YOUR bank 'linked to the slave trade'
redrum
says...
>
>"the terrifying truth" <poi...@ghjkl.fsnet.co.uk> said:
>
>>BRITISH HIGH-STREET BANKS `BUILT ON
>>THE PROFITS OF THE SLAVE TRADE'
>>
>>October 2, 1999
>>The Independent
>>
>>NEW RESEARCH linking high-street banks including Barclays,
>>NatWest, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland to the transatlantic
>>slave trade has prompted calls for them to compensate Britain's
>>black communities.
>
>What do Britain's black communities have to do with any of this?
>Shouldn't the American blacks be the ones compensated?
>
>I think white people should be compensated instead. For getting a bad
>deal on those slaves. Is there someplace we can return them?
Well, it was WHITE people who insisted on having black slaves to work
the fields of the New World. Apparently they were too cheap to pay
whites to work the fields for them, which they easily could have done.
And there were plenty of whites around to do the work since the
enclosure movement in Europe threw all the tenant farmers off their
lands.
Thos
>
> ab...@anarchy.gov says...
> >
> >
> >What do Britain's black communities have to do with any of this?
> >Shouldn't the American blacks be the ones compensated?
Personally, I do not advocate "genocentric" guilt and compensation. INHO
it amounts to legislating race-specific "Original Sin." In my opinion,
that applies to people trying to milk money from 21st century Germans for
the crimes of some of their countrymen two generations ago. Simply put:
I don't believe in hereditary guilt and I'm leery of hereditary "vitctimhood".
> >I think white people should be compensated instead. For getting a bad
> >deal on those slaves. Is there someplace we can return them?
>
> Well, it was WHITE people who insisted on having black slaves to work
> the fields of the New World. Apparently they were too cheap to pay
> whites to work the fields for them, which they easily could have done.
> And there were plenty of whites around to do the work since the
> enclosure movement in Europe threw all the tenant farmers off their
> lands.
People forget (or perhaps never learned) that white slavers comprised
roughly a two-thirds part of the slave trade, but not the whole of it.
American slavery began before the revolution with the establishment of
the triangular trade practice (Simplified here):
Sugar and spices raised in the West Indies were shipped to New England
where they were converted to rum (Later, cotton and tobacco came into
the picture as southern colonies grew.). Ironically, American slavery
had its first foothold in the region that would eventually be a bastion
of abolition.
In turn, New England rum was traded in west Africa for slaves. Here's
the often forgotten part: Those trading rum for slaves were rarely
interested in risking their lives by raiding African villages themselves.
The whites were usually better armed, but badly outnumbered. The Yankee
Traders were not interested in loosing their own lives when they didn't
need to. What was more common was trading rum (later, cotton, tobacco
& fire arms) and other goods with coastal tribes who had taken prisoners
of their neighbors. Africans often sold other Africans into slavery.
From there, slaves were taken to the West Indies sugar plantations and
southern tobacco and cotton fields where they were forced to work for
their white oppressors. With slavery to bolster production, exports
increased and the trade cycle worsened.
Clearly the slave trade was white-driven, and whites benefited from it
far beyond the coastal blacks they exploited. Still, the slave
trade was not a "whites only" club.
redrum
says...
>
>na...@na.da (redrum) said:
>
>>In article <3a91f48e...@news.escape.com>, ab...@anarchy.gov
>>says...
>>>
>>>"the terrifying truth" <poi...@ghjkl.fsnet.co.uk> said:
>>>
>>>>BRITISH HIGH-STREET BANKS `BUILT ON
>>>>THE PROFITS OF THE SLAVE TRADE'
>>>>
>>>>October 2, 1999
>>>>The Independent
>>>>
>>>>NEW RESEARCH linking high-street banks including Barclays,
>>>>NatWest, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland to the transatlantic
>>>>slave trade has prompted calls for them to compensate Britain's
>>>>black communities.
>>>
>>>What do Britain's black communities have to do with any of this?
>>>Shouldn't the American blacks be the ones compensated?
>>>
>>>I think white people should be compensated instead. For getting a bad
>>>deal on those slaves. Is there someplace we can return them?
>>
>>Well, it was WHITE people who insisted on having black slaves to work
>>the fields of the New World.
>
>the whites and otherwise showed them where to find ones easy to
>capture. These leaders screwed over their rivals this way and
>profitted over whatever they traded for.
>
>Don't believe it? Think about the slavers. Did they have an army
>behind them? Did they have vast bases from which to stage slave raids
>from and survive a counterattack by thousands of Africans? No, guns
>back then weren't that efficient and there weren't thousands of
>slavers in Africa following a cohesive military strategy.
>
>So how did they get the slaves?
Ok, so various tribes sold their prisoners to the whites. But who
created the DEMAND for slaves, thus getting chieftains to sell their war
prisoners to the slavers. WHITE plantation owners. If there had been no
WHITE demand for black slaves, the tribes wouldn't have been capturing
each other's members to sell.
>
>>Apparently they were too cheap to pay
>>whites to work the fields for them, which they easily could have done.
>
>There weren't enough people that wanted to come to the US at the time
>or willing to work here at all. The natives and neighbors were
>hostile, couldn't turn to them either.
Ok, so you get workers from wherever you can. But there was no need to
not pay them, or let them be free. The big plantation owners had the
money. Besides, even if blacks were free, where could they go to? There
were few cities in the south, and most blacks worked far out in the
countryside.
>
>>And there were plenty of whites around to do the work since the
>>enclosure movement in Europe threw all the tenant farmers off their
>>lands.
>
>So how many of them actually came here? How long did it take them
>"all" to come here?
The Industrial Revolution absorbed the excess in Britain, which is why
there wasn't a mad rush to get here. And besides it was EXPENSIVE to
come here. Remember that we're talking about dirt poor subsistence
farmers here.
T. Epstein
> Ok, so various tribes sold their prisoners to the whites. But who
> created the DEMAND for slaves, thus getting chieftains to sell their war
> prisoners to the slavers. WHITE plantation owners. If there had been no
> WHITE demand for black slaves, the tribes wouldn't have been capturing
> each other's members to sell.
There seems to be enough culpability to go around. You make an interesting
point though. Without a doubt the slave trade was driven by whites. My
own take on such things is that suppliers share responsibility in illicit
trade, even when they are not driving the market. Imagine excusing heroin
manufacturers and pushers. The coastal west Africans who sold their fellow
man into slavery are not without guilt.
Andrea Chen
> >The Industrial Revolution absorbed the excess in Britain, which is why
> >there wasn't a mad rush to get here. And besides it was EXPENSIVE to
> >come here. Remember that we're talking about dirt poor subsistence
> >farmers here.
>
> some of the wealthy, but not the poor to do the work.
These remarks are baffling. The industrial revolution is usually dated
from the time of the steam engine. By that time slave importation had
come to a near stop. In the United States itself there have always been
streams of European immigrants. Indentured laborers came in very
early. The 19th century (eg. the industrial revolution was filled with
them.)
At the time of the revolution it was felt that slavery was in decline in
this country. The invention of the cotton gin and extension of the
plantation system reversed this. This system was often brutally cruel
then less so than that of early Haiti and other places where slaves on
the sugar plantations lasted an average of 2 or 3 years. The literal
killing off of labor was the cause of millions upon millions of slaves
being imported from Africa, most to die. It matches the holocaust. It
was a crucial factor in the wealth of 16th, 17th and 18th century
Europe. In this particular event which except for a few places the US
is clear, slavery wasn't simply a matter of cruelity and dehumanization,
it was death camps. This went on for an extremely long period. The
slave trade also acted to disrupt Africa with the most aggressive groups
being armed to raid and destroy more developed and peaceful neighbors, a
cultural destruction which continued through colonialization and whose
effects are still felt today.
Stan Spade
slavery of Africans.
When slavery started, the Church was the dominant institution in Europe.
Institutionalised slavery originated with the Church and came about as a
result of the Crusades against the Moors (North Africans) who had been
living in Spain for almost 8 centuries. Also remember, the Islamic invasion
of Europe in the eighth century was from North Africa.
In his book, 'Reconstructing the Black Image', Gordon de la Mothe explains
the origins of 'racism': "as the conflict [Crusades] progressed, black
people became increasingly identified with the Moslem world. Added to the
established belief that Prophet Mohammed was black, black people became
identified with the 'enemy'. We can see this in European paintings of the
early Renaissance."
In his book, 'Triumph of the West', J.M. Roberts writes: 'In 1441, a
Portuguese ship brought back black men, who were described as prisoners of
war and taken to be Muslims. Three years later, the first sale of slaves in
Portugal took place. The African slave trade had begun and justified in the
name of Christianity'.
In the bull Illius Qui, pope Eugenius 4th sanctioned Prince Henry of
Portugal to struggle against the Moors and anyone who died on Henry's
voyages to Africa would be regarded as having died on a Crusade.
Nicholas followed the bull with Romanus Pontifex on 8th January 1454, which
approved what Prince Henry and the Portuguese had done up till then, hoped
that the native West African population might soon be converted to
Christianity - not just the region of Ceuta (an Moorish stronghold) but all
the territory south of Cape Bojador (opposite the Canary Islands).
In 1455 pope Nicholas 5th put out a papal bull authorising Roman Catholics
to reduce to servitude all infidel people.
The bull instructed Christians to 'attack, subject, and reduce to perpetual
slavery the Saracens, Pagans and other enemies of Christ, southward from
Cape Bojador (opposite the Canary Islands) and including all the coast of
Guinea'
A summary of the Bull quoted by Lilyan Kesteloop appears below:
'We after scrupulous reflection, are granting by our Bull full and entire
freedom to King Alphonso (of Portugal) to conquer, besiege, submit all the
Sarances, Pagans, and other enemies of Christ, wherever they may be; to
seize their kingdoms, dukedoms, princedoms, the lordship, personal
properties, and all the wealth they possess.'
In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a
righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose
of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labour market as
chattel property. This devilish scheme speedily gained the sanctimonious
blessing of the Pope and became a standard policy of the Vatican, and later
of Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries. The ghastly traffic
in human misery was given the cloak of respectability and anointed with the
oil of pontifical righteousness in Jesus' name.
Furtheremore, the first slaves were Orthodox Slavs (Orthodox Christians were
considered enemies by the Catholic Church). That is where the term 'slave'
comes from.
With regards to African slavery, Europeans were merely following orders. If
other black people were involved, that too is highly likely because in 1441,
Ethiopian delegates to the Council of Florence accepted union with the Roman
Catholic Church (though by the 18th century the Ethiopian Coptic Church had
fallen out with Rome) attacking African Muslims.
Sources
Thomas, Hugh. (1997). The Slave Trade - the History of the Slave Trade
1440-1870 London: Macmillian Publishers Ltd
Roberts, J M. (1985). The Triumph of the West. Book Club Associates by
arrangement with British Broadcasting Corporation
Rodgers, J.A. (1996). World's great men of colour - Volume 2, New York:
Touchstone
The Daily Telegraph. 'AD - 2,000 years of Christianity - Part 5: 1500-1800'
.
"Thos" <t...@aloft.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A82B132...@aloft.lucent.com...
> redrum wrote:
> >
> > ab...@anarchy.gov says...
> > >
>
> People forget (or perhaps never learned) that white slavers comprised
> roughly a two-thirds part of the slave trade, but not the whole of it.
>
> American slavery began before the revolution with the establishment of
> the triangular trade practice (Simplified here):
...
Doug Bartley
na...@na.da (redrum) wrote:
>>
>>>Apparently they were too cheap to pay
>>>whites to work the fields for them, which they easily could have done.
>>
>>There weren't enough people that wanted to come to the US at the time
>>or willing to work here at all. The natives and neighbors were
>>hostile, couldn't turn to them either.
>
>Ok, so you get workers from wherever you can. But there was no need to
>not pay them, or let them be free. The big plantation owners had the
>money. Besides, even if blacks were free, where could they go to? There
>were few cities in the south, and most blacks worked far out in the
>countryside.
>>
An important reason why people were enslaved or indentured had to
do with the tendency of those who were not so restricted to quit
working for "the man" as soon as they could acquire land.
Many of the most motivated headed to the margins of the settled areas
or well beyond. Although this tended to deprive the plantations and
cities of labor it did benefit the rich and the settled areas by creating
a buffer of sorts between them and the Indians.
>>>And there were plenty of whites around to do the work since the
>>>enclosure movement in Europe threw all the tenant farmers off their
>>>lands.
>>
>>So how many of them actually came here? How long did it take them
>>"all" to come here?
>
>The Industrial Revolution absorbed the excess in Britain, which is why
>there wasn't a mad rush to get here. And besides it was EXPENSIVE to
>come here. Remember that we're talking about dirt poor subsistence
>farmers here.
The Industrial Revolution absorbed some, but conditions were desperate
in the cities - which were overwhelmed with poor people thrown off the
land.
Transportation of convicts - both for petty crime and for political
"offenses" was inaugurated in 1717 and continued into the early 19th
century
(first to N. America and Caribean colonies, then to Australia, after the
North American colonies seceded). And although some transportees were from
rural backgrounds, many, if not most, were a generation or more removed and
had grown up as urban poor.
In any case, I would recommend the first several chapters of Howard Zinn's
"A People's History of the United States" for a fascinating discussion of
the colonial and revolutionary period.
Regards,
DB
T. Epstein
>
> I don't understand why white people, Brits and Yanks get blamed for the
> slavery of Africans.
>
> When slavery started, the Church was the dominant institution in Europe.
No, it was not.
Modern slavery in the Americas began in the early 17th century, well
after a single, monolithic church had sway in Europe. Monarchies were the
seats of power. In England, King James was the head of the Church of England,
a title and office that came about not because the Church held power over
the state, but for exactly the opposite reason, thanks to King Henry.
However, that only addresses-white driven, plantation slavery. Native
civilizations apparently were not adverse to slavery long before Europ-
eans ever crossed the Atlantic.
Aside from Henry 8th's crippling blow to pontifical political power,
in England, sectarianism had disintegrated the political sway of the church
before that. The days of Pope Julius and other political pontiffs were
gone, though not forgotten. In Eastern Europe and Asia Minor, churches
were led by patriarchs who severed ties to Rome. By the time slavery
reached the new world, the term, "The Church," meant very different things
to different people.
> Institutionalised slavery originated with the Church and came about as a
> result of the Crusades
That is blatantly false. Institutionalized slavery predates Christianity
by many centuries. Roman, Greek, Carthaginian, Phoenician, Egyptian and
Babylonian civilizations all had long histories of institutionalized slavery.
> against the Moors (North Africans) who had been
> living in Spain for almost 8 centuries. Also remember, the Islamic
> invasion of Europe in the eighth century was from North Africa.
Church-sanctioned slavery was indeed practiced during the Crusades. This
was not, however, the origin of slavery. By the way, their foes also
enslaved captives.