US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


Why? The Chinese invented gunpowder.

Is this the sort of shoddy education they give you?

Proof?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow



Well UK had slavery in law,

You're confusing the United Kingdom with Norman England.

[Pekka]

Nicki, oh so it's YOU changing your mind now? What a hypocrite you are, pig vomit racist scumbag.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. You are not worthy of my time.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You're confusing the United Kingdom with Norman England.

Not really but i see *why* you think that.

the law of Villiens comes from Norman times, feadal tenure and so on, but was codified in 1285, 1290,and upto 1535 under Henry VIII statutues of Uses, which as you know, was the law of the land, and only this form of "pivaliged bondage" was the law of England untill repealled in 1618 that pertained to slavery of englishmen in england.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
Nicki, oh so it's YOU changing your mind now? What a hypocrite you are, pig vomit racist scumbag.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. You are not worthy of my time.

Time is all we have, what we chose to do with it is that matters. We can expose ourselves to new facts, intrepations, ideas and concepts, learn from them and move from ignorance to a fuller richer understanding than not having exposed ourselves to it, your time is spent how you wish to spend it, so by all means move on, as youve clearly reached your skulls ability to comprehend new information, you come back when you get a bigger skull....or more wrinkles on what lurks in it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


Proof?

I think that Gepap means that the Chinese were the first civilization to use gunpowder for military purposes (although it seems more likely that Sogdian monks discovered or 'invented' it in the alchemical search for the elixir of life) but I do seem to recall that there is a Chinese carving of a hand held weapon discharging a projectile- a 'fire lance'.

They also had bamboo tubes capable of firing clay 'bullets' .

You're confusing the United Kingdom with Norman England.

m.b.

Not really but i see *why* you think that.

Uh, because you said this:

Well UK had slavery in law

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a different beast from Norman ruled England and Wales- for a start, the Scottish part of the United Kingdom has a separate legal system.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Uh, because you said this:



The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a different beast from Norman ruled England and Wales- for a start, the Scottish part of the United Kingdom has a separate legal system.

True but last i looked in 1535 Scotland was part of the Uk legal system, (not that they didnt like to disagree on the subject every so often!!) it not being independant of the crown and was covered by the same laws, and Edward in the Statutue De Donis Conditioalbius ( the 1290 law i refered to earlier)covers this for Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the UK in more general terms, for the specifics of villiens in Uk law and was updated and applied in the Uk untill repealled.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow


True but last i looked in 1535 Scotland was part of the Uk legal system,

The United Kingdom did not exist in 1535, and Scotland was subject to its own unique legal system then as it is now:

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/whatis_frame.html

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
From what i have been told by some of your fellow candaians down in the states working, you guys dont even take reponsibility for the horrendous treatment of these indians, rather turn the tables and refer to the lot of them as thieves and criminals robbing the goverment and the folks that live there.

Uh, did you read the last paragraph of my OP?

Canada has had many shameful dealings with its aboriginal populations, and interred innocent Canadian citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, stealing their assets in the process

[Ming]

Nickiow and Pekka... CHILL.

Discuss the topic and DON'T throw around personal insults. Any more out of either of you and you are toast!

[SlowwHand]

This is why I stay out of obvious moron threads.

[The Mad Viking]

Okay, time for clarifications.

Most of you read at least the whole thread title, and understood that my premise was that the US and not Africans bore the responsibility for the slave trade between the US and Africa.

It may be telling that so many chose to ignore the implications of "not Africa" to come up with arguments to defend the US. Turn my premise into something its not so that its easier to attack...

The premise was simply that the moral responsibility for engaging in slavery is not mitigated by the fact that slaves were bought from other Africans.

Sloww, while I strongly disagree that you can compare a bag of weed that you burn and toss aside, to human being, at least you responded to the premise!

Adam Smith, you are quite right, as usual, but again it was sloppy writing on my part.

What I was trying to say (but clearly did not!) is that the keepers of slaves were the reason for the existence of the slave trade, not the other way around. So yes, Brazil is responsible for the slave trade to Brazil, and the Danish West Indies is responsible for the trade to DWI.

I'm not bashing over slavery from 2 centuries ago. Bashing over pathetic and illogical attempts to shift blame, which is still happening today.

And a note of caution wrt Lloyds Register. It should also be noted that vessels shipping contraband don't list is on their manifests. Take, for example, the Amistad, which had legitimate cargo and 40-odd slaves, who were not listed on the manifest. It is generally accepteed that catching illegal traders was not
something the US wanted to spend any money on. Notwithstanding, it is safe to say that the vast majority of the African slaves went to destinations other than the US.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



The United Kingdom did not exist in 1535, and Scotland was subject to its own unique legal system then as it is now:

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/whatis_frame.html

Ok, your telling me that Scotlands legal standing on slavery/serfdom/villiange is substanatially different from english common law, which is why Uk is misleading and i should have said english law earlier.

Problem is i dont see where that substantive difference exists in scottish law, after a quick look at the subject in more depth.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Okay, time for clarifications.

Most of you read at least the whole thread title, and understood that my premise was that the US and not Africans bore the responsibility for the slave trade between the US and Africa.

It may be telling that so many chose to ignore the implications of "not Africa" to come up with arguments to defend the US. Turn my premise into something its not so that its easier to attack...

The premise was simply that the moral responsibility for engaging in slavery is not mitigated by the fact that slaves were bought from other Africans.

Sloww, while I strongly disagree that you can compare a bag of weed that you burn and toss aside, to human being, at least you responded to the premise!

Adam Smith, you are quite right, as usual, but again it was sloppy writing on my part.

What I was trying to say (but clearly did not!) is that the keepers of slaves were the reason for the existence of the slave trade, not the other way around. So yes, Brazil is responsible for the slave trade to Brazil, and the Danish West Indies is responsible for the trade to DWI.

I'm not bashing over slavery from 2 centuries ago. Bashing over pathetic and illogical attempts to shift blame, which is still happening today.

And a note of caution wrt Lloyds Register. It should also be noted that vessels shipping contraband don't list is on their manifests. Take, for example, the Amistad, which had legitimate cargo and 40-odd slaves, who were not listed on the manifest. It is generally accepteed that catching illegal traders was not
something the US wanted to spend any money on. Notwithstanding, it is safe to say that the vast majority of the African slaves went to destinations other than the US.

good post

[Cyclotron]

Mad Viking,

It is quite easy to reject your argument, so long as you agree that slavery is unequivocably immoral. If this is so, then all actions connecting to the slave trade directly are also immoral - buying slaves, capturing slaves, selling slaves, transporting slaves, and using slaves. Therefore, both Americans and Africans, as well as any middlemen from other countries, are all culpable.