Slave descendants to sue Lloyds

[Golgo_13]

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]

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]

"...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]

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]

How slave descendant plaintiffs could end up owing Lloyd's

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

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 pricked 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]

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]

Hi Keeni, Glad You're Back !!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

9/11 was a good reason for Bush, it made him happier i think...

 

[mad pierrot]

Ok, time for me to wade in.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.