PDA

View Full Version : Slave descendants to sue Lloyds



Rachel
29-03-04, 16:17
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3578863.stm

I can describe Mr Edward Fagan with one word : MUPPET.
The Nazi gold case was still living memory, but this !
Its an intresting idea, but I can tell you now he doesn't stand a chance in hell. In fact I have to say its suicide.
I'm sorry but you do NOT F**k with a institution like Loyds and expect to get away with it.
What a MUPPET!

Maciamo
29-03-04, 16:58
Anyway, how could that guy get money in repair for other people which he has never met !?

Have you seen the article (also on BBC news, but can't find it in the search) about some Africans who want to sue the British government for violence in their country during the colonisation. :D It's like a Muslim suing the Pope for not believing in Allah ! Frankly, Africans could start doing the cleaning at home before making such bold statements.

Rachel
29-03-04, 18:32
Yes I saw it, pretty mad.
:D

kirei_na_me
29-03-04, 18:36
It's just ridiculous. That's the only thing I can come up with. Ridiculous.

Frank D. White
29-03-04, 18:50
They have received land, money, and tribal special privileges in their battles. I think other groups see their success and say why not us, let's SUE !!

Frank
:o

bossel
29-03-04, 19:41
I heard that a tribe (the Hereros, now in Namibia) who suffered from the Germans during colonialism, ~100 years ago, also wants to sue. Though I see the wrongs done to them I can't understand why they want compensation for something done to their ancestors. If somebody who suffered is still alive, OK, but the great grandchildren?
The worrying thing is that these cases may even succeed in the US. Where would that stop? Would I be able to sue the Italians because the Romans killed some of my ancestors 2000 years ago?

Winter
29-03-04, 20:54
bossel: Isnt this against the Geneva convention? I mean, unless there were war crimes comitted, there is no justice to grant out. Also...if we are talking about the law, in accordance to American law, bringing someone to justice of a crime that wasnt protected by the law defies the loverly 4th-5th amendment under the exclusionary rule. Too bad all countries arent protected by that law....hehehe

As for the reparations....evidently I'm the only one who doesnt think its that ridiculous. Maybe a little extreme, and possibly far-fetched, but not lunacy.

bossel
30-03-04, 01:22
bossel: Isnt this against the Geneva convention? I mean, unless there were war crimes comitted, there is no justice to grant out.
Actually, it was probably a war crime according to modern standards. The Hereros rebelled, lost the ensuing "war" & the survivors fled into the desert. German troops controlled water holes & desert borders in order to let all Hereros die in the desert. But this happened against the will of the governor & finally the German emperor directly ordered the commanding officer to stop. 70 % of all Hereros are said to have died.

I just read that they not only want to sue, they already filed a law suit in Washington, D.C., in 2001. The "Herero Peoples Reparation Corporation" wants to get 2 billion dollar.




evidently I'm the only one who doesnt think its that ridiculous
What's ridiculous are those slave descendants who want to sue Lloyds for insuring slave ships. They said that they traced their DNA to slaves who are known to be transported on those ships.

Apart from the question of how much guilt an insurance company could have in this case: What about "white" people who have traces of this DNA? There are so many mongrels in the US that the courts would have to decide which amount of DNA is enough for getting compensation.

Maciamo
30-03-04, 03:06
I heard that a tribe (the Hereros, now in Namibia) who suffered from the Germans during colonialism, ~100 years ago, also wants to sue. Though I see the wrongs done to them I can't understand why they want compensation for something done to their ancestors. If somebody who suffered is still alive, OK, but the great grandchildren?
The worrying thing is that these cases may even succeed in the US. Where would that stop? Would I be able to sue the Italians because the Romans killed some of my ancestors 2000 years ago?

I am going to sue all Africans nations because I was told, generation after generation for about 1 million year that some of them once killed an ancestor of mine when we were still in Africa. Had they killed him before he had engrossed my female ancestor at that time, I wouldn't be here now, so that was something personally life-threatening for me. Of course I have no official record or document to prove the facts, nor my relation that ancestor (who maybe wasn't my ancestor after all), but as anyone can sue anyone at the other end of the world for things that happen centuries ago, why not. :mad:

Keeni84
30-03-04, 05:09
You guys may take this as some sort of simple silly little thing that people are doing, but you have to realize what it's like for us, the descendants of those slaves.

You guys may think that colonization and slavery was a grievance committed against my ancestors, and not me, so I shouldn't be worried about it. Let me tell you something. I am affected everyday by slavery, and the subsequent racism that followed slavery. What is my last name? What is my country of origin? Where do my people come from? What was their original tongue? Why was I born with curly black hair and brown skin, my mother red hair and brown eyes, my grandmother blond hair and blue eyes, yet we are all considered "black"?

Do you know? I certainly don't. And it kind of pisses me off that you guys have some sort of blatant disreguard for the ancestors of these people. You think I'm not affected? You think black people are just A-OKAY, thrown into America through racism and discrimination, without a heritage, culture or homeland? Yeah, and I thought you were enlightened people.

Keeni84
30-03-04, 05:13
God, do you people even know what it's like to live in the shadow of colonialism and racism and all these things that comes from being the ancestor of a slave? It's not romantic, it's not funny, it's not cool, it's a really terrible feeling, and I'm sick of people making light of it, like we aren't affected by this at all.

And if you are an ancestor of a slave---not Roman times, but slavery, within the last 150 years---you would know that it really is a BIG DEAL and you WOULD be affected by it.

Keeni84
30-03-04, 05:19
And I hate these arguements--should I sue because my ancestors were slaves of the Romans 2000 years ago? YES if you feel wronged by those actions and NO ONE had done a damn thing to make things right.

Whatever happened to the forty acres and a mule that was to be granted to freed slaves? How come we can inherit our ancestors DEBTS but we cannot inherit this? THEY PROMISED this to blacks, INSTEAD all they got was sharecropping (another form of slavery) and Jim Crow.

Grr...I am so upset right now, you guys don't understand at all.

Maciamo
30-03-04, 05:48
God, do you people even know what it's like to live in the shadow of colonialism and racism and all these things that comes from being the ancestor of a slave? It's not romantic, it's not funny, it's not cool, it's a really terrible feeling, and I'm sick of people making light of it, like we aren't affected by this at all.

Sorry guy, but I have studied a lot history and I can tell you that not only black slaves were the ones to grieves. Basically most migrants to the US (at the time of the 13 colonies) left Europe because of religious oppression, wars of religion (protestants vs catholics, exterminating each other), Inquisition, etc. So what's worth, being a slave with free food and housing, or being burned at the stake or live in fear to be, because you believe in a slightly different thing than your neighbour ?



And if you are an ancestor of a slave---not Roman times, but slavery, within the last 150 years---you would know that it really is a BIG DEAL and you WOULD be affected by it.

I think that you cannot sue someone who hasn't committed a crime, for something their ancestors did, especially if the plaintiff hasn't suffered the damage him/herself.

Furthermore, as Winter said, there shouldn't be any prosecution for things that happened when there was no law against it. Laws cannot be retroactive, otherwise people would live in fear of doing something that could become ilegal any time in the future. It's like saying that today you can own a gun in the US, but you might be sued for doing so in the future if the law changed, even if you have sold you gun when the law changed. Impossible to live in these conditions.

FYI, white slavery was part and parcel of Ancient Europe. We hear big praise about the Greeks founding the first democracy in the world, but that was only for free men, and they all owned slaves. Ironically, the US that prides itself for being the first "modern democracy" was in exactly the same case as Ancient Greece. But that was accepted as normal at the time, and there were also white slaves in the States : indentured workers, whose status was only slightly better (and sometimes worse) than black slaves.

You should never judge history with today's mores or sensitivity.

Rachel
30-03-04, 17:34
Keeni84 the past is just that 'The Past'. It happened, nothing is ever going to change that no matter how angry you get.
Accept it, move on.
What you CAN change is the future, learn to live for that. Not the past!
This is something I learnt the hard way Keeni.
Its not an easy thing to do, but its worth it in the end.

Keeni84
30-03-04, 17:41
Sorry guy, but I have studied a lot history and I can tell you that not only black slaves were the ones to grieves. Basically most migrants to the US (at the time of the 13 colonies) left Europe because of religious oppression, wars of religion (protestants vs catholics, exterminating each other), Inquisition, etc. So what's worth, being a slave with free food and housing, or being burned at the stake or live in fear to be, because you believe in a slightly different thing than your neighbour ?

You are sick. I'm sorry. You think I'm going to fall into this trap, and debate with you which human injustices are "worse" than others? Sorry guy, it's not going to happen. MY QUALM is not about what was worse, and what wasn't. If you BOTHERED to read my post, I mean ACTUALLY READ IT you would see that my post is NOT about the injustice that African slaves went through, but what their DESCENDANTS are going through. It has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about now.

God. How sick is that to compare slavery to being burned at the stake, and then to ask which is worse? I expected more from you, Maciamo. You guys are really surprising me.

This is the type of stuff I'm talking about. God. READ MACIAMO, I know you're good at it.



I think that you cannot sue someone who hasn't committed a crime, for something their ancestors did, especially if the plaintiff hasn't suffered the damage him/herself.

Did you even read my post? I don't understand. Why are you still talking about getting sued? I don't want to sue anyone. WOW! A black girl who doesn't want monetary reparations! Holy cow! I don't think the case will win, it's nearly impossible, however I feel that cases like this shed light on some of the


"There is no doubt that slavery was a crime against humanity and for a lot of black people the consequences of slavery still exist today."


FYI, white slavery was part and parcel of Ancient Europe. We hear big praise about the Greeks founding the first democracy in the world, but that was only for free men, and they all owned slaves. Ironically, the US that prides itself for being the first "modern democracy" was in exactly the same case as Ancient Greece. But that was accepted as normal at the time, and there were also white slaves in the States : indentured workers, whose status was only slightly better (and sometimes worse) than black slaves.

What does this have to do with my post? Did you even READ my post? I don't get it! My post is not about the treatment of African slaves, or Irish indentured servants, or Roman soldiers. My post was about how I STILL feel the affects of slavery and the subsequent racism that followed, and how people act like I'm out of my mind for saying so. THATS what my post was about.

I don't need a history lesson, I just need you to understand, seriously. But I see I'm out of my league since you're not paying attention to the issue that I'm bringing to the table.

jeisan
30-03-04, 18:10
i'll bite!!
but as im unsure about this keeni, i would like you to explain how the fact that your great great great grandparent(s) were slaves adversly affects your daily life in 21st century america.

also i think people are just getting tired of one group or another dragging up these undead issues, which just won't die. i mean the US has apologized and i believe paid reparations for its involvment in slavery. its like every decade someone has to bring the whole situation up again. imagine if you apologized, tried to make things right and move on only to have your face repeatly rubbed in your past mistake, you apologize again try to make amends only to have the same scenario played out over and over again. after awhile youre gonna get fed up, it gets annoying and old.
i think everyone needs to chill out, be happy to be alive and live for today.

Rachel
30-03-04, 18:19
i think everyone needs to chill out, be happy to be alive and live for today.

Well said jeisan, well said. :-)

Keeni84
30-03-04, 18:30
but as im unsure about this keeni, i would like you to explain how the fact that your great great great grandparent(s) were slaves adversly affects your daily life in 21st century america.

Let me see...

When I think about my ancestry, it stops at America. Does that bother me? Yes. When I talk to my friends, they all say, I have ancestry in England, Ireland and Poland. They take trips to these places, they have the religion, language and history of their ancestors. Do I have that? No. It's kind of like being adopted. You don't know where you are, or where you are from. I love my life, and I love everything in it, but there is still that piece of me that is missing.

When I look in the mirror, I don't look like a typical African person. My grandmother was a black woman, born with blond hair and blue eyes, my mother, with red hair and brown eyes, and I with curly black hair and brown skin. It's strange, these three women, all from the same family, all different yet somehow "black". You don't know how much it irks me to think that my family is a product of rape and enslavement. I don't know, Jeisan, maybe you won't get it, and maybe you will.

During slavery, black men were sold away from families, and women were left to rear them. Slave women reared their daughters strong but didn't do the same with their sons because they knew that they would just be sold anyway, or killed if they got too bold. Now look at the state of black families today. That is STILL the same mentality that holds. It's strange...how people just think that psychological issues like this aren't generational, but they are.

When I lived in Europe, people knew about slavery and asked me about it.

Them:"SO do you know where in Africa you are from?"
Me: "No."
Them: "Cool"/"I think it is so interesting"

I wish there were more black people on this board to help me explain this, because I don't speak for all black people. However, I know there are many who feel the way that I do.



also i think people are just getting tired of one group or another dragging up these undead issues, which just won't die. i mean the US has apologized and i believe paid reparations for its involvment in slavery. its like every decade someone has to bring the whole situation up again. imagine if you apologized, tried to make things right and move on only to have your face repeatly rubbed in your past mistake, you apologize again try to make amends only to have the same scenario played out over and over again. after awhile youre gonna get fed up, it gets annoying and old.

The US has never paid reparations for slavery, and the US has never apologized for slavery. The UN will not consider slavery a violation of human rights, since at the time, it wasn't considered a violation, and most people scoff at the idea of reparations, monetary or not.

Don't I have a right to be upset? I'm sorry, but maybe you guys just wont get it, because I've tried to explain this to other non-black people and they didn't see the point. Should Jewish people whose great-grandparents and grandparents were in the Holocaust just stop caring? No, they shouldn't, and neither should I.

I don't know anyone on this board personally, but I just want to be frank and candid and explain to you guys how I feel about these issues, because it really irks me that everyone claims to be so liberal and open-minded, yet no one can sympathise with a bunch of people who just want what is right, or who have been wronged. I'm sitting here with my mouth open, just thinking about it.

It's unpleasant.

jeisan
30-03-04, 19:01
Let me see...

When I think about my ancestry, it stops at America. Does that bother me? Yes. When I talk to my friends, they all say, I have ancestry in England, Ireland and Poland. They take trips to these places, they have the religion, language and history of their ancestors. Do I have that? No. It's kind of like being adopted. You don't know where you are, or where you are from. I love my life, and I love everything in it, but there is still that piece of me that is missing.
your ancestry doesnt stop in america, it stops in africa. just like mine stops in europe i dont know quite where but it does.


Don't I have a right to be upset? I'm sorry, but maybe you guys just wont get it, because I've tried to explain this to other non-black people and they didn't see the point. Should Jewish people whose great-grandparents and grandparents were in the Holocaust just stop caring? No, they shouldn't, and neither should I.
you have a right to be upset, i just don't know what good it will do. harboring that inside you all your life cant be good though. my grandmother, whos still alive, had to escape nazi germany during the war. but i dont resent the germans nor do i expect anything from them. in fact i actually speak some german. the germans of today know its wrong and had nothing to do with what happened during WWII, and as much as they may want to change what happened they cant, no one can. the same goes for slavery and any other similar issue. throwing money to people who are resentful and complaining about what has happened wont solve the problem, in fact i think such things make it worse, only understanding, mutual respect, and forgivness will hopefully solve these issues.

Keeni84
30-03-04, 22:31
your ancestry doesnt stop in america, it stops in africa. just like mine stops in europe i dont know quite where but it does.

I think this is where you don't understand. Most white people in America know specifically where their ancestors came from. They can have a bond with these people. I do not. I can say, I am from Africa, or West Africa, or Central Africa, but I cannot say where. Our culture was stripped from us, our history and language. You can read in a book and see England, Irish, Chinese, Indian history, and appreciate the culture, or feel a bond because that is where you are from, but unfortunately, I cannot do that.

My grandfather is a Native American, so my history lies in America as well. But what do I know about Native Americans? They went through the same thing as black people---being slaves, having the culture wiped out...I cannot win.


you have a right to be upset, i just don't know what good it will do. harboring that inside you all your life cant be good though. my grandmother, whos still alive, had to escape nazi germany during the war. but i dont resent the germans nor do i expect anything from them. in fact i actually speak some german. the germans of today know its wrong and had nothing to do with what happened during WWII, and as much as they may want to change what happened they cant, no one can. the same goes for slavery and any other similar issue. throwing money to people who are resentful and complaining about what has happened wont solve the problem, in fact i think such things make it worse, only understanding, mutual respect, and forgivness will hopefully solve these issues.

Yes, that's all fine and dandy, but that is not what my post is about. People ACT like other people aren't affected by things that happen in the past. SLAVERY is my past, and I am affected by that everyday. Some people treat me like an inferior because of it, and some people feel sorry for me. I don't want either, I just want people to UNDERSTAND that something like slavery, or being the descendant of a slave doesn't just GO AWAY. The way black people are TODAY is a direct result of slavery. The way we were trained to be animals. Why do you think black people have so many issues? SLAVERY ended ONLY 130 years ago! Segregation ended barely 30 YEARS AGO!

This stuff is not ancient. My mother lived through segregation. Her mother lived through segregation and was the granddaughter of a slave. Can you imagine, being alive, and knowing that your mother's mom was a slave?

Geeze. I'm not asking for sympathy, or pity or anything, JUST UNDERSTANDING that YEAH stuff still affects people, and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

bossel
31-03-04, 00:51
I am affected everyday by slavery, and the subsequent racism that followed slavery.

[...]thrown into America through racism and discrimination, without a heritage, culture or homeland? Yeah, and I thought you were enlightened people.
You are affected by slavery because you get rubbed it in all the time, I think. This is a kind of brainwashing going on, maybe. If people always tell you that you are a victim because your ancestors were, you sooner or later believe it & feel like that.



What is my last name?
I know my last name. So what? Got it from my step-father. I know my biological father's name, nothing else about his family. My ancestors got a lot of different names of which I know only a tiny fraction.
It's just a legal issue, for this shabby beaurocracy wants me to have a last name. Is it important? No way.



What is my country of origin?
From my mother's lineage I know of some French ancestry. Most ancestors are German. So what? Germany is a rather new country, around 133 years. Before that there were a lot of little fiefdoms, kingdoms & whatever. My hometown once even belonged to France for a short while. There was a Roman Empire of German Nation once. A lot of different tribes, Germanic, Celtic, whatever. Not to mention all those wars with foreign troops who left their trace in the local DNA.
Now what is my country of origin?


Where do my people come from? What was their original tongue?
Obviously from a lot of different places: Africa, Europe, America. Can't be much of one original tongue then, must be more like dozens. Languages change over time anyway.
What's the original tongue of those "white" US Americans? They don't have one either.



Why was I born with curly black hair and brown skin, my mother red hair and brown eyes, my grandmother blond hair and blue eyes, yet we are all considered "black"?
You're considered "black" because there seems to be a need to categorize social groups in simple ways (in my regard too simple). I personally would not consider you negroid though. You're a mongrel, as most "black" US Americans are to some degree(I don't have any statistics at hand now, but that's what I remember).



And if you are an ancestor of a slave---not Roman times, but slavery, within the last 150 years---you would know that it really is a BIG DEAL and you WOULD be affected by it.
Here we have the original problem again: time. Why 150 years? Why not 100 or 200, why not 2000?



sue because my ancestors were slaves of the Romans 2000 years ago? YES if you feel wronged by those actions and NO ONE had done a damn thing to make things right.
Nope! You can't hold people responsible for the deeds of their ancestors.


If you or your mother suffer under racism, this is not directly related to slavery, but to racist attitudes (which, then again, probably led to slavery). Since racism is illegal you could of course sue those who discriminate against you. Which leads me back to the original topic: suing Lloyds.

Lloyds is an insurance company & cannot be held responsible for what people did (or do) with ships insured by them. That would be only possible if Lloyds knew & condoned that insured ships were involved in illegal activities. At first slave shipping was a legal business, hence Lloyds couldn't be held responsible anyway. After 1807 slave trade became illegal in Britain (from 1827 even considered piracy, punishable by death) Lloyds would probably have committed a crime if they knew that an insured ship was meant to ship slaves.
If the lawyers can prove that this happened they might have a case. But I doubt that this could be brought before modern courts, for probably being time-barred.


BTW, Keeni: Maybe you should read Jeisan's post again.

Keeni84
31-03-04, 02:18
Bossel:


You are affected by slavery because you get rubbed it in all the time, I think. This is a kind of brainwashing going on, maybe. If people always tell you that you are a victim because your ancestors were, you sooner or later believe it & feel like that.

I don't think of myself as a victim. I am trying to display how I am affected by slavery in every day life. Being affected negatively by something does not make you a "victim".

I read your post and all you seem to be doing is to explain WHY the things that affect me exist. That is NOT the point. I appreciate you explaining these things, however they STILL affect me. That was the point of my post.


And if you are an ancestor of a slave---not Roman times, but slavery, within the last 150 years---you would know that it really is a BIG DEAL and you WOULD be affected by it.

I just wanted to make it relevant to what I was trying to bring to the table, but sure, someone who had ancestors as slaves of the Romans COULD be affected by it. I don't know. However I've never met a person like that. I've met more people affected by modern day slavery (within the last 200 years).


Nope! You can't hold people responsible for the deeds of their ancestors.

I'm not trying to hold anyone responsible. (emphasis on anyone). All I'm saying is if you feel personally wronged, you have the right to sue. It doesn't matter if it makes it to court, or if you win, or whatever. You have that right.


BTW, Keeni: Maybe you should read Jeisan's post again.

I did read his post again, but I didn't see the point. What am I missing?

Mandylion
31-03-04, 02:42
I can understand your frustration Keeni84, if I may presume to say so. You have had a unique experience and I donít assume I know what you have been through and what you will in the future. But being a minority in any culture brings with it challenges. If my wife and I ever have children, high up on our list of goals as parents is to instill a sense of pride in that childís heritage and ancestry. Somehow not being able to achieve that goal is one of my major concerns for fatherhood. I can appreciate what loosing ones cultural heritage, or not knowing what it is to begin with, might be like.

She has a right to be pissed. As we can see by this thread, all of us place different stock in our ancestries and heritages. Just because some of us might not have a strong desire for our own past doesnít mean we should begrudge someone elseís search for their own.

However, I do not agree with the Lloyds case. But perhaps for different reasons than some here. I donít think it is stupid, but I fail to see what doing so will solve.

In short, can any amount of money really help define or bring back a cultural identity or sense of self? If the Lloyds issue is not about money, what is it about? Will an apology really empower descendants of slaves to worker even harder to address social wrongs? Will it really make everyone else see things in a different way?

I don't see what suing Lloyds is going to achieve in mending a sense of cultural identity. Other people donít get it, for whatever reason, and then they criticize the action. Then suddenly it is an issue of us vs. them - again. This is the same dance that I think has held back advances in relations for generations (Iím speaking generally here Ė I know Keeni84 and many others are not out for monetary gain).

While I donít agree with suing Lloyds, I can understand how losing, or never clearly having a sense of cultural identity would be frustrating. Of course it is natural to express such frustrations against the group that deprived you of that right. However, taking something away doesnít always mean it is still there to give back. I think the black community, and minority communities everywhere, need to take charge in finding, reconstructing, or inventing a cultural identity if that is what the situation demands. That is something only you can do for yourselves. Misdirected anger and frustration Ė in this case suing Lloyds Ė only fosters hard feelings and division for all parties involved.

Not a Christian and I am selectivly quoting but...sometimes they get it right;)
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Mandylion
31-03-04, 02:49
All I'm saying is if you feel personally wronged, you have the right to sue. It doesn't matter if it makes it to court, or if you win, or whatever. You have that right.

Having a right to sue also means using that right responsibly. If a group is going to use that right to bring attention to an issue that no one has the power to fix/set right, I think that group needs to be very careful that their actions don't backfire and leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. Doing so can actual set a movement back.

These types of court actions are political (an not in an election sense but the wider meaning of the word) as much as anything, so people should not get upset when the repercussions are equally political in nature.

bossel
31-03-04, 02:56
Well, I can't take away your feelings & I can't really understand them. Simple fact. Yes, you seem affected, but I doubt that you're affected by slavery. Racism, yeah, but slavery is too far-fetched for the feelings you show. Making this connection is either pure show (no offence, I don't think this is true in your case) or imposed by some sort of brainwashing.

My explanations, what Maciamo said & Jeisan's experience should have shown you that there is nothing oh so exceptional to your situation. Yeah, your ancestors suffered. So did the ancestors of most people. You don't know certain things about your ancestry. Neither do most people in the world.

Regarding Jeisan, he can probably explain it best himself. But what I mean is: Don't you think that he feels the effects of what happened to his family? It's much closer (in time & degree of kinship) to him than slavery to you.
I could understand if Jeisan showed the strong feelings you seem to have. Just like you he is not directly affected, for he probably grew up in the present situation. But he knows from the 1st-hand experience of his grandmother.

bossel
31-03-04, 03:29
I think the black community, and minority communities everywhere, need to take charge in finding, reconstructing, or inventing a cultural identity if that is what the situation demands.
Very reasonable points in your post, Mandylion. But I disagree with this one. I don't think "inventing" a cultural identity would help very much. People would know that it's a fake identity, that wouldn't give much comfort & might even lead to more conflicts.
If someone's asking for a particular "black" identity I'd consider it harmful. It's like subscribing to the same racist crap as during segregation.

It's not necessary, anyway. They are US American, that's the culture they grew up & live in.

Keeni84
31-03-04, 03:38
Well, I can't take away your feelings & I can't really understand them. Simple fact. Yes, you seem affected, but I doubt that you're affected by slavery. Racism, yeah, but slavery is too far-fetched for the feelings you show. Making this connection is either pure show (no offence, I don't think this is true in your case) or imposed by some sort of brainwashing.

Slavery is too far-fetched? I don't understand how you cannot understand that slavery still affects people. Maybe you think I affected in the "I hate all of you" way or "I feel like a slave" way. No. I'm saying that I am affected by slavery because my history, my RECENT history is unknown to me because of slavery. Who we are (black people) in America as a people is a direct result of slavery.

People today are still affected by the Civil War. Why do you think the North and South still have issues? It's not quite the same thing, but the civil war happened over 100 years ago. Why are we still arguing about the "rebel flag" or the "War of Northern Aggression"? Because it still affects people.


My explanations, what Maciamo said & Jeisan's experience should have shown you that there is nothing oh so exceptional to your situation. Yeah, your ancestors suffered. So did the ancestors of most people. You don't know certain things about your ancestry. Neither do most people in the world

Certain things? I don't know anything. I think that's what makes it unique. And even if there was nothing so "exceptional" about my situation, that doesn't mean I am any less affected by it. Which was the POINT of my entire post. My qualm wasn't about Llyods or Roman slavery, or any of that. It was about how certain people fail to realize that YES black people (and others) are still affected by slavery. (As well as other groups).


Having a right to sue also means using that right responsibly. If a group is going to use that right to bring attention to an issue that no one has the power to fix/set right, I think that group needs to be very careful that their actions don't backfire and leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. Doing so can actual set a movement back.

I agree. Many people actually think they are helping bring notice to the "movement". I don't think reparations will ever happen, but at least people are talking about them.


Regarding Jeisan, he can probably explain it best himself. But what I mean is: Don't you think that he feels the effects of what happened to his family? It's much closer (in time & degree of kinship) to him than slavery to you.

You really don't understand, do you? This isn't about TIME. The way black people are TODAY comes from slavery. Our existence came from slavery. How can one not be affected by that?

I certainly sympathize with Jeisan and what happened to his grandmother. However, my grandmother can tell me stories of what her grandmother told HER about slavery. Does that count? Or have too many years gone by?

The fact of the matter is, you probably won't understand where I am coming from, and I really don't expect you to. All I'm asking you to do is possibly try to conceive of someone being affected by slavery. Not whips and chains, and beatings, but just think of the psychological and emotional effects of slavery on a population.

Mandylion
31-03-04, 04:15
They are US American, that's the culture they grew up & live in.

But that is part of the problem. What is US American? What is American culuture? It is hard to define that alone since the US is made up of so many different parts. It is possible to be something-American (like African-American, Italian-American, Japanese-American). Being something-American is rather important in the myth of American society and one that is supported in education from an early age. It is all in the spirit of celebrating diversity - another important thing in the US - but (and I don't want to put words in others mouths) when that something is hard to define, either due to historical events or other factors, it can be a source of stress.

Like with your saying that inventing (in the spirit of creating) a cultural identity is a bad idea, just saying that my acestors came from such-and-such a place without being sure is an equally revolting form of deception (if we put it in your terms).

Some are happy to say "I'm American" and leave it at that. Others want to trace their roots and be able to point with authority to this or that country and this or that individual. Many feel this adds to their definition of self.

Maciamo
31-03-04, 04:29
Did you even read my post? I don't understand. Why are you still talking about getting sued?

Well, that was the original topic of the thread and what the 2 BBC articles were about. Not my fault if you are suddenly talking about sometjing "completely diferrent".


My post is not about the treatment of African slaves, or Irish indentured servants, or Roman soldiers. My post was about how I STILL feel the affects of slavery and the subsequent racism that followed, and how people act like I'm out of my mind for saying so.

I frankly couldn't say you post was about that, because it is not at all obvious to me that racism against black people in the US is due to the history of slavery. First of all, not all American whites are racist. But most importantly, racists don't make the difference between descendant of slaves who have live in America for hundreds of years (the first coming as early as 400 years ago), and more recent immigrant from Africa.

Another proof for that is that racism exist also in Europe, where there are no slave descendant, and most black people come directly from Africa. The majority came from the 1960's onwards, after the "decolonization" of Africa - and mind that they came of their own will, sometimes illegally, and didn't bear grudge against the "colonial injustice", otherwise they'd never have left their country to live "among whites".

Keeni84
31-03-04, 04:50
Well, that was the original topic of the thread and what the 2 BBC articles were about. Not my fault if you are suddenly talking about sometjing "completely diferrent".

Talking about something different? Of course, but it does tie in to what the original discussion was.


I heard that a tribe (the Hereros, now in Namibia) who suffered from the Germans during colonialism, ~100 years ago, also wants to sue. Though I see the wrongs done to them I can't understand why they want compensation for something done to their ancestors. If somebody who suffered is still alive, OK, but the great grandchildren?

This is what I was responding to. And the conversation just changed a bit.


I frankly couldn't say you post was about that, because it is not at all obvious to me that racism against black people in the US is due to the history of slavery.

I never said that. What I said was I am affected by slavery and the subsequent racism that followed slavery. (such as Jim Crow, segregation).


First of all, not all American whites are racist. But most importantly, racists don't make the difference between descendant of slaves who have live in America for hundreds of years (the first coming as early as 400 years ago), and more recent immigrant from Africa.

Okay, that's fine. However, I never said that all whites were racist. Did I even mention anything about white people in specific? I never did, because I'm not talking ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE. This isn't about that, and I wish you would pay attention to what I'm trying to tell you. Please! That's all I ask!

Secondly, I don't understand why you are talking about descendants of slaves and immigrants from Africa and racism. Does it tie in to what I was talking about, because I am confused.


Another proof for that is that racism exist also in Europe, where there are no slave descendant, and most black people come directly from Africa. The majority came from the 1960's onwards, after the "decolonization" of Africa - and mind that they came of their own will, sometimes illegally, and didn't bear grudge against the "colonial injustice", otherwise they'd never have left their country to live "among whites".

Proof of WHAT? What are you trying to prove? Are we even talking about the same thing? What's up with you and this "white" trip? Look back at my posts. I never talk about white people in specific (except references to the Colonists who inevitably were mostly white).


Some are happy to say "I'm American" and leave it at that. Others want to trace their roots and be able to point with authority to this or that country and this or that individual. Many feel this adds to their definition of self.

I am happy to say "I Am American" however I still feel that something is missing, mainly information about my heritage and culture. I feel that it adds to me as a whole. I'm not angry, I'm not asking for anything, I don't want personal reparations. I don't want any of that stuff! All I ask for is for people to understand that I still feel the affects of slavery, today, March 30, 2004.

PS In case you don't get this, I'm in no way talking about white people. No way. So please don't try to add them to this conversation as if I'm putting the blame on them. Thanks!

Maciamo
31-03-04, 04:57
Let me see...

When I think about my ancestry, it stops at America. Does that bother me? Yes. When I talk to my friends, they all say, I have ancestry in England, Ireland and Poland. They take trips to these places, they have the religion, language and history of their ancestors. Do I have that? No. It's kind of like being adopted.

I think you have a rather idyllic vision of the life of European immigrants to the US. Most of them alos have an adopted language, as only Brits, and I should actually the "English" (not all the Scottish, Welsh and Irish) had English has their first language. All other immigrant usually didn't speak a word of English when they arrived in America. The culture was completely different. As for the religion, you know that the history of the US was built on wars between catholics and protestant and even the 13 original colonies had an official religion. Maryland was one of the few Catholics (named after Queen Mary I of England, who was catholic), while most other New England colonies were dedicated to one form of protestantism (puritans in Massachussets, etc.). That was for the colinial history of North America. After the independance came more migrants from all kinds of countries, including non-Christians like the Jews, Asians, etc. The ironic thing is that English is now the official language of about half of black Africa (the other half being French) and most Africans are now more Christians than Europeans (though maybe not as much as the average white Americans). So the language and religion argument works even less for Africans than for, say Poles, Russians, Jews or Italians immigrants.

If you are complaining about that fact that this language and religion have been imposed on the black community, let us takea look at Irish history (as you mentioned them). Ireland, along with Wales and the Scottish highlands, is originally a purely Celtic country, were only Gaelic was spoken. Don't know if you have ever heard or read Gaelic, but it bears no ressemblance whatsoever with English. Even the grammar, word order etc. are completely different. I couldn't find a word similar (even "England" is said "Loegr" in Scottish Gaelic - don't know about the Irish version, as I don't speak Gaelic myslef). Ireland was attacked, then "colonized" by England, and Gaelic was prohibited. Only English was taught at school and children heard speaking Gaelic were punished, forcing them not to speak it even at home. In just a few generations, Gaelic had shrinked considerably and people now spoke mainly English. Nowadays, all Irish people speak English, and only about 20% (in the remote countryside) can still speak Gaelic (as a second language). The Irish didn't fare too bad. Scottish Gaelic is almost extinct (60.000 eledrly people can still speak it) and Manx and Cornish Gaelic are already extinct. Add to this that their land was taken by English landlords and their laws and way of life changed forever (even after the independance of EIRE in 1920, as institutions are still very much copied on the English system). That is much worse than the Briish colonization of Africa, since not all Africans were forced to speak English an their land has not been taken (well partly, but then given back) and way of life has not been Anglicised to the extend of Ireland.

What about slavery and living far away from their homeland ? The same happened to the Irish, as I told you about Irish indentured workers. They worked alongside black slaves in sugar islands like Barbados, and even intermarried (exceptional at the time). That is were the "black Irish" come from. As for emmigration, millions of Irish people (may I remind you that were are talking about a small island smaller than Ghana or Guinea) were forced to migrate to the US due to repression (or famine) at home. There are now 4 times more Irish people abroad (mostly in the US), than in Ireland (pop.= 4,5 million, including Northern Ireland and mixing people of Irish, Scottish and English descent). But even for those who voluntarily moved to the US, life was far from paradisiacal. Many died during the trip (shipwreck, lack of food...) and they also faced discrimination from other Americans (have you seen the movie "Gangs of New York" ?). But they tried hard to adapt and their perseverance lead them to new glory, with several president with Irish origins (Kennedy, Reagan...), several Hollywood stars, etc. I admit that their being white surely has made it easier than for blacks in politics, but black people have also prospered at Hollywood (Morgan Freeman...), sports (basketball, golf...), and especially and disproportionally in music (jazz, blues, rap and many more all all "black music").

What I mean is that it isn't necessairly easier for whites than for blacks, and complaining about one's roots or opportunities in not the most judicial thing to do in the US.

Maciamo
31-03-04, 05:43
I'm not trying to hold anyone responsible. (emphasis on anyone). All I'm saying is if you feel personally wronged, you have the right to sue. It doesn't matter if it makes it to court, or if you win, or whatever. You have that right.


So who would you sue. You have repeated times and again that you still feel wronged, but by whom ? Who are the people responsible for what you feel ? Once you have identified them and hold proves against them, then you can sue them. However this mentality of suing anybody for anything is typically American (wahtever your roots :p ). I can't even imagine you trying to explain to a Japanese that you want to sue someone because of the way they make you feel. They wouldn't even sue someone who caused a traffic accident or broke a window from their house (I guess they would deal with it amiably, or just leave it if it wasn't done on purpose).


What is my country of origin?

Roots are not so important for Americans as everybody is mixed anyway. You were talking about your mixed African, European and Natiev American DNA. Many Americans are in the same case as you, if not for all 3 continents, then at least 2. I've read on this forum that quite a few "white" Americans had Native American blood as well. So they don't know in details about their roots. Countries are modern concepts. Even 400 years ago when the first English colonist settled the East coast of the US, they didn't feel "English" in the modern sense of citizenship or being part of a nation. "Nationalism" (in the sense of feeling part of a nation) only appeared in the late 18th century, and more substanstially in the late 19th century.


my RECENT history is unknown to me because of slavery. Who we are (black people) in America as a people is a direct result of slavery.

If you really want to know, you could do DNA test to see what ethinc group you descend from in each contient. In Africa, chances are that if your ancestors came as slaves, they were from the region between Guinea and Nigeria (the "slave coast"). This is actually more acurate (geographically) than for a "pure" Russian-American or Chinese-American to know their ancestors are from Russia or China. This region is smaller than resent-day Mexico. Both are made of lots of ethinc groups, but do Mexican-American even bother knowing whether their ancestors were Spanish, Aztecs, Zapotecs, Mayas or even Apaches ? It's often difficult to know for sure. Same for the early white American colonists. Many of these people don't know more about their origins than you. They might know vaguely which geographical region, but rarely more than that.

Recent immigrants in the US will know their "roots" if they were born abroad themselves or if their parents or grand-parents were, but nothing tells you that they know even about their great-grand-parents. You might actually know more about your genealogy than them just listenning to your grandma, because your family has been in the US all that time. Even for Europeans, few people know about their ancestors more than 150 or 200 years ago. Eventhough there are quite old records, lot's of documents were lost or destroyed with time. Some can go back 500 years or more, but that is exceptional (usually noble families, etc.)

Keeni84
31-03-04, 07:12
I wouldn't sue anyone.


You have repeated times and again that you still feel wronged, but by whom ?

I don't feel "wronged". I am saying that I am AFFECTED by slavery. Those two things are different.


Who are the people responsible for what you feel ?

Ultimately, I am the one responsible for what I feel. And that is the bottom line.


I can't even imagine you trying to explain to a Japanese that you want to sue someone because of the way they make you feel. They wouldn't even sue someone who caused a traffic accident or broke a window from their house (I guess they would deal with it amiably, or just leave it if it wasn't done on purpose).

Last winter, I was in a car accident. I was walking in the crosswalk with my two sisters. A man was talking on his cell phone and didn't see us in his path, and hit both my sister and I. He left the scene of the accident. I was summoned to court to testify about what happened, and he was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and assault with a vehicle. Under those circumstances my sister and I had the right to SUE him. Did I decide to sue him? No. I don't like to sue people. I've never done it and I probably never will.

I couldn't imagine explaining to a Japanese person how I personally would sue someone for the way I felt, however I can imagine explaining to a Japanese how someone else could sue someone for the way they felt.


Roots are not so important for Americans as everybody is mixed anyway

Oh really? I'm American, do I count?


You were talking about your mixed African, European and Natiev American DNA. Many Americans are in the same case as you, if not for all 3 continents, then at least 2. I've read on this forum that quite a few "white" Americans had Native American blood as well. So they don't know in details about their roots.

The fact of the matter is, America is about 70% white. A VAST majority of these people know their primary heritage. That is, if they identify as "white" they know where that heritage lies, whether it be in Ireland, England, Poland, Czech Republic, etc. etc. For most people, finding out about a Native American ancestor is a pasttime.


Countries are modern concepts. Even 400 years ago when the first English colonist settled the East coast of the US, they didn't feel "English" in the modern sense of citizenship or being part of a nation. "Nationalism" (in the sense of feeling part of a nation) only appeared in the late 18th century, and more substanstially in the late 19th century.

Yes, countries may be modern concepts. However, that still doesn't change the fact that most people TODAY can identify with a country of origin, and actually WANT to.


If you really want to know, you could do DNA test to see what ethinc group you descend from in each contient. In Africa, chances are that if your ancestors came as slaves, they were from the region between Guinea and Nigeria (the "slave coast"). This is actually more acurate (geographically) than for a "pure" Russian-American or Chinese-American to know their ancestors are from Russia or China. This region is smaller than resent-day Mexico. Both are made of lots of ethinc groups, but do Mexican-American even bother knowing whether their ancestors were Spanish, Aztecs, Zapotecs, Mayas or even Apaches ? It's often difficult to know for sure. Same for the early white American colonists. Many of these people don't know more about their origins than you. They might know vaguely which geographical region, but rarely more than that.

Yes, I could do that, but that's not the point. The question was, do I feel AFFECTED by slavery. My answer, YES. What happened after slavery up to this day will not CHANGE based on what I learn about my "supposed" ancestry in the future.


Recent immigrants in the US will know their "roots" if they were born abroad themselves or if their parents or grand-parents were, but nothing tells you that they know even about their great-grand-parents. You might actually know more about your genealogy than them just listenning to your grandma, because your family has been in the US all that time. Even for Europeans, few people know about their ancestors more than 150 or 200 years ago. Eventhough there are quite old records, lot's of documents were lost or destroyed with time. Some can go back 500 years or more, but that is exceptional (usually noble families, etc.)

The POINT is not about geneology. THE POINT is how I am affected by growing up not KNOWING this geneology. I'm not interested in AMERICAN history of blacks, either.

Keeni84
31-03-04, 07:21
I think you have a rather idyllic vision of the life of European immigrants to the US. Most of them alos have an adopted language, as only Brits, and I should actually the "English" (not all the Scottish, Welsh and Irish) had English has their first language. All other immigrant usually didn't speak a word of English when they arrived in America. The culture was completely different. As for the religion, you know that the history of the US was built on wars between catholics and protestant and even the 13 original colonies had an official religion. Maryland was one of the few Catholics (named after Queen Mary I of England, who was catholic), while most other New England colonies were dedicated to one form of protestantism (puritans in Massachussets, etc.). That was for the colinial history of North America. After the independance came more migrants from all kinds of countries, including non-Christians like the Jews, Asians, etc. The ironic thing is that English is now the official language of about half of black Africa (the other half being French) and most Africans are now more Christians than Europeans (though maybe not as much as the average white Americans). So the language and religion argument works even less for Africans than for, say Poles, Russians, Jews or Italians immigrants.

WHAT? What does this have to do with anything? Seriously Maciamo, I think you are more interested in teaching me a history lesson than actually reading what I say in my posts.



If you are complaining about that fact that this language and religion have been imposed on the black community

When did I even MENTION something like this? What is going on with you Maciamo? What is your problem? Why are you saying these things? I've never brought up religion AT ALL, and I NEVER said that these things were "IMPOSED" on the black community. Do NOT put words in my mouth, Maciamo. You seem to have a habit of doing that.


What about slavery and living far away from their homeland ? The same happened to the Irish, as I told you about Irish indentured workers. They worked alongside black slaves in sugar islands like Barbados, and even intermarried (exceptional at the time). That is were the "black Irish" come from. As for emmigration, millions of Irish people (may I remind you that were are talking about a small island smaller than Ghana or Guinea) were forced to migrate to the US due to repression (or famine) at home. There are now 4 times more Irish people abroad (mostly in the US), than in Ireland (pop.= 4,5 million, including Northern Ireland and mixing people of Irish, Scottish and English descent). But even for those who voluntarily moved to the US, life was far from paradisiacal. Many died during the trip (shipwreck, lack of food...) and they also faced discrimination from other Americans (have you seen the movie "Gangs of New York" ?). But they tried hard to adapt and their perseverance lead them to new glory, with several president with Irish origins (Kennedy, Reagan...), several Hollywood stars, etc. I admit that their being white surely has made it easier than for blacks in politics, but black people have also prospered at Hollywood (Morgan Freeman...), sports (basketball, golf...), and especially and disproportionally in music (jazz, blues, rap and many more all all "black music").

What does this have to do with me saying that I am affected by slavery? I don't understand where you are coming from, or where you are going. Really, Maciamo. I don't get it. Maybe, somewhere along the road, you read another post and thought it was by me, but this has nothing to do with anything that I've been talking about. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.


What I mean is that it isn't necessairly easier for whites than for blacks, and complaining about one's roots or opportunities in not the most judicial thing to do in the US.

What? Complaining about one's roots? I don't understand this comment at all. Please explain.

Personally, I don't think you really care about what I am saying in my posts. And that is truly said, because when I came here, I had such respect for the things that you said and wrote. They were very intelligent, well-thought out and interesting. But lately I've noticed that several of your posts never address the issues that I bring up, and you put words in my mouth or try to attach ideas to my argument that were never there in the first place.

I don't know if you have hit a rough patch, or if you just like teaching history, and the best way you can do that is just talk out of nothing, but I would really appreciate it more if you would read my post, and actually respond to the things that I ACTUALLY say, and not the things that you make up.

Peace and love. I hope you get out of this slump because I really like reading your posts.

Maciamo
31-03-04, 10:08
I don't know if you have hit a rough patch, or if you just like teaching history, and the best way you can do that is just talk out of nothing, but I would really appreciate it more if you would read my post, and actually respond to the things that I ACTUALLY say, and not the things that you make up.


I sincerely tried to reply to what you said, but apparently I can't get your point. It doesn't seem to be "about anything" - not about ancestors, nor slavery, nor your situation compared to others', nor even about the sentences I quote from you and to which I answer. Maybe it's just because it's a purely emotional matter that cannot be discussed with words, instead of a problem with a logic and a solution. Sounds like me arguing with my wife. :emblaugh:

Satori
31-03-04, 12:26
This is an interesting issue; however, I have to admit I'm a little behind the times, as I'm just now reading up on the subject. Slavery is a terrible part of American history, and one not many people want to look at, let alone take responsibility for.

In reviewing the BBC article above, as well as this one from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C1179732%2C00.html

the first question that comes to mind is, How in the world can they possibly hold corporations liable for actions once considered "legal"? I suppose, arguably, the same was true of Nazi Germany, and the issue had to do with "crimes against humanity." So in that respect, I suppose they could use that argument against these corporations. They failed in their attempts to sue the federal government, so now they are going after the corporations. I'm just not sure how successful they will be in their attempts, as these are very powerful corporations to go up against. Of course, the point of this whole issue is that they are only powerful today due to the crimes they committed in the past.

It's an interesting legal strategy, though. As this 2002 article suggests, suing these corporations can be a powerful "tool," and by making this a PR issue, they may be successful afterall in achieving their ends. According to attorney Owen Pell, "What proponents of reparations are really trying to do is use the lawsuits as a tool. It's a hammer against businesses to create a call for a federal government solution."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0221-02.htm

Keeni84
01-04-04, 00:04
I sincerely tried to reply to what you said, but apparently I can't get your point. It doesn't seem to be "about anything" - not about ancestors, nor slavery, nor your situation compared to others', nor even about the sentences I quote from you and to which I answer. Maybe it's just because it's a purely emotional matter that cannot be discussed with words, instead of a problem with a logic and a solution. Sounds like me arguing with my wife

I don't know, but it seems to me that a lot of the posts you made were based on things I never said, or things you made up, or thought I said. And it's not like I don't appreciate the history that you gave me--very much the opposite.

That's definitely not going to help the situation. I appreciate the fact that you were willing to engage with me in this convo.

bossel
01-04-04, 01:20
But that is part of the problem. What is US American? What is American culuture? It is hard to define that alone since the US is made up of so many different parts.[...]

Like with your saying that inventing (in the spirit of creating) a cultural identity is a bad idea, just saying that my acestors came from such-and-such a place without being sure is an equally revolting form of deception (if we put it in your terms).

Some are happy to say "I'm American" and leave it at that. Others want to trace their roots and be able to point with authority to this or that country and this or that individual. Many feel this adds to their definition of self.
I completely agree.
But your question about US American culture is valid for every culture, be it German, French or whatever. There is not one German culture, there are a lot of different cultures. The difference to the US is that these cultures are probably much closer related.

Regarding heritage you're quite right about my view, though I wouldn't call it revolting. To me it's simply ridiculous to put any importance on ancestry. It can be an interesting subject, fun to research. But important? Nope!
Everybody is the result of the reproductive success of thousands of ancestors, I can't see why a certain line of those should be more important than all the others. Most Europeans, hence also most US Americans (probably even more so), have a rather mixed ancestry.

All this heritage gibberish serves only to make some people feel as if they are more valuable than others. Tracing the roots may be a nice pastime, but not more. If people really want to find their roots, they only need to look to Africa, that's where mankind evolved some 200000 years ago.

For the definition of their self people should focus on themselves, not on others.

bossel
01-04-04, 01:21
Slavery is too far-fetched? I don't understand how you cannot understand that slavery still affects people. [...] I'm saying that I am affected by slavery because my history, my RECENT history is unknown to me because of slavery. Who we are (black people) in America as a people is a direct result of slavery.

[...] I don't know anything. I think that's what makes it unique. [...]

You really don't understand, do you? This isn't about TIME. The way black people are TODAY comes from slavery. Our existence came from slavery. How can one not be affected by that?

[...]Not whips and chains, and beatings, but just think of the psychological and emotional effects of slavery on a population.
Slavery is too far-fetched because you didn't experience it. Your feelings are 2nd- or 3rd-hand feelings. It is so far away in time that you need to abstract too much. Psychology is involved but not in some sort of collective memory, but by people telling you over & over again that you are a slave descendant, that slavery is your heritage or that you should always think of what somebody did to "your people".

You consider yourself "black". But why? You said yourself you had also "white" & Amerindian ancestors. Are those "blacks" so much more important?

You don't know anything? Sorry, I can't believe that. You most probably know a lot more about your ancestors than I do about mine, & probably more than most Europeans do. They talk a lot about culture & stuff like that. But when it comes to ancestry, knowledge usually stops at their grandparents, maybe, just maybe, at their great grandparents.
Cultural heritage is often also just a myth. Many traditions are not older than 100 or 200 years, there are also a lot of older traditions but you won't find many people who know about the origins. Most what people know are some stereotypes or hearsay.

Keeni, maybe the big problem in our mutual understanding is that you argue simply from an emotional point of view, while I try to show that there is no rational reason to be affected. You are not affected, but you feel that way (& by feeling like that, you of course are affected in a way).

Keeni84
01-04-04, 02:13
Slavery is too far-fetched because you didn't experience it. Your feelings are 2nd- or 3rd-hand feelings. It is so far away in time that you need to abstract too much. Psychology is involved but not in some sort of collective memory, but by people telling you over & over again that you are a slave descendant, that slavery is your heritage or that you should always think of what somebody did to "your people".

And what started this? Slavery. But I understand what you are saying. I suppose I should say that slavery didn't affect me, but the effects of slavery affected me. Maybe that would make more sense with what I am feeling.


You consider yourself "black". But why? You said yourself you had also "white" & Amerindian ancestors. Are those "blacks" so much more important?

They aren't. However, just because I love my white, Native and black heritage equally doesn't change anything.


You don't know anything? Sorry, I can't believe that. You most probably know a lot more about your ancestors than I do about mine, & probably more than most Europeans do. They talk a lot about culture & stuff like that. But when it comes to ancestry, knowledge usually stops at their grandparents, maybe, just maybe, at their great grandparents.

What do you mean? If I am missing something, please tell me, because it is evident from these posts that I really want to know! :) I can tell you the history of my great-grandparents in America, but that's about it. I am happy for that, really! I wouldn't want to have life any different, to tell you the truth. All I am trying to do is explain how I was affected by slavery.

But maybe the way I am saying it is wrong. I think maybe I am affected by the effects of slavery. Maybe that's it.


Keeni, maybe the big problem in our mutual understanding is that you argue simply from an emotional point of view, while I try to show that there is no rational reason to be affected. You are not affected, but you feel that way (& by feeling like that, you of course are affected in a way).

You and I both know that human beings are emotional and at many times, irrational. Should I not be affected because you want to "prove" that it is irrational to be affected? No.

Golgo_13
01-04-04, 07:29
KABC Los Angeles talk radio host Larry Elder has said that black Americans as a group make up the 16th or so largest economy in the world. That had there never been any slavery, most black Americans today would be living in poor countries of Western Africa. Thus, black Americans enjoy far more economic opportunity and higher standard of living than blacks in any other nation on earth today.

They have already been well-reparated, and some, according to Elder.

BTW, Larry Elder is a black man and the author of "10 Things You Can't Say in America."

Satori
01-04-04, 09:13
Race in America: Beyond Black and White

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2002/twotownsofjasper/special_raceinamerica01.html

budd
01-04-04, 19:06
"BTW, Larry Elder is a black man and the author of "10 Things You Can't Say in America."
what's that supposed to mean? slave traders used africans to capture other africans for enslavement.
does that make it right also?

Golgo_13
01-04-04, 21:51
"BTW, Larry Elder is a black man and the author of "10 Things You Can't Say in America."
what's that supposed to mean? slave traders used africans to capture other africans for enslavement.
does that make it right also?

Don't kill the messenger for the bad news.

All I did was relay what he has publicly stated. What facts can you give to refute his claims?

Elder has been called "Uncle Tom", "Sell Out", among other nice things, and has received death threats, but he will always stand for what's right instead of the victim mentality. Do you think he's the only black American who opposes reparations?

Besides, Larry Elder never captured other Africans and enslaved them, so what's your point?

Keeni84
01-04-04, 22:47
KABC Los Angeles talk radio host Larry Elder has said that black Americans as a group make up the 16th or so largest economy in the world. That had there never been any slavery, most black Americans today would be living in poor countries of Western Africa. Thus, black Americans enjoy far more economic opportunity and higher standard of living than blacks in any other nation on earth today.

Wait, wait, wait a minute. So are you saying that the state of Africa would be exactly the same even if slavery never happened? Or is this Larry Elder speaking? lol

More importanty, are you saying that Africans (specifically on the west coast) would not have emigrated from parts of Africa to the new world?

Of course.

I'm not complaining about my life, BTW. People seem to think that everytime a black person says they are affected by something (slavery, racism, etc.) they automatically want handouts or sympathy.

Golgo_13
01-04-04, 23:19
Or is this Larry Elder speaking? lol


Read his book "10 Things You Can't Say in America." It's in there. LOL

If you don't want to BUY his book, you can always go to any Barnes & Noble, grab a copy of the book and sit down and read for 45 minutes for free.

Satori
02-04-04, 00:01
Sorry, Golgo, but why in the world would I want to read anything this racist Larry Elder has to say about anything?! For example, here is his list you referred to:

The Ten Things You Can't Say In America:

Blacks are More Racist than Whites
White Condescension is as Real as Black Racism
The Media Bias: It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructive
The Glass Ceiling: Full of Holes
America's Greatest Problem: Illegitimacy
The Big Lie: Our Health Care Crisis
The Welfare State: Helping Us to Death
Republican v. Democrat: Maybe a Dime's worth of Difference, One's for Big Government, One's for Bigger
Vietnam II: The War on Drugs, and We're Losing that One Too
Gun Control Advocates: Good Guys with Blood on Their Hands

bossel
02-04-04, 01:15
What do you mean? If I am missing something, please tell me, because it is evident from these posts that I really want to know!
What I mean is that having no knowledge of one's heritage is not exceptional, it's the rule.
Maybe you are more aware of the missing links/branches/roots than most other people in the world. But that's it. There are a lot of people in the world who talk about their great heritage, be it cultural or familial, but what they know are either legends or just a tiny fraction of the whole picture.
Awareness is the only real difference.




You and I both know that human beings are emotional and at many times, irrational. Should I not be affected because you want to "prove" that it is irrational to be affected? No.
I think, you should not be affected because there is no rational reason to be. Well, look who's talking: being an emotional low-burner. :banghead:
I can't really understand how anybody could have such feelings about history.
When my grandma tells me stories about the bomb nights in WW II, I'm interested & feel a certain pity for her. I don't feel personally affected in any way, though.

You have your feelings & I have to accept that. I don't have these feelings & can't really understand your reasons, though.
Maybe if you come to Germany once, I can invite you to a cup of coffee & you may be able to hammer your reasons into my head. :box:




That had there never been any slavery, most black Americans today would be living in poor countries of Western Africa. Thus, black Americans enjoy far more economic opportunity and higher standard of living than blacks in any other nation on earth today.
That is true to a point. The question is, where would these West African nations be today if colonialism wouldn't have existed? (Well, in the first place most of them probably wouldn't exist at all.) Nobody knows & nobody will know, therefore this comparison is not really valid.




Sorry, Golgo, but why in the world would I want to read anything this racist Larry Elder has to say about anything?!
Because only when you read what he says you can judge if he is racist or not! Here is a speech he held about the "10 things":
http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/000913et2.pdf
This way you don't have to read the whole book.

BTW, what's so racist about the "10 things"? Except for the 1st one you couldn't really call anything racist. Even the 1st one is not necessarily racist if supported by valid statistics.

Golgo_13
02-04-04, 01:46
Sorry, Golgo, but why in the world would I want to read anything this racist Larry Elder has to say about anything?! For example, here is his list you referred to:

The Ten Things You Can't Say In America:

Blacks are More Racist than Whites
White Condescension is as Real as Black Racism
The Media Bias: It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructive
The Glass Ceiling: Full of Holes
America's Greatest Problem: Illegitimacy
The Big Lie: Our Health Care Crisis
The Welfare State: Helping Us to Death
Republican v. Democrat: Maybe a Dime's worth of Difference, One's for Big Government, One's for Bigger
Vietnam II: The War on Drugs, and We're Losing that One Too
Gun Control Advocates: Good Guys with Blood on Their Hands

Thanks. I'll forward your message to him.

Maciamo
02-04-04, 03:18
So are you saying that the state of Africa would be exactly the same even if slavery never happened ?

It probably wouldn't have changed much on the overall situation in Africa, mainly because slaves came almost exclusively for the same coast of Western Africa (as I said above), which represent less than a tenth of the size of Africa. Wouldn't have affected countries like Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zambia, South-Africa, or most other big African countries.

Satori
02-04-04, 03:31
Because only when you read what he says you can judge if he is racist or not! Here is a speech he held about the "10 things":
http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/000913et2.pdf
This way you don't have to read the whole book.

Boy, are they both full of it (and I won't say what in polite company!)!!!
:D They sound like Ann Coulter types. Yikes!!

Golgo_13
02-04-04, 05:04
Because only when you read what he says you can judge if he is racist or not! Here is a speech he held about the "10 things":
http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/000913et2.pdf
This way you don't have to read the whole book.

BTW, what's so racist about the "10 things"? Except for the 1st one you couldn't really call anything racist. Even the 1st one is not necessarily racist if supported by valid statistics.

Danke schon fur posting that mein freund.

Winter
02-04-04, 05:24
You know what is peculiar about the entire topic of slavery for me? My family on my mothers side not only owned slaves, but were slaves.

*shakes head* So strange.

Satori
02-04-04, 05:43
You know what is peculiar about the entire topic of slavery for me? My family on my mothers side not only owned slaves, but were slaves.

*shakes head* So strange.

What did they have to say about owning slaves? I'm sure I can guess what they had to say about being slaves, but I'm just curious what they had to say about owning other people after they went through the same thing. Did they ever comment on it?

Winter
02-04-04, 05:50
My family comment? Even if they did, it wouldnt matter.

The slaveowners are long dead, and slaves are too.

My mom thinks it was a strange paradox, but other than that, there isnt much talk about it in my family. Thats the great thing about mi familia; we like to keep things bottled up inside, and stick to ourselves.

Golgo_13
02-04-04, 07:02
Boy, are they both full of it (and I won't say what in polite company!)!!!
:D They sound like Ann Coulter types. Yikes!!

I must say, I do NOT like Ann Coulter.

Keeni84
02-04-04, 07:02
It probably wouldn't have changed much on the overall situation in Africa, mainly because slaves came almost exclusively for the same coast of Western Africa (as I said above), which represent less than a tenth of the size of Africa. Wouldn't have affected countries like Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zambia, South-Africa, or most other big African countries.

Yes, but didn't England once rule the world? A tiny country, ruling over millions and millions of people from all over the world. Who's to say WHAT would have happened?

I don't know...I just feel affected. lol A little redundant.

Satori
02-04-04, 07:14
I must say, I do NOT like Ann Coulter.

Me either!!! That is one hateful woman!

budd
02-04-04, 19:44
"...but he will always stand for what's right instead of the victim mentality."
what's right or what a poster WANTS to think is RIGHT because of his own interests?
victim mentality? so the glass ceiling is a sham, is that it? despite countless papers on the subject? not to mention the "old money" factor in favor of the slave owners' descendants...

"Do you think he's the only black American who opposes reparations?"
i don't care if two-million african-americans oppose it.
but they wouldn't, because they know their experiences better than anyone else could ever pretend to.

"Besides, Larry Elder never captured other Africans and enslaved them, so what's your point?"
what good would explaining the comment do, when (depressingly obvious) the comment itself wasn't understood? still the same person writing it...

"The slaveowners are long dead, and slaves are too."
but the long-held discrimination/bigotry/insensitivity that made it all possible is still here, alive and unwell... especially exemplified from looking at the responses within this thread :(

Winter
02-04-04, 20:28
"The slaveowners are long dead, and slaves are too."
but the long-held discrimination/bigotry/insensitivity that made it all possible is still here, alive and unwell... especially exemplified from looking at the responses within this thread :(

I hope you understand I was referring to my ancestry; not slaveowners and slaves in general.

Golgo_13
02-04-04, 21:36
is still here[/b], alive and unwell... especially exemplified from looking at the responses within this thread :(

Then tell us, how much money should each black American be paid to make up for it? By whom?

You should read the link posted by Bossel to understand what Elder is saying:

Originally Posted by bossel
Because only when you read what he says you can judge if he is racist or not! Here is a speech he held about the "10 things":
http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/000913et2.pdf
This way you don't have to read the whole book.

Satori
02-04-04, 23:22
Then tell us, how much money should each black American be paid to make up for it? By whom?

I think they already know by whom, as they have all been named as defendants--those who profited from slavery.

Satori
02-04-04, 23:23
"...but he will always stand for what's right instead of the victim mentality."
what's right or what a poster WANTS to think is RIGHT because of his own interests?
victim mentality? so the glass ceiling is a sham, is that it? despite countless papers on the subject? not to mention the "old money" factor in favor of the slave owners' descendants...

"Do you think he's the only black American who opposes reparations?"
i don't care if two-million african-americans oppose it.
but they wouldn't, because they know their experiences better than anyone else could ever pretend to.

"Besides, Larry Elder never captured other Africans and enslaved them, so what's your point?"
what good would explaining the comment do, when (depressingly obvious) the comment itself wasn't understood? still the same person writing it...

"The slaveowners are long dead, and slaves are too."
but the long-held discrimination/bigotry/insensitivity that made it all possible is still here, alive and unwell... especially exemplified from looking at the responses within this thread :(


That is so true! Prejudice in any form is just wrong! And you don't even have to be African-American to be affected by the effects of slavery in this country. It has affected all of us, but none more than the descendants of slaves. I really didn't get a clear picture of the situation from the first article--the BBC article (and I love the BBC!). It wasn't until I read the Guardian and Common Dreams articles that I understood where these plaintiffs are coming from. My family is able to trace our roots all the way back to Germany and even our family crest, and we're also able to trace the English and Irish parts of our roots, and even the little bit of American Indian in us (I know, I know, I'm a real mixture!!); but nowhere in our lineage was anyone ever listed as "cargo!!" Therefore, that's something I can't personally relate to, since my family can trace our roots, but it is something that I can empathize with and appreciate where these plaintiffs are coming from. I agree that the American government should have done more in this situation over the years, and in that respect, I hope they are able to use these lawsuits as a tool in achieving those ends. Otherwise, this situation is difficult to appreciate since it's been so many years. But in terms of legal strategy, it's very creative.

Satori
05-04-04, 04:33
This was posted at another forum, but since we're discussing the issue of slavery, I thought I'd include it here because this person's post offers some very interesting links:


slavery is by no means a thing of the past - it has changed its form (debt bondage for example) but it's still a huge problem. Estimates talk about 27 million people worldwide living in slavery.

http://www.antislavery.org/
http://www.freetheslaves.net/
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/03...ature1/map.html

As a historian I'm always doubtful of any claims that a certain age is 'better' than recent periods. Each era has its successes and its sufferings.

Maciamo
07-04-04, 06:27
Here is a little demonstration of the power of rhetoric, and how a good lawyer could overturn the case against the plaintiffs.


Source : BBC Slave owner insurance - 200 years on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3581815.stm)

Insurance could be such a difficult issue for the owners of slave ships.

Take the case of the Zong, a British vessel out of Liverpool that transported a human cargo from Africa in 1781.

Food and water were running low; some of the slaves were dying.

So, what to do? Under the terms of the insurance, a death by natural causes would not receive payment, but a death by drowning would.

The answer was clear to Captain Luke Collingwood: throw more than 130 slaves overboard to claim the insurance.

In the event, the matter was contested when it came to court.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Mansfield, was clearly uneasy even as he understood the dilemma: "The case of the slaves was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard.''

In the end, there was no payment and some good came of the atrocity. Publicity from the case *****ed consciences and helped spur the abolition of the trade.

We can thus conclude that the involment of Lloyd's in the slave trade was a good thing, as the case brought to court about the insurance payment for drowned slaves, not only failed but helped awaken public consience, which eventually led to the abolition of slave trading.

In other words, Lloyd's is to the Blacks what Schindler was to the Jews, to an ever greater extend (i.e. complete abolition of the slave trade in the UK, then, by repercussion, worldwide). Slave descendant should therefore be grateful to Lloyd's as they owe them their own freedom.

More than that, as has been said before, present-day slave descendants should be grateful to have been born in the US rather than West Africa, and that couldn't have happened without the slave trade. It's a bit like saying that, historically, Europeans developped higher technology (than Africans) because of the cold climate. Suffering from cold has, with time, led future generations to enjoy a greater comfort (heating, air conditioning, stone/brick houses with insulation, warm clothes, gas and electric cookers, etc.). Slaves have suffered deportation from their homeland, but their descendant enjoy a better life as a consequence.

In economic terms, if all humans were to be assessed for their material possesions and profitability for the society, we could say that the share price of a black slave was low, but their descendant are now worth much more, while those who stayed in Africa haven't changed much. This is called "added-value".

Therefore, as lawyer of Lloyd's of London, I ask for appropriate compensation that have never been paid for serviced rendered to the black slaves and their descendant; for their freedom and increased wealth, and for good management and investmemt of human capital.

Paying for their deceased ancestors as well as themselves, we, Lloyd's of London, ask in the name of exticnt slave traders corporations for 50.000US$ to each slave descendant living today on US soil.


N.B. : this does not reflect my personal opinion or feelings, but is just a demonstration of how a case could be brought against the plaintiffs with a good argumentation.

Keeni84
12-04-04, 20:48
More than that, as has been said before, present-day slave descendants should be grateful to have been born in the US rather than West Africa, and that couldn't have happened without the slave trade. It's a bit like saying that, historically, Europeans developped higher technology (than Africans) because of the cold climate. Suffering from cold has, with time, led future generations to enjoy a greater comfort (heating, air conditioning, stone/brick houses with insulation, warm clothes, gas and electric cookers, etc.). Slaves have suffered deportation from their homeland, but their descendant enjoy a better life as a consequence.

This arguement is INVALID. God, people like this make me sick. So this person automatically ASSUMES that without the slave trade, black people (who have been travelling around Africa, into Europe and India for centuries) would all of a sudden not emigrate from their respective homelands to different places?

What a bunch of BS, really. And to just ASSUME that Africa would be the SAME PLACE without slavery is just silly. People need to look at history and EVALUATE EVERYTHING not what suits their purpose.



We can thus conclude that the involment of Lloyd's in the slave trade was a good thing, as the case brought to court about the insurance payment for drowned slaves, not only failed but helped awaken public consience, which eventually led to the abolition of slave trading.

So in these terms, America should be greatful to the Japanese for dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor and killing 3,000 people, because then, America entered the war and the war eventually ended after America entered. Or, better yet, America should be greatful that September 11 happened, because it eventually lead to the Iraq War and the end of Sadaam Hussein.

I would like to speak to this person IN person, because although I don't agree with this person, I believe that what they posted was really interesting.

Frank D. White
12-04-04, 21:01
I was afraid you got too upset about this thread & wouldn't come back. Keep expressing your feeling and explaining your points, that's how dummies like me learn things!!

Frank

:blush:

Keeni84
13-04-04, 01:51
Oh, no!

I just needed to calm a little bit, and research more and talk with other people about this issue.

I post a lot at blacktokyo and I just needed a little more insight as to what other black people thought about the issue of reparations.

Thank you anyway, Frank! I really appreciate it! :)

Maciamo
13-04-04, 03:51
So in these terms, America should be greatful to the Japanese for dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor and killing 3,000 people, because then, America entered the war and the war eventually ended after America entered. Or, better yet, America should be greatful that September 11 happened, because it eventually lead to the Iraq War and the end of Sadaam Hussein.

I am sure some people see it like that...

bossel
13-04-04, 03:52
BTW, Keeni, to emphasize you can use [] with b in-between to start & /b in-between to stop writing bold characters, should be written like (b)bold(/b) only with square brackets. Another way to emphasize is using _underlines_.
Not important, but writing in caps could be considered shouting.

bossel
13-04-04, 03:56
I am sure some people see it like that...
It surely seems as if Bush was all too happy to have 9/11 as a reason to start his war on terror with the side effect of invading Iraq.

Ulubatli
13-04-04, 07:46
9/11 was a good reason for Bush, it made him happier i think...

http://mcd59.euskalcom.net/MCD/html/albums/albun16/Iraq_Invasion_Check_List.sized.jpg

mad pierrot
13-04-04, 08:45
Well, past injustices suck. My heritage is a mix of Polish, Austrian, Slovack, Russian, and some other East European Nations. Originally my great grandparents came to America to escape poverty, and in some cases persecution, from Europe. Although we have a fairly clear family history in the U.S. we have no idea of our past in Europe since WWII. Yep, Germans probably on my mother's side invaded and messed up Poland and the like. Good bye, family history. It dissappeared in war. Who should I be mad at? Germans? Russians who came afterward? Or better yet, should I be angry at the conditions that drove my family to immigrate? Do I get an apology from Otto Von Bismark? Yes, it affected me and the current shape of the world. But, that's then and this is now. It's my job to now to promote international and multi-cultural understanding.

Before we all go nuts trying to guess what might have been had it not been for slavery, etc, remember it's academic. It's all hypothetical. For example, I have just as much of a right to claim that Superman would've been born in Poland if not for the Nazi invasion, as anyone else does about "possiblities".

Keeni84
13-04-04, 17:03
Hhahaha, Pierrot!

Thanks Bossel---I don't want to be seen as shouting, so I'll use the bold thing that you talked about!

Everyone, thanks for contributing. I suppose I've said all that I can say on this issue, and I really appreciate you all giving me a different perspective on the matter.

Peace and blessings

:) :) :)

ashuri2
21-04-04, 05:14
sorry to break up the peace here, but i have a serious question and i want to know what everyone else thinks about it. what about the state of 3rd world countries today? from what i've learned from histories, much of the problems today's thrild world countirs face seemed to have evolved directly or indirectly form colonization and imperialism, and today's strongest countries have, coincidentally, never been colonized (in the since of the native race being subjagated to another culture- the u.s. was a colony but most of the native americans were driven/stamped out so it was primarily the same culture). but then again, it could be argued that some of the countries were already having issues. i know this seems non sequitor but it seemed to be somewhere along the same idea of affecting the present...

DaMo
21-04-04, 06:16
sorry to break up the peace here, but i have a serious question and i want to know what everyone else thinks about it. what about the state of 3rd world countries today? from what i've learned from histories, much of the problems today's thrild world countirs face seemed to have evolved directly or indirectly form colonization and imperialism, and today's strongest countries have, coincidentally, never been colonized (in the since of the native race being subjagated to another culture- the u.s. was a colony but most of the native americans were driven/stamped out so it was primarily the same culture). but then again, it could be argued that some of the countries were already having issues. i know this seems non sequitor but it seemed to be somewhere along the same idea of affecting the present...
I don't think all the problems of all formerly-colonized countries are due to colonialism. Colonialism had its benefits and disadvantages for the colonized. However, I don't believe that matters in the long run, because I believe that a people have the right to choose their own destiny. Colonialism is inherently a one-way deal. The colonized are never given the same status as the colonizers. They interests are viewed as secondary. In economic terms, they are a resource for the colonizer, not a partner; some place to get cheap raw materials and labor, and an unwilling market to monopolize trade and dump inventory. Still, that is in the past, and colonized countries need to move forward and work towards a future that they can finally control. We need to show what we can do, now that we are free to do it.

Maciamo
21-04-04, 07:54
from what i've learned from histories, much of the problems today's thrild world countirs face seemed to have evolved directly or indirectly form colonization and imperialism, and today's strongest countries have, coincidentally, never been colonized (in the since of the native race being subjagated to another culture- the u.s. was a colony but most of the native americans were driven/stamped out so it was primarily the same culture).

I don't think that colonization is a major factor in the situation of developping countries today. In Africa, Ethiopia has never been colonised, and in Asia, Thailand and (North & South) Korea haven't either (China, not much). Do these countries fare better nowadays than their neighbours ? No. Ethiopia is one of the poorest in Africa. Thailand lags behind Malaysia and Singapore, but does better than Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. Why ? There is no wonder. It's mainly a matter of resources and system. Korea is the best example. Historically exactly the same country, it was split after WWII and in just a few decades, different systems have created utterly different countries and wealth levels.

Look at the Americas. Why are the US, Canada, Chile and Argentina richer than say Haiti, Bolivia or Nicaragua ? All were colonised countries. Ethnic composition is the main difference, with a majority of Caucasians only in the first group (but again not proportional to economic success as the US have only about 71% of Caucasians, while poorer Chile has over 95%).

ashuri2
22-04-04, 04:35
maciamo, you're right about most of the countris you listed as a counterexample, but you forgot to mention how ethiopia was practically razed (i exaggerate a bit) by italy at the beginning of WWII by mussolini, who found the 19th century defeat of the colonizing italians by the ethopians historically embarssaing. before that, ethiopia had been one of the most prosperous countires in afrcia. true, many countires have been able to recover form colonization, but not all seem to be able to bounce back from such forced dependence so easily, or with a economy/government that is viable...i see now that while colonization doesn't necesariliy mean that the country is still suffering today, i think that some problems are indirect results of the use of one country for the benefit of another and the subjugation of the people's governing skills to other interests...

Maciamo
22-04-04, 05:28
i see now that while colonization doesn't necesariliy mean that the country is still suffering today, i think that some problems are indirect results of the use of one country for the benefit of another and the subjugation of the people's governing skills to other interests...

I understand your point. I also think that there were very different types of colonisation. Just take Australia, Peru, Kenya, India and Singapore.
Australia (like Canada, the US...) was mainly a settlement colony (which means Europeans left Europe for good and made a new life there), which they amde as profitable as they could because it became their home.

Peru is a fusion of Spanish and Quechua cultures and ethnies and was first plundered, then it became an indepedant nation about 200 years ago (just 3 decades after Australia was settled by the Brits). So it had all the time and opportunity to prosper but didn't really. Same for many South American countries, regardless of their ethinc composition.

Kenya, like most African countries, was colonised quite late (mostly 19th and 20th centuries), well after all Latin America had achieved its independence. Europeans brought modern technology, founded schools, converted Africans to Christianity (I am not saying this is a good thing, as I am not Christian), structured the country into a modern administration (at the time), but also exploited natural resources. All in all, we could say that the colonisation of Africa was much more peaceful and civilised than that of the American continent a few centuries earlier. Sorry to say that, but Africans nations were nowhere near other continent in terms of developent when they were colonised, and there would probably be no modern state (if you can call what exist "modern"), democracy (ditto) or public education in Africa nowadays without colinisation. It is a consterning fact that lots of African economies plummeted after the decolonisation. Civil wars broke out and the worst is probably still to come.

India, which was colonised during the same period as Africa, and by the same countries (mainly Britain, but also France and Portugal) is actually faring much better now. The colonial system was similar to that of Africa, except that there were already established states, educational systems, writing, philosophy, strong religions (including Christianity), etc. India became independnat from Britain in 1947. It still had starvation problem among its poor due to overpopulation until the 1960's or 70's, but it has been able to cope with it, improving its agriculture and technology. All Indian cars or trains are made in India. It has its own nuclear and space programs, its own "silicon valley" (in Bangalore) and its the largest cinema industry in the world (Bollywood and others). It has spawned several nobel prices and has succeeded maintaining peace and order among its billion inhabitants (mind you, that is more than the American and African continent combined !). In comparison, African countries have achieved nothing and acquired more from colonisation than India. Maybe is it justy because India was already ways more advanced than anywhere in Africa before colonisation.

Now let's look at Singapore. Also a late British colony. Singapore was nothing more than sparsely populated island before the city was founded by the Brits about 200 years ago. The comparison with Zanzibar in Tanzania in tempting. Both are small and proseprous island. But whereas Zanzibar has been rich and famous for many centuries, its has never achieved a fraction of the wealth that Singapore reached in the 20th centuy. And Singapore is 82% Chinese, 11% Malay and 7% Indian, not even slightly Western. How comes that with the same colonial system during the same period, Singapore (or Malaysia for that matter) managed to become of the the richest nation on earth (in GDP/capita), beating even the professor (the UK) ? They visibly learnt a lot from the colonial rule and modernised perfectly their country based on the British system. So why can't African nations just do the same ? Their history of colonisation is not so different.

ashuri2
23-04-04, 05:31
that's interesting to note and i thnk i want to look into that- i seriously wonder why africa is having a herder time than most in developing like the examples you gave...thanks, you enlightened me a bit. :)

mad pierrot
23-04-04, 10:11
This whole thread smacks of a very important book,

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Any historian worth their salt should read it.

Maciamo
23-04-04, 10:47
This whole thread smacks of a very important book,

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Any historian worth their salt should read it.

Yes, I read it 2 years ago, Great book ! :cool:

mad pierrot
23-04-04, 12:09
For that matter, any recommendations?

ashuri2
25-04-04, 03:20
"The Sacred Willow" by Duong Mai Elliot is a good book about the effect imperialism had on vietnam, but its also a good read on how the vietnamese viwed the vietnam war and other historical events- a good read in general

Keeni84
26-04-04, 01:45
Would the wealth of Singapore have anything to do with tourism? Just a question...

Maciamo
26-04-04, 02:00
Would the wealth of Singapore have anything to do with tourism? Just a question...

Tourism is very recent and not so developed compared to neighouring countries, especially Thailand and Indonesia (Bali...), which are much poorer (and therefore cheaper). Actually, tourism is much more important for the economy of some African countries like Kenya, Tanzania or Senegal...

ashuri2
26-04-04, 22:29
i have to do this statistical research paper, and i've decide to do it on that topic- studying what factors might have led afrcia to be in the state it is today while so many other countries have managed to recover evither partially completely. i'm looking into factors such as the advancement of the pre-existing civilisation, lenght of colonization...and suggestions for other factors i can look at?

Frank D. White
26-04-04, 23:12
Having spent a long time listening to rich, white business owners; their opinion of doing business with
black African businesses was total fear. They felt it would be total stupidity to invest in an area so out of control.
They also felt, other then cheap labor, Africa had nothing to offer for safe natural resourses such as oil. Gold and diamonds seem to be just in certain areas already controled. Without money & people willing to help the Africans they seem to be stuck in their delema. I'm no expert at all in this area, I'm just repeating things I overheard.


Frank

:?

bossel
27-04-04, 01:13
i have to do this statistical research paper, and i've decide to do it on that topic- studying what factors might have led afrcia to be in the state it is today while so many other countries have managed to recover evither partially completely. i'm looking into factors such as the advancement of the pre-existing civilisation, lenght of colonization...and suggestions for other factors i can look at?


ethnic composition
national/tribal/? identity
natural resources
foreign relations (esp. to neighbouring countries)
political system
traditions (social, martial, economical etc.)
colonial investment/development
colonial exploitation of resources
colonial influence on society

Just what came to mind in 5 minutes. There are many more factors, I suppose. Not an easy topic you chose.

ashuri2
27-04-04, 21:13
:wave: thanks! those'll help a lot, as i pretty much didn't know where to start.

Golgo_13
27-04-04, 22:25
Let all whites go back to Europe, all blacks to Africa, and all Orientals to Asia, and give this country back to the American Indians because they're the ones who've been wronged the most.

Frank D. White
27-04-04, 22:38
Let all whites go back to Europe, all blacks to Africa, and all Orientals to Asia, and give this country back to the American Indians because they're the ones who've been wronged the most.

They're running the gambling casinos and taking all our money!!

Frank

:blush: :D :p :bravo:

Golgo_13
27-04-04, 22:43
They're running the gambling casinos and taking all our money!!

Frank

:blush: :D :p :bravo:


Wait til they get Pachinko in them Casinos and white and Oriental Americans get addicted to them like they are in Japan. :D

Frank D. White
27-04-04, 22:46
Wait til they get Pachinko in them Casinos and white and Oriental Americans get addicted to them like they are in Japan. :D

I was at the blackjack table learning how to play betting a dollar a hand; a young Chinese guy sets next to me and bets with $500 chips! I was so embarassed I left.
A table manager says they all like to gamble big money.

Frank

Golgo_13
27-04-04, 22:55
I was at the blackjack table learning how to play betting a dollar a hand; a young Chinese guy sets next to me and bets with $500 chips! I was so embarassed I left.
A table manager says they all like to gamble big money.

Frank


No kidding! You ought to go look at Atlantic City.

ashuri2
28-04-04, 22:48
Kenya, like most African countries, was colonised quite late (mostly 19th and 20th centuries), well after all Latin America had achieved its independence. Europeans brought modern technology, founded schools, converted Africans to Christianity (I am not saying this is a good thing, as I am not Christian), structured the country into a modern administration (at the time), but also exploited natural resources. All in all, we could say that the colonisation of Africa was much more peaceful and civilised than that of the American continent a few centuries earlier. Sorry to say that, but Africans nations were nowhere near other continent in terms of developent when they were colonised, and there would probably be no modern state (if you can call what exist "modern"), democracy (ditto) or public education in Africa nowadays without colinisation. It is a consterning fact that lots of African economies plummeted after the decolonisation. Civil wars broke out and the worst is probably still to come.



where africans starving and suffering from civil wars beofre colonization? true, colonization helped to make them more 'developed' than before, but if the development led to the chaos today then...true, the civilazation may not have been as advanced in africa, but they might have worked their own way there, just at a slower pace. also, many of the civil wars seemed to be a direct result of colonization, as in the algeria-french conflict after wwii; places like south africa had the aprtheid problem because of colonization-as well as the boer war and what rhodes did to the natives, and the many countires in africa were indeed colonized in the 1800s in the same brutal way as south america- the belgian congo is an infamous example. i guess my question is with the way you made it sound as if colonization was a good thing for africa...true, it might not be developed at all today, but then again, the overall level of civil war, suffering and starvation (the previously prosperous civilzation of ethopia's being crushed by italy and now destitute) might be lower, and the development can hardly compensate... :o