Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities
- Thread starter BobKowalski
- Start date
It's highly appreciated. But you should also make us aware of the pertinent point we ought to derive from the link in relation to the preceding discussion(s).
By Citizens I'm referring to those who made Antislavery a decade long campaign. The Quakers, Abolitionists Anglicans, Testonites, Sons of Africa, the Middleton, Clarkson etc. In short the people who backed and pushed Wilberforce to put forth bills in parliament and then they campaigned for in the streets and public squares and brought the issue to the forefront.
I understand your underlying point and I don't deny it generally. However, I'm saying the known and published writings from the time period strongly support's the belief that a sense of horror at the effects of slave trading was the driving force behind the push to end slave trading.
That subterfuge was deployed by some of those Antislavery proponents to convince others to join the cause doesn't change the underlying fact of why the push began and what sustained it.. Rather it speaks to the ingenuity of the Abolitionists of the time.
This is a simple and well known principle. If you want someone else to do something you want, your best bet for success is to show how what you want also is in their interest. But this doesn't change the reason why you want it done. It was your idea,they just joined because you convinced them it was in their self interest 'also.'
To later claim the 'also' part was the driving force or reason behind the action, strikes me as a misunderstanding of what, in my opinion, is meant by driving force.
Anyway, my sense is that we are discussing different aspects of the same phenomena and continue to talk past each other. So I'd let it rest.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Not only compensated them for the value of the slave but allowed them to retain ownership for a further five years so that they could be worked to death.
All paid for by the taxpayer.... (bit of a precursor to the National Trust.... but thats for another thread)
I thought that might be your point. 2 points.
1. Revolting against being enslaved ( noble and courageous as that is) isn't quite the same thing as objecting to the practice of slavery by others on others. The former is an act of survival, while the latter is a bit more than that.
2. As you probably well know, after the revolt and the ousting of the French, the practice of forced unpaid labor continued in Haiti. So one can argue, it wasn't slavery per see that they were against, but rather the enslavement by a foreign minority.
Even today in Haiti they still practice Restavek. I.e forced unpaid labor by young adults to the rich. Frankly it just semantics that it isn't called slavery. As it has almost all the same features. As did the practices immediately after the revolt.
So no... Haiti's revolt was for independence from a foreign minority. But the new leaders continued a practice that bore a striking resemblance to the exact practice that preceded the revolt.
If you consider that a realization that slavery is wrong, I won't object. But I struggle to see it that way.
As I wrote in an earlier post which you seem to have ignored, some people treat the trans historical nature of coercive labour systems as a subject for well-informed, subtle scholarship. You seem to be interested in it mainly as a bottomless well of excuses for the uniquely significant - in terms of its decisive role in the making of the modern world - form of chattel slavery developed and practiced by Europeans and north Americans in the early modern period. I'm not interested in playing your game.
I ignored it for 2 reeasons. It didn't touch on any point I had made previously on the thread. And to object to what was wrong or more importantly purposely unclear about your post would have veered the thread even further away from it's original point... Which at this point it has.
Second, I sensed a discussion of history and complexities of slavery wasnt the point of this thread and could if the internet warrants, stand as a topic of it's on a different thread. And engaging nyour take on it ( objectionable as it was) would be better done on a separate thread.
It was also sufficiently clear that the intended goal of your post was to focus on slavery that implicates White Europeans and Americans to the exclusion of others.
It did strike me that some ( surely less intelligent than you of course) might argue that the key to understanding the history and effects of slavery ought to involve examining all it's permutations, effects and histories the world over before coming to some apriori conclusion about which ones affected what systems. But hey, to each his own.
Playing my games? Lol. Talk about projection. Look, I could tell you really weren't interested in the topic of Slavery and it's history. Your use of undefined terms and generalized ideas made that clear. Basic questions like:
What form of chattel slavery was developed and practiced by European and Americans? What were the unique features that made them distinct and worth separating from all other forms of slavery? Did any other group practice such Slavery?
What do you define as the modern world? Around what time did it start by your definition.15th , 16th, 17, 18 19th Century? Also the same for pre mordern world? And what were the distinct differences between the practices of these 2 times?
What are the unique relationships to capitalism that leads you to conclude that one ought to strictly focus on the history of White Slavers, but more importantly ignore all the others, if one wants to understand the mordern world?
While we are at it, what kind of slavery did the Ottomans engage in that makes it facile and superficial to focus on it?
These are just a few of the basic questions your post begged.
Like I said, i gnored it as slavery wasn't the point of this thread and I sensed you weren't genuinely interested in the topic anyway. It was clear you were rather more interested in scoring ideological points.
I guess. I'll make this my last thread diverting post.
Carry on...
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
encouraging.......................not
bylinetimes.com
New Government Counter-Extremism Chief's Ties to Pro-Trump Hate Groups
Nafeez Ahmed reports on the alarm bells raised by the appointment of Robin Simcox as the Lead Commissioner on Countering Extremism
bylinetimes.com