US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Thanks Adam.

I particularly enjoyed the site with the following.

[q]A Commentary by Oscar L. Beard, Consultant in African Studies
24 May 1999

whitewashed religions,

there is little documentation of independent African slave raiding.

[b]The first act against Africa by Whites

...after the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession.

Consultant in hogwashery, more like.

'Whitewashed' religions ? Gosh, what's his agenda ?

'Little documentation'- exactly how do pre-literate societies 'document' in the absence of written languages ?

An 'act against Africa'- no such state existed.

'White Arabs'- anachronistic and misleading. I read the rest, but it wasn't worth it.

[C0ckney]

i've decided i'm going to become a 'consultant in african studies' like oscar l. beard, mostly because it appears that you can write any old ****e, get paid and get taken seriously by idiots.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Question:
If I kill a prostitute in Vancouver, should I expect some sort of absolution by pointing out the true fact that B.C. ig-farmer Robert Picton killed at least eleven prostitutes before me, and that all of them got into his car willingly and happily?

Law is just not your bag is it baby.

Laws exist to regulate/protect/preserve society and its members from each other and the state itself and external states and its members.

Thats *why* a law passed to commit any section of a society to death is not law (stare dacis) as it acts contra to the most basic principle purpose of law.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

But the basic points remain: here's another set of accepted estimates which show the US had a small part in the slave trade. Even if both the Thomas and Lloyds estimates are off subtantially, the US still had a small part in the slave trade. Since I don't have the time to rummage through the basement for my copy of Time on the Cross from grad school, or run down to the local library to consult The Cambridge History of Something or Other these will have to do for now. By OT standards this seems like incontrovertible proof.

Acepted, since i already posted that data from time on the Cross, your claim is supported by the data.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom

'Little documentation'- exactly how do pre-literate societies 'document' in the absence of written languages ?

He is using a different order of proof, the oral history while important, is not suffiecent evidence for the US school system for the purpose of teaching.

Originally posted by molly bloom
An 'act against Africa'- no such state existed.

Noe did he phrase it thus, he described a geographical region used by whites for the purpose of taking slaves from. Is that really not clear to you?.

[The Mad Viking]

molly & cockney

If you find the language Beard uses rather stilted, then you can begin to understand how the language Western historians use speaks to non-Western peoples.

And oral history, molly, is increasingly recognized as more accurate than written history. After two centuries of being dismissed by Western historians.

Anecdote:
The Viking sagas were not written down until 400 years after the fact. They were, of course, largely dismissed by historians as fairy tales. Until 1960, when Helge Instad followed the directions in the saga of Leif Erikson and, sailed south to the northern tip of Newfoundland, immediately recognized the landmarks described in the saga, and landed.

He asked the locals if their were any old ruins in the area, and promptly found Leif Erikson's settlement.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Law is just not your bag is it baby.

Laws exist to regulate/protect/preserve society and its members from each other and the state itself and external states and its members.

Thats *why* a law passed to commit any section of a society to death is not law (stare dacis) as it acts contra to the most basic principle purpose of law.

So you would argue that the death penalty is illegal?

{Nicki responds with more legal rhetoric to explain how the law renders these people out of society, because of their failure to abide by the law, and therefore the law can eat itself...}

Consider this:
Lawyers are those people who commit crimes against which no laws have been passed.
- Kurt Vonnegut

[JohnT]

Damn, he keeps coming back for more...

And oral history, molly, is increasingly recognized as more accurate than written history.

[Japher]

did someone say oral?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
molly & cockney

If you find the language Beard uses rather stilted, then you can begin to understand how the language Western historians use speaks to non-Western peoples.

it's not the fact his language is 'stilted', it's the fact that he's talking complete and utter bollocks than i take issue with.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


And oral history, molly, is increasingly recognized as more accurate than written history. After two centuries of being dismissed by Western historians.

The Viking sagas were not written down until 400 years after the fact. .

Thanks, but you are talking to someone whose passion is history.

Oral history is not being recognized as being MORE accurate than written history, but it is being recognized as a source of accurate information in some cases.

It is just as open to abuse and falsification as written history. And just for the record, he says:

'little documentation' .

Last I checked, documents weren't oral. But then perhaps he's using creative, poetic imagery.

'...sagas...largely dismissed by historians as fairy tales.

Which historians and when ? I'm sure if you're making this assertion you can back it up.

He asked the locals if their were any old ruins in the area, and promptly found Leif Erikson's settlement.

Right. That's the abridged version of the discoveries at L'Anse Aux Meadows, is it ? MTV style...

It just misses out the intensive search along the coast of North America from New England onwards, and the eight years of excavating.

Nickiow:

Noe did he phrase it thus, he described a geographical region used by whites for the purpose of taking slaves from. Is that really not clear to you?.

Eyewash. He indulged in a little victimology. The acts of individual Western European nations (and the acts of individuals and companies) are not the actions of 'whites' against 'Africa'.

People are responsible for their deeds and misdeeds not their pigmentation.

If you find the language Beard uses rather stilted

Oh please. It's the breastbeating victimhood and creative writing I take issue with. It does the craft of writing and documenting history no favours- the scholastic equivalent of an Aaron Spelling production of Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall'.

[The Mad Viking]

molly -

You are the only one with a passion for history?

I presume that means you're not a PhD. Me neither, but two of my close friends are. One heads the history department at his University. It's his assertion of oral history, not mine.

One of the things they have noticed, over and over, relates to urban history. For example, recorded history will say that a executions took place at a certain square. Yet residents whose families have lived in the area for generations insist this is wrong, that it occurred in another area.

Historians dig and dig, following their wonderful written records, and find nothing. Then, a sewer excavation in the square the locals claimed as the site is halted for archeological reasons. Guess what they found?

Where there is a conflict between a pervasive oral history and written history, and archeological evidence is found to arbitrate the conflict, the oral history is more often than not accurate.

This is not really surprising, because generally, no-one is paying the writer, so the "authors" of oral history often don'ty are less likely to try to please their sponsor,

As far as L'Anse aux Meadows, the 8 years of excavation FOLLOWED finding the site, which was clearly visible to the eye, and featured stone buildings (which natives never constructed.)

Eyewash. He indulged in a little victimology. The acts of individual Western European nations (and the acts of individuals and companies) are not the actions of 'whites' against 'Africa'.

Bull****. This is history, and what is clear to any objective observer is that these were the consistent acts of Western powers to extract resources with no regard for the consequences to the indigenous populations. What kind of passion for history do you have?

People are responsible for their deeds and misdeeds not their pigmentation.

Of course. And when their deeds include characterization of their superiority based on their pigmentation, they are responsible for that.

Oh please. It's the breastbeating victimhood and creative writing I take issue with. It does the craft of writing and documenting history no favours-

Okay, I'll grant you that. It is just as bad as how Western accounts of the same events, which is not surprising since they are both biased viewpoints.

The difference is, that Western accounts continue to get a free ride in our Universities, while other perspectives continue to be ridiculed as "****e" that only a "moron" would believe, in Cockney's wonderful diction.

[C0ckney]

perhaps because 'western' accounts look at things like evidence and reach their conclusions. whereas 'other perspectives' like oscar l. beard's draw their conclusions (it's all whiteys fault!!111), and simply ignore the mountains of evidence which contradict them.

the agenda behind beard's argument is plain for all to see, and even the most cursory glance at the available evidence shows how incomplete and flawed the arguments are. so yes it is ****e which deserves nothing but ridicule and those who choose to blindly follow it are idiots, or if you prefer, morons.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


So you would argue that the death penalty is illegal?

{Nicki responds with more legal rhetoric to explain how the law renders these people out of society, because of their failure to abide by the law, and therefore the law can eat itself...}

Er no, state authorised murder is not murder because it is done in acordance with law and follows the purpose of law, and applies to an individual not a section of society.

Should a state pass a law that all people called brian are to be killed because they pose a threat to society that would not be lawfull, it would be agenocide of the brians, if a brian commits a murder and is found guilty and the state conatins the death penalty then his execution is not genocide or murder.Just as every soldier conscripted against his wishes into a nation and sent to war is not guilty of murder and the country itself guilty of a genocide.


Nice try to get away from your actual posistion, and change the grounds complety.

Genocide of a race or section of society, regrless of laws that make them legal, and there are none that have not been put in place by dictorships without any reference to those who are to be eliminated has never been done with the usual renditionj of lawfull practice.


Individuals are members of society and are bound to uphold the laws of society, many germans both mil and civil found themselves prosecuted for just following orders, just as in todays mil USMCK and QR and other national and internationl laws, following an ilegal order can get you shafted just the same as them.
Your actualo anology so far runs, buyer of slaves is responsoble, seller less so, yet those same slaves will be the victims of mass death should the market not exist for them. yet you want the buyer to be responsible for slavery yet consider the sellers who will be resposnsible for a amss death event aproaching a genocide to be less responsoble.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Consider this:
Lawyers are those people who commit crimes against which no laws have been passed.
- Kurt Vonnegut

A crime has not and cannot be commited since no law pertains, should you not have found a better qoute?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
.

And oral history, molly, is increasingly recognized as more accurate than written history. After two centuries of being dismissed by Western historians.

Gulp, *more acurate than the written record*, rather a stupid comment, lets asume thats a typo rather than what you actually believe.