"Blacks ought to be thankful for slavery; otherwise, they'd be back in Africa."

[Sava]

I didn't say they should be thankful. I said the blacks in America are better off then they are in Africa. TELL ME THIS ISN'T TRUE. IS THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN AFRICA BETTER THAN THE US?

One of my friends (black) dad said something interesting to me the other night when I had dinner with his family. He said something to the effect of:

God, or whatever higher power exists, often has a plan. And he works in mysterious ways. Part of American culture today is based upon my ancestors troubles. Do I feel I am owed anything from anyone because of slavery? No. Nobody alive today is responsible for the evils that occurred. Let's put the issue to rest and get on with our lives. There are too many other problems in the world today that need our attention.

Smart man my friend's dad is. He is a minister at a church in Chicago.

The slavery reparations issue isn't about compensation for slavery. It's about a bunch of people looking for free money.

I'm not going to comment about the Nazi/Holocaust issue because it had nothing to do with this. IMO it was a terrible and stupid comparison.

[MrFun]

Why do you not see the analogy between Holocaust survivors receiving reparations, and African-Americans who qualify, receiving reparations??

If the Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany, then following your logic, Holocaust survivors were never eligible to receive reparations.

Some of you have said that because slavery was legal, then African-Americans should not receive reparations. Or, to the more legitimate case, reparations for 20th century legal lynching and Jim Crow laws.

Someone has yet to explain this inconsistency in their argument.

[Urban Ranger]

I am late to this thread and I want to make a point. Since I didn't read this thread completely, if somebody made it before I do, sorry about that.

Some people are making the argument that Blacks are better off in the US because the US is a better place to live.

There is one big issue that they have missed. Without Black slaves, and consequently Black workers, would the US as well off as it is now? Consider the amount of wealth that Blacks had contributed to the US as a whole. That seems to be a rather significant amount. Without Blacks sweating away, do you think the US would be as wealthy?

Many people also forgot that Africa is bad today because of Western exploitation. White men robbed the land of their riches, and left **** behind.

People like Cal ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
Why do you not see the analogy between Holocaust survivors receiving reparations, and African-Americans who qualify, receiving reparations??

None qualify, as none alive today were slaves.

If the Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany, then following your logic, Holocaust survivors were never eligible to receive reparations.

The survivors were robbed, the money they get is what was taken from them, Slaves earned no wages nor had posessions.

Some of you have said that because slavery was legal, then African-Americans should not receive reparations. Or, to the more legitimate case, reparations for 20th century legal lynching and Jim Crow laws.

No lynching is leagal, but you can't sue the federal government in these cases.
Did the US government buy slaves?
Import them?
The answer is no to both, it was done as private enterprise, so you would have to find the slave traders and transporters (long dead), and you can't sue ancestors for things past.

Someone has yet to explain this inconsistency in their argument.

Hopefully it is now explained.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62

No lynching is leagal, but you can't sue the federal government in these cases.

Lynching was legal in the defacto sense, since very few, if any lynchers were prosecuted.

In the defacto sense, lynching was legal until the 1940's after World War II.

In that sense, mobs could still burn people alive after World War II in the United States without fear of being prosecuted.

Anti-lynching laws were not passed, I believe, until the late 1940's.

[mactbone]

So what you're saying is, that if it wasn't illegal specifically, but illegal generally, and many people weren't prosecuted, it's a viable offense? Lynching is a form of murder... which was illegal...

Where are the laws making stabbing illegal!

[MrFun]

Look at photographic books of lynchings such as the book titled "Without Sanctuary."

Even as late as the 1930's, lynch mobs were not afraid to have their photos taken while posing around the victim's body. Why was that? Because they would not get prosecuted for lynching a black man.

Lynching a white man -- they would get prosecuted.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Many people also forgot that Africa is bad today because of Western exploitation. White men robbed the land of their riches, and left **** behind.

While I do understand that there were literally millions of crimes associated with colonialism, I do not agree that colonialism is solely or even mainly to blame for the state of sub-Saharan Africa today. Africans were well behind most of the rest of the world technologically, and socially. Their societies were already being disrupted by the Arabs well before Europeans began to make their presence felt. The continent indeed was in turmoil from 'the Bantu explosion' before the Arabs became really influential. For most of recorded history the majority of people on the African continent lived in Egypt, with sub-Saharan Africa being populated (to the extent it was) almost entirely with hunter gatherers.

As in other parts of the world, sub-Saharan Africans eventually learned to work metal and utilize agriculture, and it was these technologies which produced the Bantu explosion, where Bantu peoples spread across the lands which were capable of supporting them and displaced the hunter gatherers into the jungles, deserts and remote regions. Arab traders and eventually conquerers brought modern goods to the coasts and caravan routes, which caused the peoples located there to gain advantage over those in the interior. This was one of the main engines of the slave trade, and the dislocating effects of it were very similar to those of the Europeans in North America.

The Europeans showed up later, and for the most part displaced the Arabs as the agents of change. It wasn't until the 19th century that one could say definitively that the Europeans were having more of an effect upon Africa than the Arabs would have. By this time slavery was considered an atrocity by most Europeans, and by mid-century the British were very actively trying to wipe it out. Note that the slaves by this time were meant for use primarily in Africa itself and in Arabia, the Americas relying on their large populations of slaves to propogate to fill their needs.

In the latter part of the 19th century the 'Scramble for Africa' began, and the majority of Africa which had been left alone for the most part was grabbed up by European states large and small who wished to get a slice while there was still something to get. Previously colonies were only considered valuable as economic entities, and there was no money to be made in the vast majority of Africa where there was nothing manufactured of interest, and agriculture was at the subsistence level. The early colonies in Africa were thus either based upon the export of some natural resources (gold, ivory, gems etc.), slaves, or were merely ports to support fleets which were trading in the Indies. There were a few plantations, but for the most part it was more efficient to locate these in the Americas.

The Scramble for Africa occured because colonies now gained a significance for Europeans as symbols of national power. Of course to sell the idea to as many people as possible other reasons were given, such as spreading Christianity and civilizing the indigenous populations, or to make money. Since most of the easy money to be made was already being made, or had played out (exception: South Africa), most of the colonies were a financial burden rather than a revenue source. There were some large scale atrocities committed in the lust for money, most notably in the Belgian Congo, where the primitive people of the interior were worked to death harvesting the forests, on plantations, building roads etc.

Nevertheless in most areas there was a significan effort made to 'improve' the Africans through infrastructural development, education, vastly improved agricultural techniques, modern medicine etc. This was done both to keep the European populace happy that they were doing God's work, as well as in the hopes that it would improve the climate for lucrative trade with the home country. Of course these efforts brought enormous change within these colonies. Warrior tribes which were probably the most developed in many areas were marginalized, and their former victims who had provided things to steal and slaves were elevated because they were more likely to adopt European religion and culture. European arms kept the peace for the most part though, and almost all groups grew quickly in population as food supplies, transportation, peace and medicine all worked in favor of rapid growth. Of course cultures were slow to adopt to these very rapid changes, the uneven attempts by the Europeans to educate the natives and change their cultures notwithstanding.

After WWII Europe began to rid itself of it's colonies for practical reasons. They were expensive, especially after the native populations grew and demanded more services but provided little in the way of valuable productivity due to the enormous decrease in value of unskilled labor since the industrial revolution. Independence movements which were succeeding for the most part in Asia began to take root in Africa as well.

By the 1970s practically the entire continent was freed from European rule, and in many places the most educated of the native sons were left in power. Within a decade most of the democratic regimes were replaced by dictators, or by more or less brutal ethnic rule with a veneer of democracy. The more aggressive clans (those who often were less influenced by European culture) reasserted their power in most places. Unfortunately these were often the clans who had received the least education during European rule, and incompetence was married to brutality in many instances, which pretty much brings us up to the present.

The state of Africa is thus the product of mostly unintended consequences by the Europeans (and for that matter the Africans themselves) and the grievously rough starting situation that Africa found itself in as the colonial period began. There were certainly instances of rapaciousness, but the vast majority of the problem in Africa is that it is culturally backward in a modern world where it's own size requires that it be run by modern institutions which are incapable of being supported by it's current cultures in most cases. Europe had many centuries to evolve from where the Africans were 100 years ago to where Europe is today. Asia was much more advanced than Africa, and for the most part has adapted very well to the modern world. The Americas and Australia were heavily settled by Europeans, and thus had far fewer hurdles to clear making their way into the modern world.

As for those unfortunate to have been taken as slaves, they were not the cream of the crop in Africa, but those who were already marginalized by the indigenously created technology and social differentials and the differentials created later by contact with Arabs and to a lesser extent Europeans. They were often forest peoples, or poor slash and burn agriculturalists of the interior whose meager outputs and primitive defense capabilites made them vulnerable to more highly advanced tribes. Slavery did not rob Africa of it's potential, nor did Arabs or Europeans manage to strip away a significant portion of Africa's raw materials. Africa is poor because it has modern population sizes ruled by dysfunctional states made up of primitive societies which at this point are unequal to the task of supporting those populations in the style the rest of the world finds respectable.

[MOBIUS]

If you want my free and frank, a seeming majority of blacks are still slaves in the US...!

Those of you in the big Eastern cities such as NYC or Washington should take a day to consider just who are dressed in the smart business suits (almost all white) and who are doing all the menial jobs (almost all black)...

Those that work the menial jobs are 'enslaved' to those who are professionals, because they are kept in a vicious circle of a hand to mouth existence and poor to non existant education...

Only when one can break that cycle, can they hope to rise above their 'slavery' and join the minority of blacks in the middle classes...

It is sad that many of you attribute the plight of blacks to 'laziness', it shows an ignorance of the affairs of your own nation and an ignorance of the colonial conquest of Africa and the destruction of some highly advanced African civilisations at the hands of the Europeans...

I only have to remind myself of my drive through central Florida via Okeechobee for a glimpse of the apparent living hell that many blacks live in the US...

Remember, quality of life is relative - you may live in a mud hut with no water or electricity, but if that's all you've ever known, chances are that as long as the harvest is good and you have enough food for your family - you are happy.

On the flipside, you could live in Okeechobee and every time you turn on your TV, you are reminded of your bone-jarring poverty - that would be a very miserable existence indeed, especially in the self styled 'land of opportunity'...

Therefore on a level of personal happiness (my quality of life indicator!), it is a very moot point indeed whether blacks in the US are better off (happier) than in Africa!

Either way I for one would not feel lucky or grateful for my relative material wealth known that several generations of my ancestors lived lives of abject misery to get me there - what a callous thing to say!

Seems like some of you have got hung up on the material and forgotten the spiritual (self wellbeing - not religious mumbo-jumbo!) side. How sad.

Time to end the slavery now!

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
Lynching was legal in the defacto sense, since very few, if any lynchers were prosecuted.

The law does not recognize "defacto sense".
Try to sue on this, you would be laughed out of court.

In the defacto sense, lynching was legal until the 1940's after World War II.

It was never legal, period.

In that sense, mobs could still burn people alive after World War II in the United States without fear of being prosecuted.

That doesn't make it legal.

Anti-lynching laws were not passed, I believe, until the late 1940's.

Lynching is illeagal, and always has been, it's called murder.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
If you want my free and frank, a seeming majority of blacks are still slaves in the US...!

Good thing we didnt bring this topic up for discussion when we met in NYC Moby!

[Caligastia]

DP

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The law does not recognize "defacto sense".
Try to sue on this, you would be laughed out of court.

It was never legal, period.

That doesn't make it legal.

Lynching is illeagal, and always has been, it's called murder.

Just because it was murder, does not mean that it was illegal in the United States. Lynching was a particular form of murder that was legal when the victims were blacks.

The Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany, yet it was murder and genocide.

Lynch mobs had no fear of being prosecuted after lynching a black man until anti-lynching laws were passed in the late 1940's after World War II.

If people are consistently prevented from being prosecuted for what would normally be a crime, you're saying that it is still illegal even though no one is prosecuted for the crime??

[chequita guevara]

dp

[chequita guevara]

Sikander, your post is pretty good, except on two points.

1) Althought the slave trade was illegal in the US, slave ships continued selling their wares in the South until at least the 1850s, just not as often.

2) The scramble for Africa wasn't about prestige, although that did have something to do with it. It was primarily about wealth or protecting wealth. Britain wanted the Cape to ensure control of the sea lanes from India, Egypt for its cotton, the Sudan to protect Egypt, Rodesia and Kenya for plantations. France wanted rubber and gold, and so on.

Belgium was certainly the worst colonial power in Africa, but they were by no means the only butchers. They are no unearthing mass graves in Namibia dating back to the German colonial period. The French were definately evil, and the Portugese have their share of blood on their hands.

Also consider that European colonies cut acress ethnic boundries and often included multiple ethnicities in the same colony. While this makes it easy for outside control, it has made rather a mess of the post-colonial period, with various ethnicities vying for power vis a vis one another and resulting in say, the Ruandan and Burandan genocides of the 90s.

Furthermore, Europe is till largely responsible for Africa's conditions today, by continuing to own the resources of these countries and controlling the market for these resources. When African countries try and get control of their own resources, they have a nasty habit of having a coup (Congo, Algeria, etc.) or becoming a "rouge nation" (Lybia).