Slave descendants to sue Lloyds

Keeni84 said:
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.
 
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?
 
I can understand your frustration Keeni84, if I may presume to say so. You have had a unique experience and I don?t 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 child?s 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 doesn?t mean we should begrudge someone else?s search for their own.

However, I do not agree with the Lloyds case. But perhaps for different reasons than some here. I don?t 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 don?t 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 (I?m speaking generally here ? I know Keeni84 and many others are not out for monetary gain).

While I don?t 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 doesn?t 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 ? in this case suing Lloyds ? 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.
 
Keeni84 said:
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.
 
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.
 
Mandylion said:
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.
 
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.
 
bossel said:
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.
 
Keeni84 said:
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".
 
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!
 
Keeni84 said:
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.
 
Keeni84 said:
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.)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Keeni84 said:
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:
 
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/0,12271,1179732,00.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
 
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.
 
Mandylion said:
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.
 
Keeni84 said:
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).
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 43412 times.

Back
Top