posted
Well, we had to wait until after the Asians, Native Americans, women communists, vegetarians, and non-committed sanitation workers got their aplogies, but we got one now.
Let's chronicle how the whites howl over this one. Hey, they even took Nelson Mandela off the terrorist list.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad they can't make the president stand in front of national news cameras and tell the entire country. That's what I want to see. Both democrat and republican presidents have the same disease that prevents them from opening their mouths and making a simple yet profound statement, even if they don't believe it anyway.
And don't look to Obama (at some point under potential political pressure as president) to say it either on behalf of the country. It won't have the same meaning. (This last paragraph is meaningless but had to be said.)
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
''I think apologizing for slavery is ridiculous.''
Then by not apologizing for past errors you think nothing was wrong to begin with?
''A different time, a different people.''
Ancestry says they aren't different. The link is still there.
''What is it supposed to accomplish exactly?''
An apology from the president.
''How can today's white Americans apologize for something their ancestors did hundreds of years ago?''
White Americans don't need to apologize for anything, just the president; that will take care of you too whether you know it or not.
''Also, slavery wasn't solely the "white man's" invention.''
So the Africans built and sold the ships to the white guys?
''15 million Africans imported to the New World over a span of four centuries or so.
''Do you think Europeans could have managed such an operation without help from Native Africans?''
If the Europeans weren't involved in this endeavor to begin with how do you suppose the Africans could have exported slaves? Africans helping in the slave trade shifts the burden where? It's okay for the white guys to do it since a lot of Africans helped?
''Most slaves were bought or traded for, and not stolen....a crucial fact that often seems to be neglected whenever talk of slavery crops up.''
Maybe a ''fact'' but you won't know that because you haven't posted sources that attest to this fact. And how much is ''most''? Is it %51 percent; how about %99? Somewhere in between?
''Slavery is something that is best remembered, but not dwelt upon I think.''
How is it best remembered without guilt attached to it?
Are you concerned an apology will wake Jefferson Davis from the dead... to rebutt the apology?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, an apology in itself won't abate socio-economic disparities between "Blacks" and "Whites" from the Slave era downwards, with larger segments of the latter being more advantaged. An apology must *be backed* by action. Without the bridging of this social divide within even greater socio-economic class divides in the country, slavery cannot best be remembered and not be dwelt upon at the same time. Yes, descendants of slave-owners are not guilty of their forefathers' and foremothers' sins per se, but they still benefit from it's socio-economic input to this day in the now 'unified states' of a former colony.
And oh, good questions from Grumman.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Then by not apologizing for past errors you think nothing was wrong to begin with?
Grumman, lets get real. You'd be hard pressed to find someone these days that thinks there was nothing wrong with slavery..
quote:Ancestry says they aren't different. The link is still there.
Every man and woman is responsible for their actions, and their actions alone. How can you hold the ancestors of the people responsible for the slave trade, especially after hundreds of years?
It's ridiculous.. Are you one of those people that believe sin is passed down through generations?
quote:An apology from the president.
OK, say the President does apologize.. What good will this do?
Nothing will change, because the past cannot be re-written.
An apology amounts to nothing more than a balm for the bruised egos of the ancestors of the slaves themselves.
quote:White Americans don't need to apologize for anything, just the president; that will take care of you too whether you know it or not.
I don't see a reason or need for this, because the U.S has already changed it's policies regarding slavery and segregation..
An apology at this stage, is absurd and centuries too late.
quote:So the Africans built and sold the ships to the white guys?
Most Societies have engaged in slavery at some point in time.. Thats the point I was trying to make.
Slavery existed in Africa long before Europeans arrived, and it still exists.
To this very day, Africans are enslaving each other, whilst European nations were amongst the first in human history to outlaw the act of Slavery.
You cannot understand the issue of Slavery unless you have a more circumspect and balanced view point.
quote:If the Europeans weren't involved in this endeavor to begin with how do you suppose the Africans could have exported slaves? It's okay for the white guys to do it since a lot of Africans helped?
You don't understand my rationale. My point is, that the slave trade would not have been possible without the compliance of the Native Africans..
Therefore, the blame lies with them as well as with the Europeans.
quote:Africans helping in the slave trade shifts the burden where?
The burden isn't shifted anywhere. It's merely equally distributed..
Unless you want to hold Europeans to a higher moral standard than Africans.
quote:Maybe a ''fact'' but you won't know that because you haven't posted sources that attest to this fact. And how much is ''most''? Is it %51 percent; how about %99? Somewhere in between?
Come on now.. They don't call it the Slave Trade for nothing:
quote:From the 15th to the 19th century, Europeans bought millions of slaves in West, Central, and East Africa and sent them to Europe; the Caribbean; and North, Central, and South America.
Grumman, this is the only logical explanation for why Europeans were able to export millions of Africans from Africa to Europe and the New World.
They were BOUGHT or TRADED for.
The Europeans exploited the tribal infrastructure of the Africans, which held no solidarity or unity amongst blacks; even when measured against the incursion of white skinned foreigners..
This was the biggest reason why the SLAVE TRADE was so successful, and lasted so long.
If there had been greater solidarity or unity amongst black Africans, the Europeans would never have succeeded.
quote:How is it best remembered without guilt attached to it?
I'm half black and I feel no guilt or shame over what happened.
I care for the living, not the dead.
What use is it to stew over events long passed, and people that lived centuries ago?
It is said that only a fool walks into the future looking backwards..
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aspect Emperor says: ''Grumman, lets get real. You'd be hard pressed to find someone these days that thinks there was nothing wrong with slavery.''
Some descendants of slaveowners may not like you cleansing themselves of this guilt (recognize the drift). This is why history is studied, to try and make sense of it.
Every man and woman is responsible for their actions, and their actions alone.''
Throw a national government into the mix, before it became fractured, and see if that statement holds up under pressure.
''How can you hold the ancestors of the people responsible for the slave trade, especially after hundreds of years?
''It's ridiculous.. Are you one of those people that believe sin is passed down through generations?''
And I do agree with this from Ausarian: ''Yes, descendants of slave-owners are not guilty of their forefathers' and foremothers' sins per se, but they still benefit from it's socio-economic input to this day in the now 'unified states' of a former colony.''
Aspect Emperor, that is what my link referred to when I said this: ''Ancestry says they aren't different. The link is still there.''
Do you deny this link?
Further: ''OK, say the President does apologize.. What good will this do?
The president can acknowledge the nation's past governing policies were in arrears when it comes to running a ''peculiar institution''.
''Nothing will change, because the past cannot be re-written.''
Sure something will change, the president will acknowledge the slave-era as a peculiar insitution; and this is what it's all about.
...and this has nothing to do with anything being re-written. However your way of expressing it is taken as a means to diffuse debate.
''An apology amounts to nothing more than a balm for the bruised egos of the ancestors of the slaves themselves.'
So you are insensitive to others conditions, past and present?
On apologizing (again): ''I don't see a reason or need for this, because the U.S has already changed it's policies regarding slavery and segregation.''
If a lower form of government—in 2008— sees a need to apologize then they are necessarily at odds with the president and his cabinet on this issue?
If a president, democrat or republican, whomever, sees no fit to offer an apology for that peculiar institution then it follows past presidents, including the current one, saw nothing wrong with that institution. It doesn't matter if in his metaphysical heart he detests it, all that needs to be done in recognizing that peculiar institution and its governing policies is to confront the evils of it; call it for what it was: an everlasting stain on this nation's consciousness; maybe not everyone's conscience, as is evident.
''An apology at this stage, is absurd and centuries too late.''
Then you are insensitive.
But I do understand your human nature calling.
''Most Societies have engaged in slavery at some point in time.. Thats the point I was trying to make.''
There was no need to make this point; that's why history is studied.
''Slavery existed in Africa long before Europeans arrived, and it still exists.
''To this very day, Africans are enslaving each other, whilst European nations were amongst the first in human history to outlaw the act of Slavery.''
In this oblique way you can apologize for Europeans enslaving Africans but you won't when it comes to Africans?
''You cannot understand the issue of Slavery unless you have a more circumspect and balanced view point.''
I recognize balance when I see it, you don't. What's preventing you from seeing this?
''You don't understand my rationale. My point is, that the slave trade would not have been possible without the compliance of the Native Africans.''
Did the Europeans know this compliance before they set sail across the Atlantic? It seems to me not having an agreement before departing the shores of the U.S. and England and elsewhere would be an expensive undertaking if the compliance wasn't there to begin with. So, is there documentation that can prove compliance before the first ship departed European and American shores?
''Therefore, the blame lies with them as well as with the Europeans.''
The blame rests squarely on the European side for instituting slavery as a transoceanic business. If the Europeans had stayed home then there would have been no need to take advantage of tribal differences.
''Unless you want to hold Europeans to a higher moral standard than Africans.''
Who set sail to enslave Africans initially?
''Come on now.. They don't call it the Slave Trade for nothing.'':
Link
Your link doesn't show how many nor a percentage of Africans that participated in the slave trade with Europeans.
Link: From the 15th to the 19th century, Europeans bought millions of slaves in West, Central, and East Africa and sent them to Europe; the Caribbean; and North, Central, and South America.
''Grumman, this is the only logical explanation for why Europeans were able to export millions of Africans from Africa to Europe and the New World.
''They were BOUGHT or TRADED for.
''The Europeans exploited the tribal infrastructure of the Africans, which held no solidarity or unity amongst blacks; even when measured against the incursion of white skinned foreigners..
''This was the biggest reason why the SLAVE TRADE was so successful, and lasted so long.
''If there had been greater solidarity or unity amongst black Africans, the Europeans would never have succeeded.''
Again, as per the argument had the Europeans stayed home then...
''I'm half black and I feel no guilt or shame over what happened.
''I care for the living, not the dead.''
I'm a quarter black and yet I do feel guilt and shame at knowing what that part of my European 'blood' has wrought.
[b'What use is it to stew over events long passed, and people that lived centuries ago?[/b]
What may be bothering you is I'm sensitive to others' conditions past and present, you apparently aren't. Now if you are then you will have to come up with something else to bolster your argument rather than compliance as a means to erode an argument.
''It is said that only a fool walks into the future looking backwards.''
Correction. Only a fool will ignore the past while walking towards the future. Hope this helps you.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Some descendants of slaveowners may not like you cleansing themselves of this guilt (recognize the drift). This is why history is studied, to try and make sense of it.
I find it odd that people would feel guilt over something which they themselves did not commit.
quote:Throw a national government into the mix, before it became fractured, and see if that statement holds up under pressure.
I agree that the involvement of National governments complicates the matter..
However, I still hold firm to my belief.
Time has to count for something.
We are a different nation, a different people, than those that came before us; whether slave or slave owner.
How far are we willing to look back into history for major transgressions commited against a people to apologize for?
50yrs? 500yrs? 5,000yrs?
Human history is replete with such transgressions.
Where do you draw the line?
quote:And I do agree with this from Ausarian: ''Yes, descendants of slave-owners are not guilty of their forefathers' and foremothers' sins per se, but they still benefit from it's socio-economic input to this day in the now 'unified states' of a former colony.''
Aspect Emperor, that is what my link referred to when I said this: ''Ancestry says they aren't different. The link is still there.''
Do you deny this link?
No I don't deny that link. I know full well that Slavery had a tremendous economic impact in America (Europe as well), and that many people benefited from it financially speaking.
However... I don't think they are still benefiting from it. Slavery ended when, about 250 yrs ago give or take a few?
During that time, the families, banks, organizations etc had to find other venues to invest in other than slavery.
Slavery may have contributed heavily to their initial fortunes, but afterward, they had to find other means to keep themselves.
But even if they still do benefit, what do you think should be done about it?
Should we take their wealth away, or ask for financial compensation?
That would go over well.. Slavery although an abominable sin, was still quite legal in those days.
quote:The president can acknowledge the nation's past governing policies were in arrears when it comes to running a ''peculiar institution''
LOL, you have an odd way of speech.. If the President were to apologize for slavery, I don't think he should be as vague as you've just been with your "peculiar institution."
quote:Sure something will change, the president will acknowledge the slave-era as a peculiar insitution; and this is what it's all about.
So basically, the President will acknowledge something that we are ALL already aware of..
Again, what good does this do?
quote:So you are insensitive to others conditions, past and present?
What good is an apology to a dead man? As for the ancestors of the slaves themselves, none of them had ever been enslaved, so why apologize to them?
If there is to be apologizing, perhaps the U.S gov't should apologize to the people that suffered under Jim Crowism.
There are many people still alive today that experienced this humiliating ordeal first hand.
quote:If a president, democrat or republican, whomever, sees no fit to offer an apology for that peculiar institution then it follows past presidents, including the current one, saw nothing wrong with that institution.
This logic doesn't make sense. If the U.S gov't did not find fault with the institution of slavery, then it never would have been abolished.
quote:It doesn't matter if in his metaphysical heart he detests it, all that needs to be done in recognizing that peculiar institution and its governing policies is to confront the evils of it; call it for what it was: an everlasting stain on this nation's consciousness
The President would simply be echoing what we all know.. Most people today are keenly aware that Slavery was an ABOMINATION.
There have always been those that were opposed to it because of it's foul nature, even during it's heyday..
Do you need the President to state that Slavery was a great evil, to know that it was?
quote:maybe not everyone's conscience, as is evident.
Oooo, is this a dig at moi?
quote:Then you are insensitive.
Perhaps I am. I admit I'm one of those,"suck it up and get over it types."
However, I'm also a practical man, and I see no benefit in the President issuing what would surely be a very lame apology..
quote:In this oblique way you can apologize for Europeans enslaving Africans but you won't when it comes to Africans?
How do you figure I am apologizing for Europeans enslaving Africans?
Thats ridiculous. All I'm saying really, is that the BLAME for slavery should not rest solely on the Europeans.
The Africans had as much to do with it as they did.
quote:I recognize balance when I see it, you don't. What's preventing you from seeing this?
Now this is amusing. You claim I lack balance, yet you're the one laying blame solely at the foot of Europe, while giving Africa a get out of jail free card.
quote:Did the Europeans know this compliance before they set sail across the Atlantic? It seems to me not having an agreement before departing the shores of the U.S. and England and elsewhere would be an expensive undertaking if the compliance wasn't there to begin with. So, is there documentation that can prove compliance before the first ship departed European and American shores?
As far as I know, the first Europeans to visit Africa weren't looking for slaves, but for gold and other valuable resources..
The prospect of gold and wealth also motivated Europeans to travel to the New World..
The Portuguese and the Spanish were the first Europeans to trade in slaves with the Africans, and as you know, both Portugual and Spain sit on the Iberian peninsula which is very close to the African continent.
quote:If the Europeans had stayed home then there would have been no need to take advantage of tribal differences.
If the Africans had resisted the Europeans instead of welcoming them with open arms, there would have been no slave trade.
quote:...not before the staying at home factor.
Then you are holding the Europeans to a higher moral standard. It was greed that motivated the Europeans to go to Africa, first in search of gold, and then in search of slaves; which the Africans were all too willing to provide.
quote:Who set sail to enslave Africans initially?
As I said, the primary motivation for Europeans going to Africa was to look for gold and other precious resources.
Slaves came afterward, and with the blessing of the Africans themselves.
quote:Your link doesn't show how many nor a percentage of Africans that participated in the slave trade with Europeans.
It will be difficult to find approximate numbers or percentages, but I'll look nevertheless.
Still, for a purported student of history, I can't believe you are challenging me on this..
It's well known that the vast majority of slaves were BOUGHT or traded for, and not captured.
Elmina Castle was amongst the first European trading outposts on the West African coast, used to trade with coastal African tribes for gold, ivory and slaves.
quote:The slaves, often captured in the African interior by the slave-catchers of coastal tribes, were sold to Portuguese traders in exchange for goods such as textiles and horses.
quote:Again, as per the argument had the Europeans stayed home then...
Would have, could have, should have.....but didn't.
quote:I'm a quarter black and yet I do feel guilt and shame at knowing what that part of my European 'blood' has wrought.
If you want to bear the guilt of dead men, then thats your problem..
quote:What may be bothering you is I'm sensitive to others' conditions past and present, you apparently aren't.
And what good are your sensitivities?
Your sensitivities are powerless against reality, and the past thats already been written in stone.
quote:Correction. Only a fool will ignore the past while walking towards the future. Hope this helps you.
It's not a matter of ignoring the past, only dwelling upon it.
This sort of mentality has crippled the African American community for years and years.
While other immigrants (I myself am not descended from African Americans) come from all over the World and find success in the U.S, African Americans still struggle as a people.
Why? Because they keep looking backward when they should be looking forward.
Posts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Slavery existed in Africa long before Europeans arrived, and it still exists.
To this very day, Africans are enslaving each other, whilst European nations were amongst the first in human history to outlaw the act of Slavery.
You cannot understand the issue of Slavery unless you have a more circumspect and balanced view point.
You appeal to "a more circumspect and balanced viewpoint" from another poster, but it doesn't seem that you're living up to the same standards, imo. Yes, Europeans who bought and sold slaves are guilty of the evil deed, as should the Africans who sold their captives. And yes, this is testament to the then existing social divisions amongst African societies. Africans had socially structured societies, culminating in the formation of states; states are designed precisely to allow a thin layer of elites to mooch off the ordinary folks. Hence in this context, it becomes no great wonder that the selling of captives in exchange for value added goods was sanctioned by the thin layer of African elites. Yet, in your effort to emphasize the role of Africans in the slave trade, you downplayed the fact that slavery is not an African-unique activity even "to this very day"; see: Slavery in the modern era
You also downplayed the role of both armed and not-so-armed struggles amongst captured Africans in bringing about slave abolition, in an effort to put emphasis on the idea that Europeans were actually the proactive ones to call for its abolition, presumably implying [without being said] that Africans sought to continue the activity on the other hand. It is as though their efforts didn't count, because they were revolting 'captives'. Just because there were official state declarations of 'slave abolition', it doesn't mean that slavery itself ceased -- see the aforementioned link, and also this: Leaked CIA report says 50,000 sold into slavery in US every year
Aspect Emperor says:
If the Africans had resisted the Europeans instead of welcoming them with open arms, there would have been no slave trade.
That's because Europeans initially didn't make it obvious, their intentions to take natural resources by force; Africans certainly weren't anti-trade -- in fact, the growth of states attest to this.
Aspect Emperor says:
This was the biggest reason why the SLAVE TRADE was so successful, and lasted so long.
If there had been greater solidarity or unity amongst black Africans, the Europeans would never have succeeded.
Which I find to be in contradiction to this:
However... I don't think they are still benefiting from it. Slavery ended when, about 250 yrs ago give or take a few?
Why did slavery last so long, if not for its contribution in fueling industrial growth and putting into motion what would become European capitalism as we know it today? Can European capitalism as it exists today be divorced or disconnected from its past or early days? If not, why then would the beneficiaries of European capitalism today not still be benefiting from what the exploits of slave labor in the past helped to put in place? Fact that European capitalism still exploits slave labor globally, albeit in a more "under-the-radar" sort of way, should serve as further testament to continuity between European capitalism today and its past.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aspect Emperor, when I said this: Some descendants of slaveowners may not like you cleansing themselves of this guilt (recognize the drift)''.
...then you said: ''I find it odd that people would feel guilt over something which they themselves did not commit.''
...the issue was not related to guilt but instead you attempting to relieve a racist of his feelings against blacks. That's why I mentioned slaveowner descendants. Not that all descendants are racist but some are.
''Time has to count for something.
''We are a different nation, a different people, than those that came before us; whether slave or slave owner.''
A different nation legally, yes... but a different people? Again this depends on which white person you talk to.
''How far are we willing to look back into history for major transgressions commited against a people to apologize for?''
We are still talking about a U.S. presidential apology for slavery, no others need apply.
''LOL, you have an odd way of speech.. If the President were to apologize for slavery, I don't think he should be as vague as you've just been with your "peculiar institution."''
At least one historian (I don't recall the name) called it a ''peculiar institution'' many years back. Others, on occasion, when writing about the slave era have used his phrase also. You should have been alerted at the first use of quotation marks; not that this would have made you familiar with the phrase itself but, well, quotation marks are a way of drawing attention to something.
Just thought I'd clear that one up for you.
''So basically, the President will acknowledge something that we are ALL already aware of..''
Not everyone however will have the requisite capacity to understand what it means on a national level for a president to acknowledge slavery as an injustice.
''What good is an apology to a dead man?''
Dead man?
''As for the ancestors of the slaves themselves, none of them had ever been enslaved, so why apologize to them?''
You're making this too hard. It has nothing to do with present day people not being enslaved.
''If there is to be apologizing, perhaps the U.S gov't should apologize to the people that suffered under Jim Crowism.''
No. jim crow (small letters intended) is the legacy of slavery, not the other way around.
''This logic doesn't make sense. If the U.S gov't did not find fault with the institution of slavery, then it never would have been abolished.''
You don't find it disconcerting that none of the presidents have apologized for slavery, even though the Civil War ended it?
''Most people today are keenly aware that Slavery was an ABOMINATION.''
An abomination for holding black people in bondage or an abomination that white people died in that war to free black people?
''There have always been those that were opposed to it because of it's foul nature, even during it's heyday..''
In agreement here.
''Do you need the President to state that Slavery was a great evil, to know that it was?''
I don't need the president to do it. All any president had to do was apologize for it. This would have been a non-issue with many people including me. And depending how far back the apology was made you may have to do a google on it to find out just how far back.
I'm also thinking you probably ascribe to a notion that ''I don't want to be the first.''
It's an apology, not a plea to make white klan boys and black men hold hands.
''However, I'm also a practical man, and I see no benefit in the President issuing what would surely be a very lame apology..''
So you do agree with what I said earlier about a president's metaphysical heart? Also are you saying just because the president is white this means he's prejudice against blacks? If this be the case then no president will ever apologize for slavery... because of their prejudice? Or is it some more of that 'I don't want to be the first', which may be another way of saying, ''Leave me out of it, I wasn't born then.'' ;which is a lame excuse for not apologizing.
When I said this: In this oblique way you can apologize for Europeans enslaving Africans but you won't when it comes to Africans?
...and you responded by saying:
''How do you figure I am apologizing for Europeans enslaving Africans?''
...because you say the Europeans abolished it yet the Africans didn't. So you are an apologist for the Europeans.
From you: ''Thats ridiculous. All I'm saying really, is that the BLAME for slavery should not rest solely on the Europeans.''
Once in Africa no. Had the Europeans not built ships expressly for that purpose (presumably not in the beginning) then there will have been no blame to place on the Europeans in the trade. Having said that, until you can show how the Africans exploited the Europeans then you will be onto something.
How do you reconcile this: The slaves, often captured in the African interior by the slave-catchers of coastal tribes, were sold to Portuguese traders in exchange for goods such as textiles and horses.
with this: ''It's well known that the vast majority of slaves were BOUGHT or traded for, and not captured.''
''And what good are your sensitivities?
''Your sensitivities are powerless against reality, and the past thats already been written in stone.''
My thoughts have nothing to do with ''powerless against reality'', a past reality at that. But it has everything to do with the present reality.
''It's not a matter of ignoring the past, only dwelling upon it.''
My comments have nothing to do with dwelling, as you say, on anything. However, an admission from a president will do just fine, even if it may be lame. some of that rock and a hard place stuff.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic