by Ramin Mazaheri
I feel sorry for Americans – they have such lousy leaders they feel compelled to defend.
I don’t mean Trump or Obama or Clinton or even JFK – I mean George Washington.
It’s really gotta be a blow to the national pride when Americans have to admit, if only to themselves: “Trump makes a fair point: the father of our country, George Washington, was a slave-owning bastard, just like Confederate leaders Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee.”
LOL, Trump deserves some sort of leftist medal: “Unwitting Service to the Advance of Leftism Despite Overwhelming Idiocy,” or something, because his recent statement has done more to push a truly leftist analysis of American history than anyone could have hoped.
Racist, imperialist, bourgeois, repressive, anti-worker, pre-modern…this describes all of the US leaders Trump mentioned . A true leftist must be a wall of stone on this point, so…kudos to Trump, no?
It’s just that Washington, Lee, Jackson and Thomas Jefferson have previously only been lumped together by modern leftist leaders like Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Khomeini, etc.
So what’s America to do? They can’t admit the truth: “It’s not George’s fault he had slaves!” And Trump – he can’t be right even if he finds a cure for cancer.
Like I said – I feel sorry for Americans: they know their emperor has no clothes…that weren’t made by slaves.
How much can an American truly identify with slave-owning George Washington? “No taxation without representation” still holds up, but what about his demand that a slave overseer be “vigilant” because, “I expect to reap the benefit of the labour myself.”
LOL, and we all know there’s much, much worse out there from dear, honest George! But it’s “bad form” to say such things out loud.
Contrarily, it’s going to be a very, very long time before Mao’s “Serve The People” slogan is outdated.
And the flustered response of the US media is just too, too priceless!
But Trump has broached the unresolved issues in American culture which Obama’s speechwriters worked with every breath to sidestep. When it was claimed that Obama’s election meant that the US was now a post-racial society, all us leftists just laughed. But how many Baby Boomers actually agreed, and patted themselves on the back for what a great job they’ve done?
The victory of Hillary would have certainly just continued Obama’s whitewashing: She would have never, ever called George Washington out as a racist, and certainly not with the blunt, irrefutable logic of Trump.
So Trump has, as predicted, has not only undermined the presidency but he has undermined all presidents, as well as the American elite’s revision of their own history.
Trump admitted you can’t explain away the reality of American Gangsterism
The reality is that only when America admits that their 18th century Founding Fathers are bourgeois, racist, anti-99%, false idols – only then can they advance to true leftism.
There’s no way around that, but there are many in the way. “American Salafists”, as I call them: People who think the US Constitution is perfect and that all we need to do is to return to living exactly as those living centuries ago originally intended.
Before I get to the hilarious way the media is trying to spin this issue, the impact goes even deeper than just media spin: How can American parents explain to their kids that Trump is totally, completely wrong?
They can’t, is the answer.
I was reminded that this very same issue was superbly handled by the greatest American dramatic TV series of all-time: The Sopranos. The scene goes like this:
It’s Columbus Day, which is mainly a day for Italian-American pride.
Tony Soprano’s weak, Millennial teenage son (named A.J.) is at the kitchen table and reading from the indispensable “A People’s History of the United States” by the leftist Howard Zinn.
A.J. doesn’t know what to make of Columbus’ written admiration of the Native Americans’ potential to…make good slaves.
A.J. – “That doesn’t sound like a slave-trader to you?”
Carmela (the Mom) – “George Washington had slaves – the father of our country.
A.J. – “What’s your point?”
Tony (the Dad) – “So you finally read a book…and it’s bulls—t!”
(LOL at Tony, he’s hilarious, and I hate gangster movies. But it’s not surprising that this sociopathic capitalist gangster waxes sympathetic for the slave-trader…)
Tony – “Look, you had to walk in Columbus’ shoes to see what he went through: They thought the world was flat, for cryin’ out loud. And he lived on an island with a bunch of naked savages and – that took a lot of guts. You remember when we went to Florida – the heat!? And those bugs?!”
A.J. – “Like it took guts to murder people and put them in chains!”
Carmela – “He was a victim of his time.”
A.J. – “Who cares? It’s what he did!”
Tony: “He discovered America, is what he did!!! He was a brave Italian explorer and, in this house, he’s a hero! End of story!!!!!”
Today, at kitchen tables across America, the always-idealistic younger generation certainly sees the truth of Trump’s comparison.
And this TV scene is exactly how the US media has responded to Trump’s statement: “George Washington was a hero and Stonewall Jackson was the real racist! End of story!!!!!”
It might help you to imagine CNN anchor, journalism industry joke and African-American Don Lemon as “Tony Soprano”. Don is trying to stifle the justified teenage outrage of “Deplorable/99%-er” A.J. And you can maybe picture MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow as Carmela, with her misplaced moral relativism and idiotic jingoism.
The media can try to completely use the whole incident as a way to discredit Trump – just as Tony can bully A.J. into silence – but the damage is already done.
Capitalist, private media can only spin in circles – it’s not socialist, state media, after all…
George Washington’s slaveholding is not an “irony” of history, nor a “paradox”, nor any other of the endless moral backflips American media is doing. I’d say they are blinded by bloodlust to discredit Trump with every teleprompted word, but it goes deeper than that.
Ever notice that you never hear the phrase “anti-imperialist” from the mouth of a mainstream American journalist?
But…isn’t that the big difference between Washington/Jefferson and Jackson/Lee?
That’s all that really divides them: Both had slaves, both upheld the system of slavery – but the former fought against British imperialism while the latter sought to divide America.
But because the US media establishment is terrified of, and probably even unequipped to properly discuss, the issue of imperialism, all they can do is hysterically act like Trump has single-handedly invented White Nationalism in 7 months.
Absurd….
Racism is indeed a key part of the foundation of America, but any leftist knows – and maybe even young A.J. now sees as well – that imperialist capitalism is the truest bedrock. America used racism to serve capitalist interests, not the other way around.
But the US media never wants to delve honesty into such realities. They don’t even want to acknowledge that imperialism exists, and they work tirelessly to fool the 99% into believing it. Just look at the very opening paragraph from a New York Times op-ed on Venezuela the day after Trump made his comparison: “No one should be worried about American military action anywhere in Latin America. The notion is risible.”
What’s laughable would be the idea that nearly ALL of Latin America doesn’t have reason to be worried about American military action, and not just Venezuela!
But…c’mon, let’s be content that Trump has unwittingly forced the US to deal with their racist idols and whitewashed history – let’s not ask for the moon and have him call into question American imperialism.
Thanks to Donald, Confederate statues are coming down!
You know that so many Blacks are DYING to say: “Trump is right! Washington was a racist bastard!”
But how many are foolishly holding their tongue in order to score points against Trump, who is already getting beaten so badly they should invoke the slaughter rule?
However, I wouldn’t recommend that an African-American back up Trump out loud in the lunchroom…if they want to keep their job. “Silent but dignified” – same old survival tactic….
For talking heads like Don Lemon, the cognitive dissonance resulting from lauding Washington and denigrating of Robert E. Lee results only in a pathetic knee-jerk nationalism. Don said that anyone supporting Trump’s words is “complicit in racism”.
Whatever Don…you’re so far behind you actually think you’re in the lead. Go cash your paycheck – you’re doing a great job for the 1%!
The only way out for everyone – not just Blacks – is true leftism: total denunciation of both Washington and Jackson, and demanding socialism’s ethnic solidarity, which capitalism has never provided. It also can never provide it, despite the propaganda efforts of people like Lemon.
For true leftists – I don’t see how Trump’s comments can’t be seen as a major positive! The idea that Trump is fomenting White Nationalism in America is like being worried about rain falling in the ocean.
And hey, a lot of Confederate statues are being hauled down! You can actually close your eyes in 2017 America and imagine its 1917 Russia! Isn’t that amazing?! This type of unreflective ancestor worship is exactly what Mao and Chinese communists fought against!
So enjoy yourself! Maybe even get a backpack together and pretend a Long March is around the corner!
But this incident proves in a serious way that the true leftists who were not browbeaten into supporting Hillary were right: Do you think one fascist statute would have fallen under Clinton II?Of course not.
Trump will always represent an advance by a retreat, which only the most rabid Pentagon warmonger could fail to understand.
But this incident proves the predictably positive leftist effect of Trumpism: Americans are increasingly forced to openly question the system, to create grassroots movements, to take an open political and moral stand, and to deal with the horrible aspects of American society that would have certainly been swept under the rug with a Hillary victory.
I’m still waiting for my predicted “Mexican Power” movement to happen, but it’s early, after all.
It’s seven steps back, one step forward with the Donald..but Hillary would have just turned on her pumps and walked away from the very start.
And Trump’s comments did another thing many people thought was impossible: it got the media off Russophobia for a few days.
Enjoy the silence and the falling statutes!
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.
The best writer on this blog, much of the drivel we find here (besides straight military analysis) is nothing but racist propaganda. Keep em’ coming Ramin. it’s just too bad that the non-aligned movement is dead. What people like you and me need is a new Bandung pact.
You know what, unconquered sun, one more such comment about ‘drivel’ or ‘racist propaganda’ here and I ban you. The only reason I do not ban you right now is that you did say that Ramin is the best writer on this blog. That much deserved compliment to him is the only reason why your post was not sent to the trash bin. But don’t try that again.
The Saker
Saker you are too kind, but that is a highly disputable opinion!
Sol, thanks for the compliment but I don’t read drivel here, and certainly The Saker doesn’t allow racism. There are plenty of writers here I enjoy and learn from, and also many readers who comment – I’m hard-pressed to name a site with such intelligent readership.
Many thanks to everyone who was nice enough to take the time to say they enjoyed this column!
And we do need a new Bandung and Tri-Continental Conference quite badly!!!!! It will happen – keep the faith, as always.
Ehhhh No estaría tan de acuerdo con lo de seguir hablando de esa verdadera izquierda. Supongo que la parte de Mao es en broma porque te harias cargo de todos los muertos y la perdida de la historia milenaria de China. Por no decir la hambruna comunista.
Es decir, la discusión izquierda- derecha en América no es competente, esta inflada, es una imposición ¡¡¡IMPERIALISTA EUROPEA¡¡¡, dejasela a los europeitos tontos y a ti, supongo, porque eres iranì ¿cierto?. Es preocupante que vengas de medio oriente y tengas esa concepción imperial instalada.
Ademas a lo de Estados Unidos no se le puede esperar mucho cuando ellos vienen mayoritariamente (creo) de un pueblo colono -inmigrante- blanco -anglosajón- bárbaro- violento… e inglés, no es que tengan mucha historia como nación porque ¡¡destruyeron a la originaria y la pusieron a manejar casinos¡¡
Translation:
Ehhhh I would not agree so much to keep talking about that real left. I guess the part of Mao is joking because you would take care of all the dead and the loss of China’s millennial history. Not to mention the Communist famine.
That is, the left-right discussion in America is not competent, it is inflated, it is an imposition! IMPERIALIST EUROPEAN !, left to the silly European and you, I suppose, because you are Iranian, right ?. It is worrisome that you come from the Middle East and you have that imperial conception installed.
In addition to the United States can not expect much when they come mostly (I think) a white-immigrant-white people-Arabians-barbarian-violent … and English, not that they have much history as a nation because they destroyed The original and put to handle casinos!
This is terrible. An Iranian criticizing americans, especially the confederate (cough) americans. What’s next? Socialized medicine for all? Oy vey…
;-D
Nice one, RM. Maybe it is time to replace the monuments to nathan bedlam forrest with trump look a like plastic blow-up dolls.
“Racism is indeed a key part of the foundation of America”
The term Racism is a quite recent invention by Zion. It doesn’t mean anything outside the divide & conquer NLP of power politics.
When I was a child, the concept that was taught in school was “ethno-centric”, referring to “Euro-centric” viewpoints most specifically, to explain injustices/inequality/bias. This concept seems to offer more opportunity for constructive action than “racism”.
Indeed, ‘euro-centric’ is superbly constructive phrase, as you said. Really one of the top creations of the PC Revolution because it makes the problem clear, and without judgment.
Behind Trump’s hyperbole and self-promoting fables are a lot of uncomfortable truths. When questioned about alleged atrocities by another country, he responded, “Are we so innocent?”
Trump is quite correct to compare Lee and Jackson with Washington and Jefferson. All were traitors and rebels for the same reason, which was to preserve the institution of slavery. The British “oppression,” against which Washington and Jefferson rebelled, was the potential enforcement of the London High Court ruling of 1772 by Chief Justice Lord Mansfield that slavery had no justification in, and was repugnant to, British law. This ruling resulted in the freeing of a slave, who had been taken to London by his “master.”
Washington sent military support to the French colonial government in Haiti to suppress the slave revolt in 1791. When the Haitian revolution of 1804 threw off French colonial rule, then President Jefferson started the traditional US response to those who displease its ruling elite by imposing sanctions. Slaves cannot be allowed to throw off their chains. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!”
Washington had another reason to rebel against British law. He was a surveyor who profited by the ethnic cleansing of native Americans and the subsequent sub-division and sale of their lands. This was forbidden by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, following the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Seven Years War, aka the French and Indian War.
Common folk were not accorded the same freedom from “oppression” that the slave-owning oligarchs expected for themselves, such as “no taxation without local representation.” In !794, Washington led a large army into the frontier to suppress the western peasants’ anti-federal-tax “Whiskey Rebellion.”
Washington, Jefferson, Lee and Jackson all behaved with astonishing courage, grace, intellect and sublime hypocrisy in their efforts to preserve slavery for the generations. On the first three characteristics are formed all the mythologizing and “ennobling” of them as great men, which obscures their perfidy and reprehensible purpose.
The Confederate States of America was the true heir of the “American Revolution.” The northern abolitionists were the apostates, and true revolutionaries.
There is a saying that”knowing only a little of history, is worse than knowing no history”. You are right that Washington and Jefferson were traitors to their nation of the time,Great Britain. But it had nothing to do with slavery. Many European countries had laws forbidding slavery inside the “home country”. While allowing slavery in their overseas colonies. Which explains the British judge’s ruling on having a slave on British home soil. But they at the time were some of the biggest slave traders in the World. It was only when the US broke away. Leaving the only slave colonies they had the small West Indian Islands. That the abolitionist movement made much progress in Britain. And they only abolished their slave trade in 1807,and then abolished slavery in their colonies in 1833 When it was shown by then to not be very profitable to continue it for that small an area. You are more “on the money” over the Indian lands issue. The American colonists expected with the French defeat in the so called “French and Indian War” .That all the lands gained from France would be opened for settlement. But the British set aside much of that land as Indian territories,and forbid settlement on them.The British also set up a whole new set of taxes on the colonies to pay for the expenses of that war. So the colonists didn’t get the lands they hoped for. And were supposed to pay the costs of the war as well. Those were the issues that led to the Revolution breaking out. Had the British won the war. And the colonies been kept. The chances are great that the slave trade wouldn’t have been abolished by the British (at least when it was). Since they would have had huge slave colonies open to their slave traders.And the new rise of the cotton industry would have called for even more slaves.Even in the US after the Revolution many people thought slavery was going to die out.But when the cotton-gin was developed it paved the way for a vast expansion of cotton growing.And gave slavery a new “lease on life” to expand to ever more lands in the Western Southern states.
ub1
“Many European countries had laws forbidding slavery inside the “home country”. While allowing slavery in their overseas colonies. Which explains the British judge’s ruling on having a slave on British home soil.”
In Britain, slavery was not a practice and had not been since the middles ages, or earlier. That explains the ruling.
“It was only when the US broke away. Leaving the only slave colonies they had the small West Indian Islands. That the abolitionist movement made much progress in Britain.”
Are you serious? See:
“Resistance by enslaved people. Enslaved people had resisted the trade since it began. However, the French Revolution brought ideas of liberty and equality, which inspired those seeking an end to slavery (for example, Toussaint L’Ouverture who led a successful slave revolt in Haiti). Major slave revolts followed (Barbados 1816, Demerara 1822 and Jamaica 1831-1832); they reduced profitability and gave a strong indication that, regardless of politicial opinion, the enslaved people were not going to tolerate enslavement. The revolts shocked the British government and made them see that the costs and dangers of keeping slavery in the West Indies were too high. In places like Jamaica, many terrified plantation owners were finally ready to accept abolition rather than risk a widespread war.
Parliamentary reform. When parliament was finally reformed in 1832, two-thirds of those who supported slavery were swept from power. The once powerful West India Lobby had lost its political strength.
Abolition campaigns and religious groups. The demand for freedom for enslaved people had become almost universal. It was now driven forward, not only by the formal abolition campaign but by a coalition of non-conformist churches as well as Evangelicals in the Church of England.”
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html
What changed was people’s attitudes, and that forced the oligarchs to adjust. The expansion of u.s. cotton production occured at the same time Britain abolished slavery. Had america remained a British colony, that would have occurred regardless.
The usa experienced a similar anti slavery ground swelling at this time, though it mainly only saw fruition in the northern states. This was a main factor in the genisis of the Republican party. A party that no longer even comes close to what they started out as, and since became the worst of what they opposed.
“And they only abolished their slave trade in 1807,and then abolished slavery in their colonies in 1833 When it was shown by then to not be very profitable to continue it for that small an area.”
Chasing Freedom: The Royal Navy and the suppression of the transatlantic slave trade
Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard
http://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/exhibitions/museums/chasing.html
“‘Between 1807 and 1860, the Royal Navy, West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1600 ships involved in the slave trade and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard these vessels.’
‘Between 1830 – 1865, approximately 1587 men died on the West Africa Squadron, from a variety of causes: disease, killed in action and accidental deaths…’
See also:
The Royal Navy and the slavers: the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade
http://www.worldcat.org/title/royal-navy-and-the-slavers-the-suppression-of-the-atlantic-slave-trade/oclc/17578
If you can find a copy. The usa outlawed importation of slaves in 1808, I believe, but essentially did jackshit to enforce it. Thanks to the high numbers of southern exceptionals in the usn (Auslander’s bragging about southern domination of us military needs acknowledged here). The author notes that usn officers, who were initially lackluster about intercepting slavers, changed their minds after encountering one, and rejoined the human race.
“But the British set aside much of that land as Indian territories,and forbid settlement on them.”
What bastards, those Brits… Of the 6 nations of the Iroquois Confederation, 4 sided with them during the “revolution”. They accurately forsaw what would happen to them if the colonists prevailed.
“The British also set up a whole new set of taxes on the colonies to pay for the expenses of that war. So the colonists didn’t get the lands they hoped for. And were supposed to pay the costs of the war as well.”
That is barbaric, preventing americans from stealing others’ lands and then having the gall to demand the sods pay for the wars they had expected to profit from. Outrageous.
“Had the British won the war. And the colonies been kept. The chances are great that the slave trade wouldn’t have been abolished by the British (at least when it was).”
No they are not, see above.
“There is a saying that”knowing only a little of history, is worse than knowing no history”.
Those who live in glass houses….
BTW, I’ve read a few accounts of British writers who traveled through the american south during the slavocracy. They were incredulous at the level of armed suppression displayed there.
“In Britain, slavery was not a practice and had not been since the middles ages, or earlier. That explains the ruling.”
Yes,hence what I said about countries having laws against it.
“Are you serious? See:…”
That again is what I said. All those events you list were “after” the US Revolution. So as I said there wasn’t the profit for them to keep slavery. If they had vast profitable slave colonies (like the US) they wouldn’t have abolished it when they did. Slaves made up over 90% of those British colonies population. So the chance of rebellions was strong. In the US slaves in the South were around 35% or less of the population (depending on the state). And since there was only one real rebellion after the Revolution in the US. That wasn’t an overriding issue. It wouldn’t have been if the British would have won either. The percentages would have stopped any meaningful rebellion from succeeding. Haiti was another case of an area almost 90% slave population. The ones to look at were Cuba and Puerto Rico. Cuba was fabulously wealthy for the Spanish in the 19th century. But while having large numbers of slaves. The population was still 56% Spanish. And the very few slave revolts they had were all total failures. As for the “groundswell” of anti-slavery feeling in the US. It wasn’t (mostly) a moral groundswell. Its not a coincidence that those areas didn’t have the soil or climate for a large scale plantation economy. And that the European settlers moving there were very racist themselves. And didn’t want blacks getting land. You may not know about that but the abolitionists were never about to get the Northern people fully behind them until the war. And even then there were anti-black riots in the North during the war.They might not have liked the idea of slavery (especially as it had nothing to do with their economy),but they weren’t for civil rights either.
” Chasing Freedom: The Royal Navy and the suppression of the transatlantic slave trade….”
You are beating a dead argument. I said they abolished the slave trade then. You seem to think showing me I was right “somehow” proves me wrong. I don’t get that thinking.As for the US abolishing it in 1808,yes? The slave population was mostly homegrown in the US after then. Some were smuggled in. But mostly those that the British were stopping were going to Cuba and Brazil,not the US.
“That is barbaric, preventing americans from stealing others’ lands and then having the gall to demand the sods pay for the wars they had expected to profit from. Outrageous.”
I don’t recall making any judgement’s on that. I actually agree with you there. But I was pointing out the “colonists reasons” behind the Revolution. And those were the reasons.
“No they are not, see above.”
Nothing you posted would make any difference with what I said.
“Those who live in glass houses….”
True there,I’d move if I was you.
“BTW, I’ve read a few accounts of British writers who traveled through the american south during the slavocracy. They were incredulous at the level of armed suppression displayed there.”
Yes,hence my point about the slave rebellions not succeeding. But there is another interesting point about that. Though many British people were horrified over that. You’ll notice they still bought as much slave produced cotton as they could get their grubby hands on.They were by far (with France) the biggest bank-rollers of the slave society in the US South. That strikes me of another “glass house” situation.
“f they had vast profitable slave colonies (like the US) they wouldn’t have abolished it when they did.”
Ub1 is one of those who think if they just keep repeating their unsupported argument, it will be accepted as fact.
The British abolished slavery before cotton production really took off in the usa. In 1830 it 750,000 bales, in 1850 it was 2,850,000, a fourfold increase.
Furthermore, cotton was mainly produced Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, texas, georgia and Louisiana. In 1830, Texas and Arkansas were not even part of the u.s. Of these Mississippi produced the most. The rest of the southern states produced little.
One can see the statistics for Mississippi here:
Cotton in a Global Economy: Mississippi (1800-1860)
http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860
MISSISSIPPI COTTON PRODUCTION
(millions of pounds)
1800 0
1833 70
1839 193.2
1849 194
1859 535.1
The data show how cotton production saw its main increase after 1830.
Note also the population breakdown for Mississippi. The slave population outnumbered the free, much greater than the 35% figure ub1 claimed as max in the slave states.
What this means is that the main economic factor behind slavery, cotton production, would not have been nearly as much of a factor in preventing the British from ending slavery as ub1 claims. By the time cotton production seriously kicked in, slavery had already been abolished by Britain.
Don’t forget that the War of Independence did not start until after the British Crown lowered its taxes on the colonies. The Boston Tea Party occurred after the Crown significantly lowered various imposts and tributes (even going as far as to eliminate some). Then the organisers of the Tea Party realised that their days of profiting by smuggling and/or possessing crony franchises were effectively finished. They sought to gain control of the levers of power and right fast. This “revolution” was the same as pretty much every other “revolution”- an effort by a few manipulators to take charge of the evils of government to convert same to their own purposes.
While it is correct that one can and should conclude that there was a lot more to the situation than what is discussed in the myth taught in US junior and middle schools, it is also correct that the socialist analysis are just as bereft of substance, let alone truth. Both trivialise the occurrences of the time in similar fashion. They engage in twisting history to suit a particular political viewpoint, omitting inconvenient facts, garnishing and fabricating shallow anecdotes, manufacturing banal propaganda, excessive simplifications, emotionalism and worst of all, the imposition of a goodies versus baddies version of the events of the time (this is called “pugilist history”, some call it the WWF method of historical discourse, but calling it that is demeaning to the WWF).
What is more than a little important right at the present is that the national mythology of the USA is being lowered to disrepute. Belief in its binding good and the “higher principle” it illustrates is collapsing. When the people of a region no longer believe in the same foundational stories, when the cultural “glue” that holds them in community starts to disappear, they come to see there isn’t that much in common between them any more. They have differing interests which often are in competition. They do not hold or even value common principles any longer. The situation is unstable and resolution is wanted.
This leads to alternatives. One (the most likely) is a power grab by one group which then imposes its will upon all the others. This is the path to violence, authoritarianism and eventual totalitarianism. From that it is merely a matter of time before perdition, ruin and collapse (this period of time can be many decades, generations even, but it is an inevitability). This is the classic path of such political systems as communism, national socialism, socialism in general actually. It is ruinous, backward and full of human suffering, yet it is the one pretty much all your ancestors selected and to be fair, pretty much each (not every one but by far the majority) of those readers and contributors here embrace in the present time. Surely, one would consider, there is something better than yet more of the same destructive farce which has played out again and again and again. And there is.
“Ub1 is one of those who think if they just keep repeating their unsupported argument, it will be accepted as fact.”
I see you aren’t a big believer in using common sense with history. If a country is making a fortune doing something. They aren’t going to stop doing it. Just how hard can that be to understand that. The British fought a war to keep the American Colonies. And were “especially” concerned to keep the money making Southern ones. Do you think they just wanted “extra acreage” for a summer home. They wanted the slave produced crops for the British market. Want kind of “evidence” do you need for something so self-evident.
“The British abolished slavery before cotton production really took off in the usa. In 1830 it 750,000 bales, in 1850 it was 2,850,000, a fourfold increase.”
First,slavery wasn’t all about cotton during the British days in the US (it was very little about that). The great slave produced wealth in the South was tobacco,rice,indigo,then cotton. You are actually proving my point for me. When the British saw they had no real need for the slaves with the US gone. They abolished slavery in their colonies.Had they still had the US,and saw the constant yearly rise in cotton production. Its almost certain they wouldn’t have done that.Like all Empires, wealth comes before morality.And the British certainly weren’t any different.
“Note also the population breakdown for Mississippi. The slave population outnumbered the free, much greater than the 35% figure ub1 claimed as max in the slave states.”
I gave you the “overall” figure for slaves in the South’s population. And also said “depending” on the state it was different. You shouldn’t leave out things to change meanings.Of the “cotton states” Mississippi,Alabama,Georgia,South Carolina,Florida,were under British rule at the time of the revolution. And had the British won,it would have almost been certain they would have taken some lands from the Spanish who backed the rebels. Probably those would have been the old French territories that Spain got earlier from France.So only Texas (maybe) would not have been gained by the British.Assuring the cotton lands a lot of room to expand,as they did under the US. Why do you feel the need to argue a losing opinion on slavery. Is it because maybe you are British. And don’t want to see that they ended slavery because of not needing it. Than under some higher “moral” principles. I “feel” for you there. I hate to think of my country’s faults too. But admitting is better than denial. Leave that for a river in Egypt.
Sorry,I’ll have to end this conversation. I won’t be back anymore today,have work.
Usually, Uncle Bob 1, I do not trouble myself to argue with an entrenched opinion, especially that which relies on fallacies of logic, such as ad hominem and tu quoque techniques, together with deflections for counter arguments, and also when little other interest from the thread readers is expressed. In this most informative forum, one is best to leave the the matter to the intelligence of the readers to fact check and to come to their own opinion about accuracy. However, vot tak’s erudite comments have prompted me to expand a little more.
The paraphrasing of Alexander Pope’s aphorism that, “a little knowledge is dangerous thing,” is also disingenuous in that comments here should be relatively brief. The comment section is not the place for monumental treatises. Unfortunately, those not inclined to conducting their own deeper investigation and fact checking, and perhaps just more interested in contradicting, will counter either as you have done by deflection or by the trolling technique of demanding more and more evidence.
I won’t dispute that the British took their own sweet time to enforce Lord Mansfield’s ruling, and for whatever reasons please you to believe. It is all irrelevant and well after the fact to the motivations for the “American Revolution.” What is relevant are the perceptions of the Tidewater plantation owners immediately after that ruling. There is a great deal of extant correspondence from these oligarchs in university archives, which spell out their apprehension about just when the British might start enforcing the ruling, and their need to take action to pre-empt its implementation. There are also many articles exploring this correspondence in the dusty tomes of learned journals of American history lining university library shelves.
Further, there is also extant correspondence by Washington to other land traders complaining about the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and advising on the means to evade its conditions. The proclamation was a barrier to the unrestrained annexation of indigenous lands by the oligarchs, but it it set out a due process to allow settlement under the very conservative principles that all are equal before the law and that indigenous property rights should also receive equal respect and protection under the law. The proclamation was international law, since it arose as a condition of the Treaty of Paris.
The proclamation process was that followed in the subsequent settlement of Canada by the descendants of the American loyalist refugees, who had found a home there after being driven out of their homes and businesses in the states by vicious persecution after the “peace” settlement of 1783. The proclamation is the foundational document of the Canadian Constitution, and indigenous land claims proceeding to court out of the abuses of treaty agreements rely on its letter and spirit.
Of course, in the pursuit any nation’s particular sense of self interest, international law can be a serious inconvenience. Lord Justice Simon of Glaisdale wrote that, no matter how imperfect, apparently unfair or inconvenient the law may appear to be, “it would be far more disagreeable to substitute the rule of caprice for that of law.” Unfortunately, the more powerful a nation becomes, the less regard it is likely to show for international law.
Zbigniew Brzezinski phrased it this way, “[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia… the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power… The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power.”
The great French, conservative, political and economic theorist, Frédéric Bastiat, made this observation, “Quand la raison publique égarée honore ce qui est méprisable, méprise ce qui est honorable, punit la vertu et récompense le vice, encourage ce qui nuit et décourage ce qui est utile, applaudit au mensonge et étouffe le vrai sous l’indifférence ou l’insulte, une nation tourne le dos au progrès, et n’y peut être ramenée que par les terribles leçons des catastrophes.”
I suggest that the issues of the frontier were of little concern to the Tidewater oligarchs, once the threat from the French had been removed. The hills and hollows of the Appalachian mountains offered little profit until much, much later, when their mineral resources were recognized. However, the need to recruit cannon fodder, to fill the ranks of the Continental Army for the “revolution,” led to propagandizing of the poor white frontiersmen very much along the technique expressed so succinctly by Herman Goering at Nuremberg.
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but, after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
The poor Continently Army soldiers were paid with a fiat script, the Continentals, which were rendered valueless immediately after the war, and by other IOUs and debt instruments, which were cheaply accumulated by speculators from those desperate for any real money. Alexander Hamilton arranged for the speculators to profit immensely. Then, taxes were demanded from the same penniless frontiersmen, who had been duped of their army pay, to pay off the speculators. Thus, the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Civil War followed much the same pattern. The northern industrial oligarchs wanted to place tariffs on southern trade for protection from European competition, and to keep the southern market to themselves, but sold the war as a moral crusade to abolish slavery. The southern oligarchs wanted to expand slavery to the west and elsewhere, to open up new markets for their immensely profitable slave breeding and trading, and free trade to lower their import costs. They sold the war as an attack on states’ rights and southern “honour.” Both armies were paid with a fiat script, which declined in value throughout the war, and, after the war, to nothing in the case of Confederate script and to still having some small value, but not nearly equal to gold or silver, for Federal Greenbacks.
I recommend the book, “White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” by Nancy Isenberg to learn how poor whites have been continuously manipulated by the US elites since the first settlements. It does cast some light on what is happening today. Major General Smedley Butler’s assertion that “War is a Racket” Is a universal truth.
To address one point: regardless of what any may think, the southern secession de facto had the effect of ending any thoughts of expansion of slavery.
By this act (secession) the southern states, which numbered only 7 in the confederacy until Lincoln’s actions on fort sumter), were effectively boxed in by union states or union territories. Unless the confederacy could defeat the union in a war, which no reasonable minds thought possible, there would be no expansion of slavery.
Southern leaders knew this. They did not seek war. They naively believed that they could secede and be left alone. Little did they realize that the US had become Hotel California (you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave)!!
Interesting ,you start out by insulting me. Then complaining about long posts. And end with pretty much saying (using different words of course) what I said. And writing as long, if not a longer post than mine.I salute you though,that quip conflating rebutting falsity with truth,by calling it “deflecting” was very clever.
I will only add a couple of points to your post (since I agree with it mostly. How could I not as it agree’s with mine,lol).
On the judge’s decision:
“Mansfield is best known for his judgment in Somersett’s Case on the legality of keeping slaves in England. The English had been involved in the slave trade since 1553, and by 1768, ships registered in Liverpool, Bristol and London carried more than half the slaves shipped in the world (ouch,more that half the slaves shipped in the World,hmmm).”
“This was not an end to slavery, as this only confirmed it was illegal in England and Wales, not in the rest of the British Empire. (Almost exactly what I said,BTW) As a result of Mansfield’s decision, between 14,000 and 15,000 slaves were immediately freed in England, some of whom remained with their masters as paid employees. The decision was apparently not immediately followed; Africans were still hunted and kidnapped in London, Liverpool and Bristol to be sold elsewhere.”
“Mansfield was so uncertain about how it would be applied that he specified in his 1793 will that his “mulatto” great-niece Dido Elizabeth Belle was to be considered a free woman. (She had been born into slavery as the illegitimate daughter of his nephew in the West Indies but lived with him and his wife for 30 years.)In addition, advertisements from the 1770s show that slaves continued to be bought and sold in England. Mansfield referred to slaves in his judgment in a later case. Although slavery was not completely abolished in the British Empire until 1834, Mansfield’s decision is considered to have been a significant step in recognizing the illegality of slavery.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield#Somersett.27s_Case
His ruling was in 1772. Meaning even without the US the British didn’t abolish slavery for over 50 years after that. Just how concerned to you think the slave owners should have been in Virginia. But leaving that aside for now (I think we both know they wouldn’t be shaking in their boots over Mansfield). Lets look at another interesting fact. The US Revolution didn’t start out in the South. In fact they were slow about it to some extend. And several of the richest most powerful slave owners in those colonies were “Tories” and lost their lands and wealth because of that. During and after the Revolution.
Its been said about the American Revolution,that 1/3 of people were loyal to Britain,1/3 were for the Revolution,and the other 1/3 were neutral and didn’t care who won as long as the war ended.That’s impossible to prove,but probably pretty close.Unlike the Northern colonies.Almost all the South’s “money” economy was in exports to Europe or other British colonies. So along with new arrivals,and government officials,they had a vested interest in the British connection.And there was the fear of a slave uprising also making some think loyalty to Britain was important. The Northern colonies,had more an American based economy. And had a large shipping business of their own,with ties outside Britain also.Which was held back by British trade rules.And had very few slaves to worry about revolting on them.So “at first”,they were more susceptible to thinking about independence. The Revolution broke out in the North (New England).
But then many Southerns became involved as well. And ended up with probably the largest number of leaders of the Revolution coming from there (certainly in the military field). Most of them from Virginia,the most populous of all the colonies at the time. Off the top of my head,I’d say,half the US main founders were from Virginia. With the total North making up almost the other half. The rest of the Southern colonies giving the few left. At first they talked about “home rule” instead of outright independence.The talk was about the “rights of Englishmen”. It was those in the North,and a few in the South,that then turned to full independence. In that time except for the Netherlands (and depending how you judge it,Switzerland) no Western country since Cromwell’s time.Had been a full Republic. No one knew what to think about not having a monarch to rule them.The US was “charting new waters” when they declared a republic.And they had 13 different colonies to join together.We can’t all agree many times on things here.Imagine getting 13 sets of elites to agree on forming a united country. Not an easy job.So to make it easier they gave the new “states” a large amount of home rule (states rights) which ended up causing lots of trouble when the states didn’t agree on some issue. But it was the only way at the time to get them to agree on forming the Union.
As the Revolution went along. And with the British losing (after the French and Spanish entered the war). Many of the Tory group either fled to Britain,the West Indies,or Canada. And the majority,switched sides,or moved West to make a new start in the frontier areas. Some of the other groups joined them moving West as well. Starting the first big push to open up the West (the West as it was then).
But as I said,I agree with much of your comment. And certainly with the last three sections of it.
Anonymous 2
“Usually, Uncle Bob 1, I do not trouble myself to argue with an entrenched opinion, especially that which relies on fallacies of logic, such as ad hominem and tu quoque techniques, together with deflections for counter arguments, and also when little other interest from the thread readers is expressed. In this most informative forum, one is best to leave the the matter to the intelligence of the readers to fact check and to come to their own opinion about accuracy. However, vot tak’s erudite comments have prompted me to expand a little more.”
Couldn’t agree more. Your analysis is a breath of fresh air here. Cheers and thanks.
Slavery was not and is not the worst practice of man.
Leftists of course seize upon it as such, to advance their own quest for power. When in power they exercise power the same as their enemies.
Maybe not. But it sure ranks pretty high on the list of those.
You may be right.
I am curious as to how you rank slavery in comparison to other heinous practices of “man.”
Katherine
My first thought was: I wonder how the enslaved would view that airy statement. I am assuming that you have no first-hand experience to base it on?
I would also like to know which heinous practices would rank higher for you than being owned body and soul, as chattel, by another human being?
Great article as usual, Mr Mazaheri, a breath of fresh air.
Actually, I’ve seen the most reactions of mock horror when discussing slavery from free-market types. In some sense, it almost appears that the visceral gut reaction to the idea of slavery as one of the Great Evils of mankind (comparable perhaps to the Holocaust) is a result of what would be nowadays called a psyop. The purpose being to avoid examining and excuse the horrendous working conditions endemic in 19th century industrial society; e.g. child labor for long hours in very dangerous jobs. Lysander Spooner is interesting reading for these questions.
To be clear, I do NOT condone slavery. Nevertheless, if one compares a slave with such a child some interesting points can be made. True, a slave is property. But because of this, his owner has made a capital investment to acquire him and has a vested interest to maintain the value of his investment. The slave must be fed, clothed, sheltered, etc. True, at perhaps an extreme level of poverty but it remains in the interest of his owner to maintain him as alive and productive. The child worker has no such consideration from his employer. He can be overworked piteously with no risk to that employer. Should he become no longer useful through disability or sickness he can simply be dismissed and another hired.
True, the child worker is “free” whereas the slave is not. Spooner makes the case that the freedom to choose one’s master is really no freedom at all.
Spooner is interesting but wrong. The freedom to make choices, however limited (they are always limited) and preferably informed choices, is all we’ve got.
Have you read the excellent article on ‘freedom’ posted a few days ago by Naresh Jotwani?
Ihave read those arguments.
And they are valid for purposes of comparing working conditions and actual living conditions.
But still, it is apples and oranges.
For one thing, not all slaves are children, so you are comparing the existential life conditions of adults and children.
If given a choice, many adults would probably choose a life of slavery if it carried a promise of a longer and healthier life than one of “wage slavery” in a factory or as, say, a sharecropper in the South. But I doubt that slaves and serfs actually ever get this choice. That *is* the prime condition of slavery or serfdom, after all. You are owned. You don’t get to make any kind of choice. Or imprisonment. Or being sent to the Gulag.
And this is also the primary issue with child labor. Basically these children do not get any choice. They are de facto slaves because they are children and in effect have no choices (unless they run away, which some children have had the strength and initiative to do). So, not sure what your point is with child labor.
And I am not sure what your point is either. I ran away as a child–I made a choice as soon as I was aware that it was possible. I decided then that I would prefer death (melodramatic, I know, but then I was only 15) to returning to that state which horrible but was not even close to true slavery. I did have options and used them once I had figured that out.
Slaves are often born into slavery, bred like domestic animals for profit. Their children and their children’s children similarly belong to the master—no options at all, ever. I can’t think of anything worse and would still prefer death.
You said ” many adults would probably choose a life of slavery if it carried a promise of a longer and healthier life than one of “wage slavery” in a factory “.
I say ” Doubtful, but bully for them if that’s what they freely choose” but I personally wouldn’t take that chance, on a promise from a profiteering slave-owner.
I was a union organiser my entire long working life, I never met a worker, however dumb, who would freely opt for true slavery. What wonderful unknown benefits of slavery have we been missing all these years? (rhetorical question)
I’m out of this conversation.
In referring to “horrendous working conditions endemic in 19th century industrial society” it is common for commentators to ignore what people of the time faced as the alternative. Do not forget where the people who worked in industry came from. They came from the land, the countryside where the conditions for survival were far worse. Industrialisation, powered by capitalism, bought them significant improvement and advantage. As wealth increased so conditions improved. Tellingly, even Marx admitted this.
I think when Friedrich refers to things worse than slavery he means things like the organised murder of many, many people. You know, the stuff government bought humanity during the last century, like democide.
Who is Friedrich? I’m baffled.
Ah, got it. Apologies, and no need to post this or my previous query.
@Racism is indeed a key part of the foundation of America
It is indeed. Practically it was inscribed in the Constitution by the most liberal and enlightened ‘Founding Fathers’, so keen to promote ‘human rights’ to all and sundry by means of guillotine, gallows and firing squads (wasn’t Thomas Jefferson the mastermind of the ‘French’ Revolution, when he was Ambassador to France?).
“The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states”.
It took almost a century and a civil war to come to:
“The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress.
The amendment’s first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little”.
and to:
“The Naturalization Act of 1870 … that created a system of controls for the naturalization process and penalties for fraudulent practices. It is also noted for extending the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” Due to anti-Chinese sentiment in the western sta “tes, other non-white persons were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per the Naturalization Act of 1790”.
It is ironical (?) that all the horrible ‘racist’ misdeeds for which the ‘Nazi doctors’ have been hauled to courts, have been invented by the American ‘eugenists’ (including the ‘gas chambers’) to eliminate the ‘undesirable genetically defective’.
For example (and it is from the Wikipedia!): “one of the methods that was suggested to get rid of “defective germ-plasm in the human population” was euthanasia. A 1911 Carnegie Institute report explored eighteen methods for removing defective genetic attributes, and method number eight was euthanasia. The most commonly suggested method of euthanasia was to set up local gas chambers. However, many in the eugenics movement did not believe that Americans were ready to implement a large-scale euthanasia program, so many doctors had to find clever ways of subtly implementing eugenic euthanasia in various medical institutions. For example, a mental institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk infected with tuberculosis (reasoning that genetically fit individuals would be resistant), resulting in 30–40% annual death rates. Other doctors practiced euthanasia through various forms of lethal neglect.
In the 1930s, there was a wave of portrayals of eugenic “mercy killings” in American film, newspapers, and magazines. In 1931, the Illinois Homeopathic Medicine Association began lobbying for the right to euthanize “imbeciles” and other defectives. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938.”
You are right,racial discrimination was high in the US. As it also was in Australia as I recall. And I think the Aboriginal population in Australia might have the opinion it still is.Long after the US civil war.There are pictures of Aboriginal captives in chains in Australia. And in Queensland there was a trade in Kanaka laborers. Maybe not called slaves “officially”. But being kidnapped from your homeland,loaded on ships,sold as “indentured” labor to planters. Certainly sounds a lot like regular old slavery to me. As the saying goes “a Rose by any other name,still smells as sweet”.And it wasn’t “that’ long ago” that an Australian politician coined the phrase when talking of the possibility of Chinese immigration to Australia,”two Wong’s don’t make a White”. So yes,the US certainly has dark pages in its history. But that is true of almost every other country. And Australia is one of them.
@Australia is one of them
Of them WASP, to be more precise.
First time I’ve ever heard George Washington called an ‘imperialist’. Somewhere the ghost of King George is ROFLOL.
Well, Washington is an anti-imperialist to Americans…but an imperialist to everyone else (except England)!
I LOVE Ramins articles. Making one laugh in face of disaster is big art (not to mention the original thoughts).
Thanks!
Another great one, Ramin! We were being brainwashed already in 1776!
Thanks Deena!
Hi Ramin,
Slavery implies a form ownership of human beings.
I have two questions for you:
1. Do you consider serfdom in the feudal sense a form of slavery? If yes, then how is the feudal system that existed in Europe different to US system of slavery?
2. Why could the residents of the Soviet block not leave their country? Why was there a wall in Berlin? Because under the communist system, the state considered all resources: mineral, economic, AND human as belonging to the state. So how is that not a form of slavery?
Slavery has existed throughout history and even exists today. You have work slaves, debt slaves, sex slaves etc. The reason the African-american slavery was particularly cruel is because it forever linked their skin color to the stigma of slavery (i.e. that their ancestors were slaves in in the US) This is an issue of social integration specific to African-americans. Slavery as an issue however, is a general, world problem, exists in all systems capitalist and communist, and has affected all races and both sexes to a certain extent.
Hi Serbian Girl,
1) There certainly were many important similarities between the feudal slavery in Europe and the racial slavery in the US: tied to the land, subject to unfair punishment, bound in poverty – the list goes on and on. I wouldn’t say that Europe has any major high horse to stand on – it just seems that the New World has always had a notch higher of intensity when it came to human-on-human cruelty, probably due to the presence of aboriginals and the immediate need to conquer them.
2) The Soviets’ denial of people to travel is not anywhere close to slavery. It’s a denial of a human right, but hardly “slavery’. It’s not as if the human right of “free borders” exists anywhere in the West today – try going somewhere without a visa.
To me, you seem to drawing rather facile parallels between the real experience of “slavery” and “slavery” as a mental or philosophical state, which leads me to…
3) I don’t think that you can call “work slaves” of today the same as 19th century slaves. One may be “in jail” in their mind, existentially…but one still can go outside and look at a tree, whereas a literal prisoner cannot. There is a huge qualitative difference between the level of subjugation. This is a good thing – there HAS been progress. But there is much left to do.
4) There is no doubt in my mind that communism is the only of the 2 major economic systems which can – if left unmolested and given a chance to succeed – end the historical practice of slavery, both literal and figurative. Capitalism can never do that. The freedom of the West today is based in a large part upon the stealing of wages in the 3rd world, still.
Its never a good idea to adopt a “holier than thou” attitude about history. Its best to just admit that crimes were committed and that they were terrible. And try not to repeat them. That is my problem with the US today. Not that they committed past crimes.We all know they did,so why deny them. But that they haven’t learned from the past that its wrong to do that. And commit more crimes today.
But as to why its wrong to adopt a holier than thou attitude. I’m about to explain to you. I’m not sure you are aware of it. But the Prophet Mohammed held slaves,some say though I’m not sure of it. That he was at times a slave trader.Someone could say,”oh but that was a different time”. Yes it was,and so was Washington’s day a different time. So I don’t think that’s a good excuse using your own thinking. Are we now going to downgrade Mohammed,and people start being ashamed of him because he was a slave owner.Somehow I doubt you will condemn him over that.
Now lets look at a few other points, Iran abolished slavery only in 1929 with the “Iranian Slavery Abolition Act of 1929”. What is that? That would mean slavery was only abolished in Iran 66 years “after” it was in the US.
China abolished slavery in 1906,43 years after the US.
Korea 1894,31 years after the US..
India,1843 under British pressure,only 20 years before the US.
Britain,1833,only 30 years before the US..
France,1848,only only 15 years before the US..
Portugal,1869,6 years after the US..
Netherlands,1863,the same year as the US.
Brazil,1888,25 years after the US.
Spanish colonies ,1886,23 years after the US.
And the often called Russian internal “slavery” ,serfdom 1861.
I could go on with all other countries. But I think these examples are enough right now.
So yes,it is a really,really,bad idea to adopt a holier than thou attitude over history. Someone is certain to show you why that’s true.
Many people also think that slaves were held only in the Southern portion of the USA.
Actually, slaves were held in all states of the Union for shorter or longer periods of time.
“Beginning during the revolution and in the first two decades of the postwar era, every state in the North abolished slavery, ending with New Jersey in 1804. These were the first abolitionist laws in the Atlantic World.[47][48]
In Massachusetts, slavery was successfully challenged in court in 1783 in a freedom suit by Quock Walker; he said that slavery was in contradiction to the state’s new constitution of 1780 providing for equality of men. Freed slaves were subject to racial segregation and discrimination in the North, and it took decades for some states to extend the franchise to them.[49]
Most northern states passed legislation for gradual abolition, first freeing children born to slave mothers (and requiring them to serve lengthy indentures to their mother’s masters, often into their 20s as young adults). As a result of this gradualist approach, New York did not fully free its last ex-slaves until 1827, Rhode Island had seven slaves still listed in the 1840 census. Pennsylvania’s last ex-slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut’s in 1848, and New Hampshire and New Jersey in 1865.[50]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Exactly,facts little understood in today’s World. Here is another very interesting fact. While its impossible with total accuracy to count the number of slaves from the slave trade. Most historians say that around 12-13 million slaves were sent to the America’s over the period of slavery (around 17 million were part of the Arab slave trade not involving the America’s). Of the number sent to the America’s only 10% (or less) went to the areas that are now the US.Meaning that 90% or over went to non-US areas of the Americas. And yet the majority of talk I see is about the US slave trade. Having lived in Cuba for a time. And studied their history.I can say that the importance of slavery in that country was much more than in the US.And from their histories that is true of most Caribbean and Atlantic Latin America as well:
“Well over 90 percent of enslaved Africans were imported into the Caribbean and South America. Only about 6 percent of African captives were sent directly to British North America. Yet by 1825, the US had a quarter of blacks in the New World.”
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery
The reason that last part of the statement is true. Was because the climate,food,and work load,of the slaves was much worse in those other areas than the US. They also imported a much heavier number of men compared to women in their imports (because of the factors I mentioned). So the numbers of children were less over the years than in the US.And live expectancy among the slave population much lower.
UB1
Interesting comment and reasonable enough as far as it goes. Add to it that the historian must always be a moral judge. One must investigate and learn from the history so as to avoid repetition of the immoralities which occurred in the past. Remember that in order to be able to learn from history there is no avoiding the necessity of being a judge and a moral one at that.
Slavery is an immorality since it is based on coercion and violence perpetrated upon and by its victims. It would be and is immoral to repeat.
I do not have slaves, nor did my ancestors back as far as we have been able to trace our family. On this topic the family can claim the “holier than thou attitude” over many others with strong justification. Nevertheless, I often point out that a person is not responsible for what his or her ancestors did, only for what that person did or does. There can be no collective guilt for the past or present. You are only responsible for what you do. It is best, therefore, to learn to live a moral life. Don’t ever be an agent introducing coercion and violence into other people’s lives. So, as for history, the best that can be done is to understand it, learn from it, apply the lessons, emulate the good and avoid the bad.
I’d have to know which country and ethnic people you came from to truly comment on that. But if you come/came from Western Europe your ancestors had a connection to slavery. Those countries almost all at one time either had slave colonies. Or at least were involved in some way with the slave trade. And if your ancestors wore cotton clothes,smoked tobacco,ate sugar,or ate or drank chocolate,or drank coffee. And in Southern Europe like Italy ate rice. Its almost certain they had a connection with slavery to some extend. Those products almost all came from the labor of slaves in that period. And were imported into Europe.Its wonderful and correct to hate slavery. But its not good to be blind to the truth of the past. And think “oh no,it wasn’t me,it was that other guy”. With the evils of slavery there is enough blame from the past for most people to have their own fair share.
Polynesia. One specific island paradise in the vast and beautiful Pacific! You’d really have to live here for a while to really appreciate how very most good it all is. But no, that is not the key take-home point at all! The key point is this, a person is not responsible for what his or her ancestors did, only for what that person did or does.
While our extended family has a consistently honourable and moral history such that members can take the “holier than thou” high ground should they want, it is vastly more important that any individual member lives up to the high standards already set and strives to live a consistently moral life rather than relaxing in self-satisfaction of what relatives happened to have done in past times.
See, most of the ancestors are dead and gone now. There is nothing they can do for anyone any more. What are left for us are the memories of them and the examples they set for us to learn from. When the Matai says “First perfect your own life”, that is an admonishment to be very aware how one lives, since one is responsible for what one does. It is an admonishment of a very wise teacher that is well listened to and carefully though on.
Remember that there is no collective guilt passed forward onto anyone from out of history. There is no historical excuse- no excuse reaching back into the generations now gone available to any of us presently which can justify poor decisions, rash actions or immoral behaviours done today. You are always responsible for what you decide to do. Apart from anything else, those who come after you are going to have your memory to reflect upon and learn from. Best make it a good one.
In conclusion, a person should not assume guilt for something they did not do. They can’t validly be blamed for something they didn’t do. Unless a person is actively forcing other people to slavery, then they are not responsible for that travesty and can’t possibly be guilty of it. Learn from the history by all means. Use its lessons to avoid making the same mistakes or doing the same evils. Live a moral life. That is the challenge that faces you. It faces each and every person.
Si
What I find ridiculous is all the talk about the past and how evil slaveru is but modern day slavery exists and you don’t anyone discussing fighting it or sanctioning countries who support modern day slavery.
The fact is we are all modern day slaves in varying degress by the amount of debt we hold and taxes we pay.
ActivePatriot
Good point. Well said.
Si
You know Mazaheri is dead nuts right. It’s like Trump just pointed to Zinn’s ‘People’s History’ and gave it a big validation.
I say leave the monuments up by change the plaques to identify the real attributes of these slave owning imperialists and their deception of the people as to the real intent of the America way. And should anyone think that slavery has gone away they need to take a real good look at the American system today.
BRF
“I say leave the monuments up by change the plaques to identify the real attributes of these slave owning imperialists and their deception of the people as to the real intent of the America way.”
That is actually what many communities have been doing. A great many of the historical monuments in the usa further false history (propaganda) and people have been working to clean these up and set the record straight for decades. Not just civil war monuments, but all sorts. It’s a large problem in the usa, where history is mostly propaganda.
In the ziomedia, quite a bit of the hysteria masksll this aspect as the work, with both media and politicos promoting hyperbole to create conflict, especially racial conflict. All week the zionazi xenophobic circle jerk and mutual handjob network (pindo “conservative” talk radio) has been wall to wall “blacks and leftists want destroy our sacred heritage and emasculate us white folk cause they hate america”.
There is no doubt the usual zionazi elements are hard at work manipulating both sides, confederates and antifa types, to create conflict here, as part of their long-standing strategy to keep people fighting against each other and divided.
I don’t really give a damn about the Founding Fathers owning slaves. What I do care about is trying to restore the Constitution they created, which has been dismembered and disregarded during the Bush and Obama regimes (as well as with the recent Congressional coup).
All this media noise is the deep state working to remove Trump and divide the US citizenry. As the Saker has said, the deplorables hate the Federal government. We are fast approaching a day when that hate will turn to action.
sorry I read the first lines and I’m so sick of hearing people laughing at Trump and Americans…didn’t finish it
A well-written Piece – but for the sake of completeness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran#Modern_Period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranian
Let’s not parade too much on our high horse here.
From/for such a great site, where I learned words such as zionazi, I propose that from now on we use 1%% instead of 1%.
1%% : the mofos that behind the scenes call the shots based on ancient knowledge (millenia) and recent investigation (centuries)
Mathematically, to talk about those that rule but can’t be named, it would even make more sense to talk about 1%%%
That would be about apx. 7000 people, pulling the strings and taking unfair advantages against the rest of the population, the other 99.9999%.
Alas I recall the mouses electing cats analogy from Canada parlamentary. 50 years ago?
At least today there is much more awareness than those days, for better and worse technology has brought together awesome tools.
For better and worst everything is just faster these days.
People of the world, unite, and recover the world from the 1%% lunatics that promote war and chaos for profit!
When Trump said about racism it’s not his heroic act but follow the elite behind him that they don’t want American imperialism anymore.It’s time to crash it from inside. They built it end they will destroy it and throw into the garbage. It won’t happen just easily but with nuclear war that we have been talking about . It’s time for Israel to come behind the curtain to rule the world from Jerusalem. Folks buckle up . The time is approaching to change the world map. May be more smaller?!