Zach LarkinsAPOLOGIES?
My friend, Jim Stillman, recently wrote an article asking whether it was right to offer apologies and reparations to those affected by slavery. This is a complex subject and should be looked at in greater depth.
Most of the comments he received were of the mind that while apologies might be necessary, reparations were out of the question. While I might disagree on the first point, I wholeheartedly agree with the second.
I am from Canada and so have no first hand knowledge of slavery in the sense of blacks being subjugated to the whims of whites. But it seems to me that slavery has quite a storied past in our backgrounds. When the ancients won a war, they enslaved their captives. One only has to look at the Book of Exodus to affirm this fact. Even today, some ‘civilizations' use and have slaves. The term ‘indentured' only whitewashes what it truly is. As Europeans came to North America, while not treating the aboriginals as out and out slaves, they in effect made them so, and that prejudice exists to this day.
Tribes in Africa were notorious for enslaving others of a different tribe and in fact sold their brothers to the British traders for small tokens of appeasement. Slavery is still widespread in Africa to this day.
While the British may have been the first to engage in the selling of black slaves, they were also the first to ban it. It has been 200 years since slavery was abolished by the Brits, but yet, they are made to acknowledge and apologize for their role in it. What purpose does this serve? They have already made known the role they played, but still they find themselves embroiled in tedious debates about it. Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed regret for Britain's role in the trade, but is still being pressured to up the ante and make a formal apology too. Those demanding an apology seem to forget history. Confused Europeans and North Americans scream contrition and indirectly blame the churches and Western civilization for the use of African slaves between the late 16th and mid 19th centuries. While we all agree that, today, slavery is abhorrent, that was not the case in days gone by. The most sophisticated of ancient cultures, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Ottoman Turks, plus others from all races and religions, thought it inevitable, and even ethical, that the powerful would enslave those whom they defeated.
An apology, writ large, was expressed by one culture (the Anglo-Saxons) and one religion (Christianity). There is no doubt that the white use of black men, women and children as slaves was organized, brutal and grotesque along with being enormously profitable. And that makes the grand opposition to it by the 1780's so impressive. There was a great deal to lose and nothing to gain by abolishing slavery, ergo there was no need to change anything. But in Christian eyes it was wrong. Opponents were monks, priests and Christian laity. Secular and non-Christian resistance was almost unheard of. Christian missionaries were vehemently opposed by many African chieftains and the famous Dr. Livingstone spent much of his time in central Africa preaching against slavery, much to the chagrin of the local Arab slave dealers, and their indigenous partners, who made a fortune out of selling Africans to other parts of the continent and the Middle East.
The Sultan of Zanzibar was forced to end slavery as late as 1873 when the British arrived. They built, in typically imperialist arrogance, an Anglican cathedral on the site of the destroyed slave market. In 1843, the British took Karachi from its Muslim leaders and demanded that the slave trade be stopped immediately and the slave market be torn to the ground. It is beyond dispute that in the eyes of African and Arab leaders in the 19th century Christian expansion signified an end to slavery, which is one of the reasons why British ships so regularly battled Muslim pirates around north Africa and why Anglo- Saxon culture was seen as a liberating force by contemporary liberal movements. The real slavery axis of evil connected Africa, south Asia and Arabia and has lasted far longer than that in the Christian world.
There are cane-workers in leg-shackles in southern Pakistan and hundreds of thousands of women and children are sold from Benin and Togo to wealthier African nations such as Nigeria and Gabon. The criminals who operate these multinational enterprises are seldom reprimanded, and in the case of Sudan they are applauded by a government that is, in turn, supported by several leading Arab states. So what exactly do the Americans have to apologize for? The people directly affected by slavery in the US are all dead now and their descendants would be hard pressed to even find Africa on a map. The Arabs must be laughing at the post- Christian Westerners beating their breasts and crying for forgiveness for something which their ancestors worked so hard to stop because their Christian faith and European enlightenment convinced them that it was wrong.
If anyone should be apologizing, it should be the nations who still subscribe to the idea that slavery is okay. But why aren't those who demand an apology going after them? Possibly due to the fact that even if those nations do have money, they are not about to share it with some African-Americans they couldn't care less about. The agitators know how North America works. First the apologies, then the cash. Here's an idea. If reparations are to be made, pay them at the same rate of pay as prevailed at the time of the injustice.
For example, we all know that Manhattan Island was worth more than about $24.00 in beads and baubles. Never mind that the Indians who sold it weren't authorized to do so in the first place. At the time of sale, the Dutch should have paid them $100.00 to $200.00 tops. What was a wilderness worth back in the 1600's anyway? The aboriginals of Canada made a deal with the British and French settlers and now want today's prices for what their forefathers thought was a good deal on a land exchange. Okay, figure out what the land was worth back then and give them the cash equivalent. What, maybe $0.05 per acre? Quebec wants to separate. Fine. Good-bye. You leave with what you had at Confederation. See those borders? That's what you leave with. Good luck.
I can't speak for the USA, but I don't think Canada or Britain has anything to apologize for. Britain in particular led the way to abolish slavery and Canada provided a safe haven for those who fled oppression. As for reparations, people like Jesse Jackson will scream at my suggestions, so to save him the trouble, let's not make any more payments for sins committed by our forefathers.
We won't ever forget what happened in the past, but it is past time to let it go.
Most of the comments he received were of the mind that while apologies might be necessary, reparations were out of the question. While I might disagree on the first point, I wholeheartedly agree with the second.
I am from Canada and so have no first hand knowledge of slavery in the sense of blacks being subjugated to the whims of whites. But it seems to me that slavery has quite a storied past in our backgrounds. When the ancients won a war, they enslaved their captives. One only has to look at the Book of Exodus to affirm this fact. Even today, some ‘civilizations' use and have slaves. The term ‘indentured' only whitewashes what it truly is. As Europeans came to North America, while not treating the aboriginals as out and out slaves, they in effect made them so, and that prejudice exists to this day.
Tribes in Africa were notorious for enslaving others of a different tribe and in fact sold their brothers to the British traders for small tokens of appeasement. Slavery is still widespread in Africa to this day.
While the British may have been the first to engage in the selling of black slaves, they were also the first to ban it. It has been 200 years since slavery was abolished by the Brits, but yet, they are made to acknowledge and apologize for their role in it. What purpose does this serve? They have already made known the role they played, but still they find themselves embroiled in tedious debates about it. Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed regret for Britain's role in the trade, but is still being pressured to up the ante and make a formal apology too. Those demanding an apology seem to forget history. Confused Europeans and North Americans scream contrition and indirectly blame the churches and Western civilization for the use of African slaves between the late 16th and mid 19th centuries. While we all agree that, today, slavery is abhorrent, that was not the case in days gone by. The most sophisticated of ancient cultures, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Ottoman Turks, plus others from all races and religions, thought it inevitable, and even ethical, that the powerful would enslave those whom they defeated.
An apology, writ large, was expressed by one culture (the Anglo-Saxons) and one religion (Christianity). There is no doubt that the white use of black men, women and children as slaves was organized, brutal and grotesque along with being enormously profitable. And that makes the grand opposition to it by the 1780's so impressive. There was a great deal to lose and nothing to gain by abolishing slavery, ergo there was no need to change anything. But in Christian eyes it was wrong. Opponents were monks, priests and Christian laity. Secular and non-Christian resistance was almost unheard of. Christian missionaries were vehemently opposed by many African chieftains and the famous Dr. Livingstone spent much of his time in central Africa preaching against slavery, much to the chagrin of the local Arab slave dealers, and their indigenous partners, who made a fortune out of selling Africans to other parts of the continent and the Middle East.
The Sultan of Zanzibar was forced to end slavery as late as 1873 when the British arrived. They built, in typically imperialist arrogance, an Anglican cathedral on the site of the destroyed slave market. In 1843, the British took Karachi from its Muslim leaders and demanded that the slave trade be stopped immediately and the slave market be torn to the ground. It is beyond dispute that in the eyes of African and Arab leaders in the 19th century Christian expansion signified an end to slavery, which is one of the reasons why British ships so regularly battled Muslim pirates around north Africa and why Anglo- Saxon culture was seen as a liberating force by contemporary liberal movements. The real slavery axis of evil connected Africa, south Asia and Arabia and has lasted far longer than that in the Christian world.
There are cane-workers in leg-shackles in southern Pakistan and hundreds of thousands of women and children are sold from Benin and Togo to wealthier African nations such as Nigeria and Gabon. The criminals who operate these multinational enterprises are seldom reprimanded, and in the case of Sudan they are applauded by a government that is, in turn, supported by several leading Arab states. So what exactly do the Americans have to apologize for? The people directly affected by slavery in the US are all dead now and their descendants would be hard pressed to even find Africa on a map. The Arabs must be laughing at the post- Christian Westerners beating their breasts and crying for forgiveness for something which their ancestors worked so hard to stop because their Christian faith and European enlightenment convinced them that it was wrong.
If anyone should be apologizing, it should be the nations who still subscribe to the idea that slavery is okay. But why aren't those who demand an apology going after them? Possibly due to the fact that even if those nations do have money, they are not about to share it with some African-Americans they couldn't care less about. The agitators know how North America works. First the apologies, then the cash. Here's an idea. If reparations are to be made, pay them at the same rate of pay as prevailed at the time of the injustice.
For example, we all know that Manhattan Island was worth more than about $24.00 in beads and baubles. Never mind that the Indians who sold it weren't authorized to do so in the first place. At the time of sale, the Dutch should have paid them $100.00 to $200.00 tops. What was a wilderness worth back in the 1600's anyway? The aboriginals of Canada made a deal with the British and French settlers and now want today's prices for what their forefathers thought was a good deal on a land exchange. Okay, figure out what the land was worth back then and give them the cash equivalent. What, maybe $0.05 per acre? Quebec wants to separate. Fine. Good-bye. You leave with what you had at Confederation. See those borders? That's what you leave with. Good luck.
I can't speak for the USA, but I don't think Canada or Britain has anything to apologize for. Britain in particular led the way to abolish slavery and Canada provided a safe haven for those who fled oppression. As for reparations, people like Jesse Jackson will scream at my suggestions, so to save him the trouble, let's not make any more payments for sins committed by our forefathers.
We won't ever forget what happened in the past, but it is past time to let it go.
Mum's Word
Here in Australia our Prime Minister is pressured to apologise for the "stolen generation". What happened was a lot of aboriginal children were stolen from their families and placed in Anglo Saxon families to be raised. The practice finished mid 20th century. Now the aboriginals want an apology from our current Prime Minister who refused to give it because as he sees it, he wasn't around when all this was going on.
Now I see that as a leader of a nation he should apologise that the practice took place. Being sorry that this happened doesn't mean he is to blame or responsible. Kind of like the same way you say "I'm sorry" to someone when you find out a family member has died. Doesn't mean you killed them.
To me it seems infantile that our Prime Minister doesn't apologise.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Mum's Word
I see your point about Jesse Jackson.
Here in Australia there was a long legal case called Mabo where the Aboriginal people were seeking to have 'land' returned to them. It went on for years. 20 years ago Ayres Rock was returned to them and has been renamed Uluru.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Mum's Word
That's definitely a consideration. Good point.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern