a little rough on them".
I've been accused of purposefully misreading/quoting posts so I may be a little dense. You don't mean that do you?
Meanwhile, the English were a little rough on the black footballers who could not score the winning goal against Italy.
My point? Your racism shows.
And what does it show to talk about “the English” in this context?
Those black footballers are English for starters. That being the exact reason they were in the English team.
Tell that to your compatriots who jumped all over them.
Why should the opinions of racist (white) English people take priority over non racist (white) English people or... (Black) English people... or (Asian) English people?
But the contemporary racist doesn't much care whether you're a black person descended from a long line of Black Americans, or whether you're a black person fresh off the plane. They care about what you look like.
Do you have any data for this? I have an anecdote. When I lived in Chicago I knew a lovely couple from Nigeria, Femi and Affi (Femi was the guy and Affi his wife). He was studying at seminary. He has a gorgeous, mellifluous, and very-obviously-African accent. One day while he was walking down the street in Chicago, he was approached by three hostile white guys who started smacking him and taunting him and trying to get him to fight. He stopped and said, "Gentlemen, why do you do this?" Hearing his voice, they stopped dead, and one of them said, "Oh. Our fight isn't with you." And they ran off.
It made no sense to him at all. We had to give him a small but painful lesson in American race relations.
I have a parallel (sort-of) supporting anecdote. A friend (of Black Loyalist and Jamaican origins) in the Royal Canadian Navy was stationed in Florida for a season (further digression-- there's about 400 USN personnel stationed in Canada as we speak and likely about 80-100 RCN in the US, courtesy of various training and assignment agreements). He was parking his BMW or Audi or whatever when two local policement stopped their car, and alit so as to interrogate this obvious car thief. The questioning was aggressive and a bit incoherent but his Canadian accent and formal phrasing took them aback. He was told that they were not interested in "his sort" but looking for people who could not explain their presence in the neighbourhood. He was puzzled by this and later that day chatted with base security for greater understanding, and was told that as soon as he opened his mouth, the police realized that he wasn't black. He told the table that he now needed to be more attentive to his reflection in mirrors.
But to the OP. @Sober Preacher's Kid made reference to BC being the hole in treaty arrangements. While Sir James Douglas, the (son of a Caribbean slave) pre-Confederation colonial governor of British Columbia, made a number of treaties with west coast nations, post-Confederation governments opposed treaties or any aboriginal land right. Provincial governments need to consent to the transfer of Crown lands to reserves, and they refused to do so. As almost any issue but aboriginal claims was more important to anybody, claims could not be resolved until (1973 IIRC) when judges ruled that aboriginal tenure existed and needed to be addressed. I haven't looked at the provincial government's rationale for denying it, but I wonder if they didn't try to use CJ Marshall's writings on this, the primary non-papal source for the doctrine. I once heard a long argument in an airless room that Marshall, as SCJ in another if parallel legal system, was not citable, but I drifted off until they got to my item on the agenda (aboriginal languages, which they didn't have enough time to deal with, much to my shock and dismay, but not to my surprise).
If you have to type 'continued' your post is too long. This is a discussion forum not a blog or a lecture theatre.
Slavery is not a topic Ghanaians are anxious to discuss. The Brits are by no means the only ones who need to confront the past.
As I said in my previous post, the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a net loss for the West African nations. If none of the West African nations had traded slaves to the Europeans they would all have been better off. It was that the Europeans offered firearms for slaves that meant that no African nation could afford to refuse to trade.
Your treatise - which I had to skim as too long- does not appear to take that into account, implying that the Europeans and the West Africans had an equal choice whether to participate.
Heaven forfend that Kwesi's detailed and informative post was too long. Personally, I found the nuance important and need to consider the content further.
Meanwhile, the English were a little rough on the black footballers who could not score the winning goal against Italy.
My point? Your racism shows.
Um, your statement almost appears that you don't believe that "the black footballers" are just as much English as any English person who were "a little rough on them".
I've been accused of purposefully misreading/quoting posts so I may be a little dense. You don't mean that do you?
Meanwhile, the English were a little rough on the black footballers who could not score the winning goal against Italy.
My point? Your racism shows.
And what does it show to talk about “the English” in this context?
Those black footballers are English for starters. That being the exact reason they were in the English team.
Tell that to your compatriots who jumped all over them.
Why should the opinions of racist (white) English people take priority over non racist (white) English people or... (Black) English people... or (Asian) English people?
English is a nationality not a race
I know full well that England is a nation, and the people who are citizens of that nation are called English. I have no problem with People of Color being English either. However, there is a vocal group of others who considered themselves the real English that refuses to accept that. Their hysteria is what the world press picked up on.
Dafyd: Your treatise - which I had to skim as too long- does not appear to take that into account, implying that the Europeans and the West Africans had an equal choice whether to participate.
I apologise for offering evidence to support my case.
Your argument seems to rest on the assertion that engaging in the Atlantic Trade was the only means the West Africans had of purchasing guns. If they would have been better off pursuing a different economic route, as you suggest, would they not have had the resources to purchase even more guns.
We are not, however, discussing whether the slave trade was wrong because it was less profitable than alternatives, but the extent to which it was freely entered into by the West Africans. My case is that the morality of the institution of slavery was not a moral issue in the region, and that there is no evidence to suggest the Atlantic Trade was locally opposed. If it had been there is no way the Europeans could have enforced it. Furthermore, the West Africans were not ignorant of what happened in the Americas. The Europeans created the demand, and the West Africans were willing to supply. The question of who benefitted most from the deals does not seem germane to the moral argument.
I know full well that England is a nation, and the people who are citizens of that nation are called English. I have no problem with People of Color being English either.
However, there is a vocal group of others who considered themselves the real English that refuses to accept that.
There are very vocal groups of American's who believe:
- The World is flat
- The election was stolen
- Vaccines are an attempt to wipe out humanity
- Jews were all black originally
- Jesus was Islamic
- Donald Trump actually serving President and Biden is a Hologram
Heaven forfend that Kwesi's detailed and informative post was too long. Personally, I found the nuance important and need to consider the content further.
Really? What is detailed and informative about Kwesi's use of the phrase 'uncomfortable facts' in the first sentence of the following paragraph?
Such uncomfortable facts rarely find expression, and are the cause of considerable anguish for African-Americans visiting Ghana, because they have the misimpression that their ancestors were rounded up by Europeans. It is only when they are being guided round slave castles that the truth of the historical process emerges. As a consequence, a sanitised version has been developed for tourist purposes and Americans are shown around slave castles in segregated groups by curators. Cultural dissonance can create less fraught confrontations, as when a group of Christians from the UK apologised to the Ga Mantse (paramount chief) of Accra for the slave trade. That his forebears were involved in the trade was not mentioned.
Things I have learned on the internet: people who describe facts as uncomfortable (never uncomfortable for themselves, always for other people) are rarely out to educate and inform as their primary goal.
Then Kwezi says that the truth of the historical process emerges when people are being guided round slave castles (present tense) and then he says that a sanitised version has been developed for tourist purposes so it doesn't. Well, which is it?
Then there's the sneer at the group of Christians from the UK which is neither detailed nor informative.
It looks like anti-woke propaganda and it quacks like anti-woke propaganda. Anti-woke propaganda can use partial truths when it suits it, but accuracy is not its aim.
I know full well that England is a nation, and the people who are citizens of that nation are called English. I have no problem with People of Color being English either.
However, there is a vocal group of others who considered themselves the real English that refuses to accept that.
There are very vocal groups of American's who believe:
- The World is flat
- The election was stolen
- Vaccines are an attempt to wipe out humanity
- Jews were all black originally
- Jesus was Islamic
- Donald Trump actually serving President and Biden is a Hologram
If there’s more to be said about the doctrine of discovery then it will be good to hear it. On the other hand Purgatory is not the place for personal attacks, and a number of posts are getting perilously near to crossing that line.
We are not, however, discussing whether the slave trade was wrong because it was less profitable than alternatives, but the extent to which it was freely entered into by the West Africans. My case is that the morality of the institution of slavery was not a moral issue in the region, and that there is no evidence to suggest the Atlantic Trade was locally opposed.
You seem to feel able to pronounce with authority on what we are or are not discussing without taking account of the main point of my post. To whit: if a group of nations are in a prisoners' dilemma situation (any nation that trades slaves for guns will get a decisive advantage over any of its neighbours that don't, and any nation that doesn't will be wiped out by any of its neighbours that do) it's not really appropriate to call it 'freely entered into'.
Most parts of the world have historically engaged in slave raiding and trading and West Africa is no exception. Ironically, Western Medieval Europe was one of the exceptions. Nobody in any part of the world ever wanted to be captured and enslaved. But the scale of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, its disregard for human life, and the inconsistency of the slave trade with the principles professed by the West European nations engaged in it, were exceptional.
if a group of nations are in a prisoners' dilemma situation (any nation that trades slaves for guns will get a decisive advantage over any of its neighbours that don't, and any nation that doesn't will be wiped out by any of its neighbours that do) it's not really appropriate to call it 'freely entered into'.
Do you have a reference for this analysis? These nations were at each other’s throats, but only reluctantly turned to trading slaves?
if a group of nations are in a prisoners' dilemma situation (any nation that trades slaves for guns will get a decisive advantage over any of its neighbours that don't, and any nation that doesn't will be wiped out by any of its neighbours that do) it's not really appropriate to call it 'freely entered into'.
Do you have a reference for this analysis? These nations were at each other’s throats, but only reluctantly turned to trading slaves?
See this blog post scrolling down to the section on Transatlantic slavery.
Short answer: the West African states didn't have any objection to slavery as such - they were competing with each other for labour by raiding each other for slaves - but slavery covers a wide range of institutions from the unpleasant to the brutally inhumane. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was at the brutally inhumane end. (My hypothesis as to why it was particularly inhumane, which I don't know how to test, would be that the cost of transport was proportionately high compared to the cost of the slaves: I suppose you need a lot of money to outfit a ship and to get it across the Atlantic even unloaded, so once you've done that there's an economic incentive to load as many people onto it as you can even if that means more of them die before you can sell them.)
so once you've done that there's an economic incentive to load as many people onto it as you can even if that means more of them die before you can sell them.)
I believe at various points it was relatively common to insure slaves as cargo, which I'm sure added to that economic incentive.
if a group of nations are in a prisoners' dilemma situation (any nation that trades slaves for guns will get a decisive advantage over any of its neighbours that don't, and any nation that doesn't will be wiped out by any of its neighbours that do) it's not really appropriate to call it 'freely entered into'.
Do you have a reference for this analysis? These nations were at each other’s throats, but only reluctantly turned to trading slaves?
See this blog post scrolling down to the section on Transatlantic slavery.
Short answer: the West African states didn't have any objection to slavery as such - they were competing with each other for labour by raiding each other for slaves - but slavery covers a wide range of institutions from the unpleasant to the brutally inhumane. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was at the brutally inhumane end.
Thanks, Dafyd. (I recognize the blog from previous discussions of medieval economic relations.) The author says
Since the European slave traders (initially the Portuguese, but later all major European colonial powers) were willing to pay substantially for more enslaved people, refusing to treat with them meant forgoing a potential source of revenue (often in goods, not money, I am simplifying a bit), which was a dangerous thing in the brutal interstate anarchy of West Africa (just as it was in the brutal interstate anarchy of Europe).
If both sides were responding to the imperatives of survival in “brutal interstate anarchies” I wonder if that implies it’s not appropriate to say either side “freely entered into” the transatlantic slave trade.
Comments
I'll bet Afro-American would disagree as to whether there is "much difference" between Americans who are the descendants people brought there against their will and enslaved for generation after generation and people who choose to come to America from Somalia today!
Some Black Americans disagree, certainly. When Barack Obama was elected President, there was plenty of discussion about whether he was "really Black" because the black part of his heritage comes direct from Kenya, and not via slavery. And if you're talking about the generational wealth that Black American families haven't amassed because of past racist practices, then that clearly doesn't apply to people who are immigrants, because their ancestors were somewhere else.
But the contemporary racist doesn't much care whether you're a black person descended from a long line of Black Americans, or whether you're a black person fresh off the plane. They care about what you look like.
(You cite an example of a Black woman who has several white rapists as ancestors. She clearly hasn't derived any benefit from the "white" part of her ancestry. Why would it make any sense at all to treat her differently from someone whose ancestors hadn't been raped by white "owners"?)
The US gvt paid $1.5 Billion to those Japanese-Americans interned in WWII. If an extra tax increase had been needed to pay for it over X years (it wasn't) wouldn't it have made sense that Japanese American's would be exempt? And wouldn't it also have made sense that brand new immigrants still had to pay that tax?
I believe there is a bill going through to set up a commission to look at reparations for slavery? Suggestions include the value of 40 acres and a mule with interest accruing since 1865 for every descendant of slaves, to student loan forgiveness and free tuition, to the US gvt paying for initial housing down payments for descendants of slaves
It makes no sense that the recipients of restorations should have to pay for it themselves through their tax dollars. But in the case of someone who is more genetically slave-owner than slave but identifies 100% with her slave ancestors rather than her more numerous slave-owning ancestors, should they be paying restorations through taxes or receiving them?
It's a difficult one.
No. You could possibly argue one of the two, but not both. If your logic is "Japanese Americans are the victims, so clearly they shouldn't help pay for it", then the same logic says that post-War immigrants had no part in the victimization, so should also be exempt.
But in general, it makes no sense at all to push the responsibility down to the individual level. The responsible party is the US government. The people who pay the US government's debts are US taxpayers. If some of those people are also recipients of reparations, that's OK. (And is, of course, what happened. The fact that there wasn't a specific tax increase to pay for this is irrelevant. It was paid by the US government, which means it was paid by the ensemble of US taxpayers.)
If people chose to become citizens of a country that has in the past committed acts of atrocity then they can't just opt out of taxes that have to repay that atrocity just because their ancestors weren't there when it happened. Likewise they can't opt out of paying for other past debts of their new country.
If your theoretical Somalian had come to the UK in 1980 then her taxes would have still been paying off the Napoleonic Wars, she wouldn't be exempt.
If Canada, which ISTM has the most pro-immigration policy in the west, ends up becoming majority non-white then that doesn't mean that Canada as a country can chose to stop payments to the native-peoples just because there aren't enough descendants of the first white Canadians to pay; the new immigrants have to take on Canada's existing obligations. It also doesn't mean that Canada can start taxing native-peoples to pay the money it owes them either.
If reparations are owed to descendants of slaves then it is to descendants of slaves not to anyone who is of African decent. If you are not due reparations and your country owes them then you have to pay, whether you or your ancestors are guilty or not. Otherwise who is going to pay?
I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
Including the Constitution
Which recognizes and affirms
The Aboriginal and treaty rights of
First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen.
My point? Your racism shows.
2) The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is limited to areas west of the Ottawa River, the Appalachian/Mississippi Water Divide and the Hudson's Bay Company's former Rupert's Land. It doesn't apply per se in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the 1763 boundaries of Quebec. The big treaty hole in Canada is British Columbia.
And what does it show to talk about “the English” in this context?
Those black footballers are English for starters. That being the exact reason they were in the English team.
Tell that to your compatriots who jumped all over them.
I am not English. I am Australian.
Throwing a bunch of emotive posts into this discussion on a completely different topic is not remotely helpful.
And when you ascribe racism to an entire nation, including the victims of the racism and others who condemned the racism and just other black English people, plus apparently a few random hangers on such as myself, you really aren’t helping anything. For one thing you’re employing exactly the same concept that “English” means “white” that the racists are using.
Indeed. Whichever one of the documentaries about Adam Goodes I managed to get through (over about 4 sittings) was thoroughly depressing.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/manchester-shows-support-for-marcus-rashford-its-evolved-into-something-special
On the news last night the reporter was saying that people had travelled up from London to show solidarity.
Do you have any data for this? I have an anecdote. When I lived in Chicago I knew a lovely couple from Nigeria, Femi and Affi (Femi was the guy and Affi his wife). He was studying at seminary. He has a gorgeous, mellifluous, and very-obviously-African accent. One day while he was walking down the street in Chicago, he was approached by three hostile white guys who started smacking him and taunting him and trying to get him to fight. He stopped and said, "Gentlemen, why do you do this?" Hearing his voice, they stopped dead, and one of them said, "Oh. Our fight isn't with you." And they ran off.
It made no sense to him at all. We had to give him a small but painful lesson in American race relations.
I've met at least one American here in Korea who told me that he hated African Americans, but liked Blacks from Africa.
Then again, this guy was a bit of an anomaly as American racists go. Contra the standard propaganda, he disliked Jews, but thought Arabs were great, and shrugged off 9/11 as "just a small group of people".
Um, your statement almost appears that you don't believe that "the black footballers" are just as much English as any English person who were "a little rough on them".
I've been accused of purposefully misreading/quoting posts so I may be a little dense. You don't mean that do you?
Why should the opinions of racist (white) English people take priority over non racist (white) English people or... (Black) English people... or (Asian) English people?
English is a nationality not a race
I have a parallel (sort-of) supporting anecdote. A friend (of Black Loyalist and Jamaican origins) in the Royal Canadian Navy was stationed in Florida for a season (further digression-- there's about 400 USN personnel stationed in Canada as we speak and likely about 80-100 RCN in the US, courtesy of various training and assignment agreements). He was parking his BMW or Audi or whatever when two local policement stopped their car, and alit so as to interrogate this obvious car thief. The questioning was aggressive and a bit incoherent but his Canadian accent and formal phrasing took them aback. He was told that they were not interested in "his sort" but looking for people who could not explain their presence in the neighbourhood. He was puzzled by this and later that day chatted with base security for greater understanding, and was told that as soon as he opened his mouth, the police realized that he wasn't black. He told the table that he now needed to be more attentive to his reflection in mirrors.
Your treatise - which I had to skim as too long- does not appear to take that into account, implying that the Europeans and the West Africans had an equal choice whether to participate.
I know full well that England is a nation, and the people who are citizens of that nation are called English. I have no problem with People of Color being English either. However, there is a vocal group of others who considered themselves the real English that refuses to accept that. Their hysteria is what the world press picked up on.
I apologise for offering evidence to support my case.
Your argument seems to rest on the assertion that engaging in the Atlantic Trade was the only means the West Africans had of purchasing guns. If they would have been better off pursuing a different economic route, as you suggest, would they not have had the resources to purchase even more guns.
We are not, however, discussing whether the slave trade was wrong because it was less profitable than alternatives, but the extent to which it was freely entered into by the West Africans. My case is that the morality of the institution of slavery was not a moral issue in the region, and that there is no evidence to suggest the Atlantic Trade was locally opposed. If it had been there is no way the Europeans could have enforced it. Furthermore, the West Africans were not ignorant of what happened in the Americas. The Europeans created the demand, and the West Africans were willing to supply. The question of who benefitted most from the deals does not seem germane to the moral argument.
I hope my reply is not too taxing in its length.
That's very gracious of you!
There are very vocal groups of American's who believe:
- The World is flat
- The election was stolen
- Vaccines are an attempt to wipe out humanity
- Jews were all black originally
- Jesus was Islamic
- Donald Trump actually serving President and Biden is a Hologram
So what?
Then Kwezi says that the truth of the historical process emerges when people are being guided round slave castles (present tense) and then he says that a sanitised version has been developed for tourist purposes so it doesn't. Well, which is it?
Then there's the sneer at the group of Christians from the UK which is neither detailed nor informative.
It looks like anti-woke propaganda and it quacks like anti-woke propaganda. Anti-woke propaganda can use partial truths when it suits it, but accuracy is not its aim.
Getting a little defensive, are we?
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Most parts of the world have historically engaged in slave raiding and trading and West Africa is no exception. Ironically, Western Medieval Europe was one of the exceptions. Nobody in any part of the world ever wanted to be captured and enslaved. But the scale of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, its disregard for human life, and the inconsistency of the slave trade with the principles professed by the West European nations engaged in it, were exceptional.
Short answer: the West African states didn't have any objection to slavery as such - they were competing with each other for labour by raiding each other for slaves - but slavery covers a wide range of institutions from the unpleasant to the brutally inhumane. The trans-Atlantic slave trade was at the brutally inhumane end. (My hypothesis as to why it was particularly inhumane, which I don't know how to test, would be that the cost of transport was proportionately high compared to the cost of the slaves: I suppose you need a lot of money to outfit a ship and to get it across the Atlantic even unloaded, so once you've done that there's an economic incentive to load as many people onto it as you can even if that means more of them die before you can sell them.)
I believe at various points it was relatively common to insure slaves as cargo, which I'm sure added to that economic incentive.
Indeed, as the Zong Massacre (1781) notoriously demonstrated, and provided an impetus to the anti-slavery movement.