US Slavery -> Racial Resentment over 150 years later

[Politesse]

Agreed. It's also true that many Africans fought against the Atlantic slave trade and they had every right to and was entirely justified regardless of Lorens blurred view of history. America at that time was actively screwing over the Native Americans and in fact wrote their first set of "just laws" as a result claiming that it was illegal to injure or oppression them. But according to Loren they didn't know better and was just doing to black people what was normal around the time while recognizing what they were doing to the Native Americans was wrong. Yeah right.

I don’t know that any African tribes/nations fought against the Atlantic slave trade. Ashanti was made rich by it. King Alfonso’s protest only came when his own kinsmen were being traded. Antera Duke certainly promoted it. The British fought against Africans to stop it. I think it’s a modern misconception that black Africans of the past were some homogeneous group rather than rivals. The notion that slavery is wrong is uniquely Western and was imposed on the rest of the world through imperialism.

*Treats "Blacks" as though they were a single homogenous group in almost every thread*

*criticizes the supposedly homogenizing perspective of his political enemies because African resistance makes him feel uncomfortable and he wants to point out that it wasn't universal*

 

[Trausti]

It’s bemusing the critique that Western peoples/nations have not always lived up to Western values while ignoring all the non-Western peoples/nations who did not share these values.

 

[Trausti]

Agreed. It's also true that many Africans fought against the Atlantic slave trade and they had every right to and was entirely justified regardless of Lorens blurred view of history. America at that time was actively screwing over the Native Americans and in fact wrote their first set of "just laws" as a result claiming that it was illegal to injure or oppression them. But according to Loren they didn't know better and was just doing to black people what was normal around the time while recognizing what they were doing to the Native Americans was wrong. Yeah right.

I don’t know that any African tribes/nations fought against the Atlantic slave trade. Ashanti was made rich by it. King Alfonso’s protest only came when his own kinsmen were being traded. Antera Duke certainly promoted it. The British fought against Africans to stop it. I think it’s a modern misconception that black Africans of the past were some homogeneous group rather than rivals. The notion that slavery is wrong is uniquely Western and was imposed on the rest of the world through imperialism.

*Treats "Blacks" as though they were a single homogenous group in almost every thread*

*criticizes the supposedly homogenizing perspective of his political enemies because African resistance makes him feel uncomfortable and he wants to point out that it wasn't universal*

What black African resistance to the slave trade? I’ve specifically cited past African nations and individuals. The only group active in stopping the trade was the British Royal navy. (Why is that history ignored?)

 

[Gospel]

Agreed. It's also true that many Africans fought against the Atlantic slave trade and they had every right to and was entirely justified regardless of Lorens blurred view of history. America at that time was actively screwing over the Native Americans and in fact wrote their first set of "just laws" as a result claiming that it was illegal to injure or oppression them. But according to Loren they didn't know better and was just doing to black people what was normal around the time while recognizing what they were doing to the Native Americans was wrong. Yeah right.

I don’t know that any African tribes/nations fought against the Atlantic slave trade. Ashanti was made rich by it. King Alfonso’s protest only came when his own kinsmen were being traded. Antera Duke certainly promoted it. The British fought against Africans to stop it. I think it’s a modern misconception that black Africans of the past were some homogeneous group rather than rivals. The notion that slavery is wrong is uniquely Western and was imposed on the rest of the world through imperialism.

Of course you'd think that western slavery was the same as what the African nations where doing. It's what your children's books taught you. Do you know that the African Nations notion of slavery was predominantly enemy combatants and folks traded to pay of depts? When the dicks arrived it was all about just taking people for no other reason than free labor. So yeah it's very informed of you to believe they were no different. Anyone with a glimmer of intelligence can reason that any resemblance to how the pricks were doing slavery came along afterwards as many nations exploited it for their own reasons while some others were forced to enter the European style of slavery in order to compete with rivals.

 

[Gospel]

*Treats "Blacks" as though they were a single homogenous group in almost every thread*

*criticizes the supposedly homogenizing perspective of his political enemies because African resistance makes him feel uncomfortable and he wants to point out that it wasn't universal*

What black African resistance to the slave trade? I’ve specifically cited past African nations and individuals. The only group active in stopping the trade was the British Royal navy. (Why is that history ignored?)

Who ignored the British Royal Navy? I'm sure anyone would be grateful that the same meatheads that engaged in the trade is now parading around their borders to stop it. Congrats, but don't ask for a cookie you already stole millions.

 

[Gospel]

On another note this thread titles says 150 years but anyone who believes racism ended that long ago is delusional and clearly is not aware the Martin Luther King was killed in 1968. That's just 53 years ago. Some of you dinosaurs was alive when that happened.

 

[Trausti]

Of course you'd think that western slavery was the same as what the African nations where doing. It's what your children's books taught you. Do you know that the African Nations notion of slavery was predominantly enemy combatants and folks traded to pay of depts?

Antera Duke

Duke's diary charts a double life. He was both a leading member of his community and a slave trader. The Efik enslaved criminals from their own people, purchased people from neighbouring towns and villages and went on expeditions to capture people to enslave. The slave ship captains, mostly from Liverpool in this region, would collect small groups of captives from each trader. In return, the traders would receive imported Western goods such as iron bars, knives, guns, gunpowder, beads and cloth.

Duke records putting on 'white man trousers' and entertaining the captains of the British slave ships with whom he traded. Slave ship captains described how the chiefs in Calabar lived in two-storey European style houses made from materials which were sometimes imported from Britain. One was called Liverpool Hall.

Duke's diary also describes frequent mass executions of household and other captives to celebrate feasts and honour the dead.

 

[Gospel]

Of course you'd think that western slavery was the same as what the African nations where doing. It's what your children's books taught you. Do you know that the African Nations notion of slavery was predominantly enemy combatants and folks traded to pay of depts?

Antera Duke

Duke's diary charts a double life. He was both a leading member of his community and a slave trader. The Efik enslaved criminals from their own people, purchased people from neighbouring towns and villages and went on expeditions to capture people to enslave. The slave ship captains, mostly from Liverpool in this region, would collect small groups of captives from each trader. In return, the traders would receive imported Western goods such as iron bars, knives, guns, gunpowder, beads and cloth.

Duke records putting on 'white man trousers' and entertaining the captains of the British slave ships with whom he traded. Slave ship captains described how the chiefs in Calabar lived in two-storey European style houses made from materials which were sometimes imported from Britain. One was called Liverpool Hall.

Duke's diary also describes frequent mass executions of household and other captives to celebrate feasts and honour the dead.

Oh, look, snippets from a book that doesn't contradict anything I've said. How useful.

 

[Trausti]

*Treats "Blacks" as though they were a single homogenous group in almost every thread*

*criticizes the supposedly homogenizing perspective of his political enemies because African resistance makes him feel uncomfortable and he wants to point out that it wasn't universal*

What black African resistance to the slave trade? I’ve specifically cited past African nations and individuals. The only group active in stopping the trade was the British Royal navy. (Why is that history ignored?)

Who ignored the British Royal Navy? I'm sure anyone would be grateful that the same meatheads that engaged in the trade is now parading around their borders to stop it. Congrats, but don't ask for a cookie you already stole millions.

Again, which non-Western peoples in the 18th-19th centuries were against slavery? Abolition is a Western/Christian value. It was the persistent reminding of these values that lead Western/Christian countries to not only abolish slavery domestically, but to enforce abolition globally.

 

[ronburgundy]

Of course you'd think that western slavery was the same as what the African nations where doing. It's what your children's books taught you. Do you know that the African Nations notion of slavery was predominantly enemy combatants and folks traded to pay of depts?

Antera Duke

Duke's diary charts a double life. He was both a leading member of his community and a slave trader. The Efik enslaved criminals from their own people, purchased people from neighbouring towns and villages and went on expeditions to capture people to enslave. The slave ship captains, mostly from Liverpool in this region, would collect small groups of captives from each trader. In return, the traders would receive imported Western goods such as iron bars, knives, guns, gunpowder, beads and cloth.

Duke records putting on 'white man trousers' and entertaining the captains of the British slave ships with whom he traded. Slave ship captains described how the chiefs in Calabar lived in two-storey European style houses made from materials which were sometimes imported from Britain. One was called Liverpool Hall.

Duke's diary also describes frequent mass executions of household and other captives to celebrate feasts and honour the dead.

Your citation in no way contradicts what Gospel said. Gospel is referring to the prevailing practices related to slavery among and between Africans not connected to the western slave trade or involving any Europeans. There is zero relevance to that from a diary written in the late 1780's about a single Chief trading with Great Britain and who grew up in a context of the Atlantic slave trade that for 200 years before his birth a had already reshaped and redefined the nature and scale of slavery as a massive industry.

 

[Trausti]

Antera Duke

Your citation in no way contradicts what Gospel said. Gospel is referring to the prevailing practices related to slavery among and between Africans not connected to the western slave trade or involving any Europeans. There is zero relevance to that from a diary written in the late 1780's about a single Chief trading with Great Britain and who grew up in a context of the Atlantic slave trade that for 200 years before his birth a had already reshaped and redefined the nature and scale of slavery as a massive industry.

But the Africans did not see anything wrong with trading slaves with the Europeans. Without their participation, there'd have been no transatlantic trade. (Though the Muslim trans-Saharan and East-African trade would have gone on as usual.)

 

[ronburgundy]

Antera Duke

Your citation in no way contradicts what Gospel said. Gospel is referring to the prevailing practices related to slavery among and between Africans not connected to the western slave trade or involving any Europeans. There is zero relevance to that from a diary written in the late 1780's about a single Chief trading with Great Britain and who grew up in a context of the Atlantic slave trade that for 200 years before his birth a had already reshaped and redefined the nature and scale of slavery as a massive industry.

But the Africans did not see anything wrong with trading slaves with the Europeans.

Again, your citation in no way supports that or has any relevance to the issue of how the Atlantic slave trade altered the nature of slavery in Africa.

 

[Trausti]

But the Africans did not see anything wrong with trading slaves with the Europeans.

Again, your citation in no way supports that or has any relevance to the issue of how the Atlantic slave trade altered the nature of slavery in Africa.

So we're just waving away the trans-Saharan and East-Africa slave trade? Europeans were simply new customers.

 

[Trausti]

As late as the 1960's, slaves in Arabia went to the British embassy seeking freedom. That's because abolition is a uniquely Western value.

 

[rousseau]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

 

[Trausti]

I'm saying the people should be judged by the standards of their time, not by current standards.

If they didn't know what they were doing it doesn't explain the deals they made with African countries to exchange slaves for goods. They knew damn well they were dealing with established nations. Ignorant my ass.

Established nations, but technologically way behind.

Now, if you want knowing evil, look at those African nations that were exchanging the slaves.

You're painting a very broad brush on what was an extremely complex reality in colonial Africa.

I restricted it to the nations involved, not all African nations.

I'm not sure which nations you're referring to, but IIRC slave-trading wasn't always an immoral free-for-all on the African side, oftentimes those sold were cultural outcasts (criminals etc). And I'd guess that it was common for tribes to be forced into this type of trade economically for survival. Sans European domination the slave-trade just doesn't exist.

I haven't read extensively on the African slave trade within Africa, but I have read some, and I don't know that broad brushes are particularly helpful in understanding what happened on the ground, across centuries.

Likely the most succinct pro-European argument you can make is that Africans and Europeans have the same nature. If Africans were dominant technically they likely would have been doing the same thing to Europe, and indeed did oppress cultures within their own continent. But as Europe had geographic advantages it was just coincidence that Europe were the oppressors, and Africa was the oppressed.

That doesn't make the slave-trade any better, but I think there is a risk of casting the other as evil, and being a little too apologetic for African culture.

Or we can acknowledge that slavery has been part of the human experience since pre-history. Practiced nearly everywhere and nearly every time.

 

[ronburgundy]

As late as the 1960's, slaves in Arabia went to the British embassy seeking freedom. That's because abolition is a uniquely Western value.

Abolition is not value among the tens of millions of white supremacists who dominated and still dominate the south eastern US and the modern GOP. Not only did they stop enslaving only by force after going to war against their own government to preserve it, but in 1860 they were no were close to ending slavery and were just getting started. In the 50 years leading up to the Civil War, the number of slaves in the US south quadrupled to 4 million slaves and comprised around 50% of the total human population of the 5 core "deep south" states of AL, LA, MS, GA, and SC. Given the trends in 1860 and the deep seated white supremacy that evidence shows has ruled the US south in the 150 years since, had secession been successful, slavery would have existed in the southern US until forcibly ended by the UN in the mid 20th century.

 

[Gospel]

Who ignored the British Royal Navy? I'm sure anyone would be grateful that the same meatheads that engaged in the trade is now parading around their borders to stop it. Congrats, but don't ask for a cookie you already stole millions.

Again, which non-Western peoples in the 18th-19th centuries were against slavery? Abolition is a Western/Christian value. It was the persistent reminding of these values that lead Western/Christian countries to not only abolish slavery domestically, but to enforce abolition globally.

Making sure I got this right. Your nitpick (because I was actually talking about how the slave trade amongst African Nations differed from that of the EuroPEONS ) is the British abolished slavery and lead the charge to abolish it across the world? Ok, my nitpick is they didn't do a good job because of ya know, the 13th Amendment.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".

So much for abolish. It's just a coincidence that our prisons are filled with predominantly black people too right?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I always get a chuckle watching white folk debate the enslavement of black folk.

Again, which non-Western peoples in the 18th-19th centuries were against slavery?

I'm gonna go with ... uh ...

THE SLAVES????

Oh but I forget
They aren't people
They are just things to be discussed.

 

[Gospel]

I always get a chuckle watching white folk debate the enslavement of black folk.

Again, which non-Western peoples in the 18th-19th centuries were against slavery?

I'm gonna go with ... uh ...

THE SLAVES????

Oh but I forget
They aren't people
They are just things to be discussed.

Yeah, that was so ridiculous it defied all laws of science.