Apologies For Slavery

**Timeseer** · 12 Mar 07, 19:28

Originally Posted by tanz

I agree with everything you guys are saying but you are looking at it on a personal level.

I understand that you have seen it as a personal level, but I consider it as a realistic level. Why should people appologize for things they haven't done? In addition, having a selected group of people responsible continually for something that was done in the past would only continue racial tensions. As it would make white people continually a target of mistreatment and therefore they will eventually become the oppressed majority. In certain communities, they already are the oppressed majority.

No person should have to apologize because as I stated none of us are responsible for the injustice. If we look at it on a broader social level the U.S. as an institution is responsible for slavery and an acknowlegement of this and apology is a step in the right direction.

That's not true. You have to understand that the United States Government didn't bring these people into slavery. They simply just kept them as slaves and then later freed them with the 13th amendment. The United States Government has nothing to apologize for, but those African Kingdoms should apologize, if there is by any means for them to apologize. In case you weren't aware, slavery was practiced in Africa well before the colonial age and it was these African Kingdoms that sold their own slavers or people to the European Powers, which is how slavery in the Americas had started. If anyone should apologize it should be those kingdoms.

There are 2 ways of looking at the present situation. First that Blacks are inferior and their fractured culture is just an example of this inability to "get it together". Second the social problems exibited by the black culture are a direct result of extreme injustice that will take many more generations to heal.

Black culture has already healed since it began obtaining civil rights. The only parts of this country that should apologize to the black community are those that continue prejudicism towards blacks.

I personally believe the latter. You know I didn't cause the problem and neither did you but the problem exists. I believe the first step is the acknowledgement that the U.S. did this and that it was wrong.

Did what? There was slavery here before there even was a United States.

As far as the Irish they were subjugated by the Norman invasion of 1169 and considered a Brittish colony in 1541 and while it's people were considered serfs they were never enslaved.

A serf is a slave. They are owned by the land, just like a slave.

Not to say atrocities were not committed but the Irish were not taken as slaves.

Serf is just a synonym for slave.

The slaves of the United States were owned by the land and worked on that land. The serfs of Russia were owned by the land and worked on that land.

Where is the difference?

**ExNavyAmerican** · 12 Mar 07, 19:36

As far as the Irish they were subjugated by the Norman invasion of 1169 and considered a Brittish colony in 1541 and while it's people were considered serfs they were never enslaved. Not to say atrocities were not committed but the Irish were not taken as slaves.

Ireland, like everywhere else in Europe at one time or another, was subjected to Feudalism. Feudalism was servitude, but was not slavery: there is a difference. And Ireland was not considered a colony; it was a separate kingdom. Until 1708, I believe, the monarchs were called the (from male perspective) King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (it is my understanding that Wales was already greatly incorporated into England). After that time, the monarch was called, King of Great Britain, and Ireland. Finall in 1800 (or was it 1801) the title was changed to King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. My point is that the Irish were never considered colonials. They were always a kingdom after Henry II invaded.

**ExNavyAmerican** · 12 Mar 07, 19:38

As far as apologizing, why don't the Moslems apologize? Parts of the Moslem world only banned slavery 20 years ago. So wy don't they apologize?

**Timeseer** · 12 Mar 07, 20:10

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Ireland, like everywhere else in Europe at one time or another, was subjected to Feudalism. Feudalism was servitude, but was not slavery: there is a difference.

Where is the difference? Servitude? Slavery is a type of servitude economic system. I guess you weren't aware that these people were forced to work on the land and were hunted down if they should ever leave. That was generally how the servitude system started. Lords would sack village or two and rally up the survivors to become serfs. This is no way different to how slaves were initially obtained.

And Ireland was not considered a colony; it was a separate kingdom.

The United States was a seperate country and it had slaves from its independence till the end of the Civil War.

The Roman Empire had slaves throughout its entire history.

Until 1708, I believe, the monarchs were called the (from male perspective) King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (it is my understanding that Wales was already greatly incorporated into England). After that time, the monarch was called, King of Great Britain, and Ireland. Finall in 1800 (or was it 1801) the title was changed to King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. My point is that the Irish were never considered colonials. They were always a kingdom after Henry II invaded.

Well of course they weren't colonials. The Native Americans of the United States aren't colonials, but they were still subjected to prejudicism from the United States Government, same as most other minorities in the United States. The same was true for the Irish as they were a part of the British Domain. In case you weren't aware, Ireland is considered a British Island or a part of the British Isles.

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

As far as apologizing, why don't the Moslems apologize? Parts of the Moslem world only banned slavery 20 years ago. So wy don't they apologize?

They should only apologize at the point for which they end slavery. That way they don't apologize and continue to own the same slaves.

**Jan** · 12 Mar 07, 20:32

Originally Posted by jame$thegreat

This perticular subject really bothers me, there is no living person on this earth that legally owned a slave in America! Get over it.

Interesting logic.

By that token, the japanese should probably be amending their constitution right about now; tossing out the "Self-defence" bit, along with other pacifist clauses limiting expeditionary forces.

Ditto the comfort women debate with Korea.

I mean how many IJA troopers are still alive from say Nanking, Bataan etc?

By extension, can a country take credit for the historical "good" it did if no one from that particular generation is alive?

**jame$thegreat** · 12 Mar 07, 23:08

Originally Posted by Timeseer

I understand that you have seen it as a personal level, but I consider it as a realistic level. Why should people appologize for things they haven't done? In addition, having a selected group of people responsible continually for something that was done in the past would only continue racial tensions. As it would make white people continually a target of mistreatment and therefore they will eventually become the oppressed majority. In certain communities, they already are the oppressed majority.

Very true, I think that its racism that whites are targeted to apologize and pay reperations when blacks owned slaves too. Not all whites have ancestors that owned slaves how can they be held responsible? I find it racisim that I am judged by the color of my skin whether I enslaved a race or not.

Originally Posted by Timeseer

prejudicism

Good luck finding that word in the dictionary.

Another good point to keep in mind: almost all major empires owned slaves at some time or another some of the greatest empires in the world, the Romans, Greeks, Persians, British...need I continue? No reperations, no apologies...

**dalem** · 12 Mar 07, 23:41

Originally Posted by Jan

Interesting logic.

By that token, the japanese should probably be amending their constitution right about now; tossing out the "Self-defence" bit, along with other pacifist clauses limiting expeditionary forces.

Ditto the comfort women debate with Korea.

I mean how many IJA troopers are still alive from say Nanking, Bataan etc?

By extension, can a country take credit for the historical "good" it did if no one from that particular generation is alive?

You're right, they probably should amend it. It's theirs to amend.

-dale

**gunnut** · 12 Mar 07, 23:44

Originally Posted by tanz

Second the social problems exibited by the black culture are a direct result of extreme injustice that will take many more generations to heal. I personally believe the latter.

I disagree with your view.

Blacks were doing fine until the victim mentality took over. Whites believed blacks are inferior and needed a helping hand. Here comes affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides. I don't know about you but I would be insulted if I were black and there are special favors set for me because otherwise I wouldn't be able to compete.

The black community bought this crap from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They blame everything on white people.

Then there is this mentality that a successful black man is a sell-out, an Uncle Tom. This styfles the drive for success in the black community.

Ever noticed other immigrant groups do very well, even if they come to this country without citizenship, dirt poor, and no jobs, all within the last 100 years? The immigrant groups that do the best are those who emphasize education. The Cubans, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Indians, the Vietnamese, and last but not least, Africans.

These other groups have 1 thing in common. They want to assimilate into the mainstream community. Blacks (most) do not. There's this rebellious culture within the black community. They don't want to play by the rules. They have a chip on their shoulder. That doesn't pay off too well, especially with other immigrant groups.

**jame$thegreat** · 13 Mar 07, 00:01

Originally Posted by gunnut

I disagree with your view.

Blacks were doing fine until the victim mentality took over. Whites believed blacks are inferior and needed a helping hand. Here comes affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides. I don't know about you but I would be insulted if I were black and there are special favors set for me because otherwise I wouldn't be able to compete.

The black community bought this crap from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They blame everything on white people.

Then there is this mentality that a successful black man is a sell-out, an Uncle Tom. This styfles the drive for success in the black community.

Ever noticed other immigrant groups do very well, even if they come to this country without citizenship, dirt poor, and no jobs, all within the last 100 years? The immigrant groups that do the best are those who emphasize education. The Cubans, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Indians, the Vietnamese, and last but not least, Africans.

These other groups have 1 thing in common. They want to assimilate into the mainstream community. Blacks (most) do not. There's this rebellious culture within the black community. They don't want to play by the rules. They have a chip on their shoulder. That doesn't pay off too well, especially with other immigrant groups.

Quite true gunnut, I agree wth everything you said.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Ever noticed other immigrant groups do very well, even if they come to this country without citizenship, dirt poor, and no jobs, all within the last 100 years? The immigrant groups that do the best are those who emphasize education. The Cubans, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Indians, the Vietnamese, and last but not least, Africans.

Good point, during the early 1900's Europeans poured into America including my ancestors. Italians, Irish and Czech all came here, got jobs, learned the language and tried their best to be normal Americans. My grandmother knew 2 different dialects of Italian Roman and Barrese and my grandfather czech they learned english as quickly as they could and refused to teach it to my mother. Blacks as you mentioned make little effort to move in the right direction to become normal, successful Americans.

**Timeseer** · 13 Mar 07, 02:12

People tend to do their best when their life is at stake. Immigrants have to survive and thats pretty much the very reason why they strive so hard and work so hard with the end result of them gaining so much.

More input = More output.

Also did you know that the term black and white was originally used as a means of identifying purity and impurity with the figure of Jesus Christ. Back since who knows when (probably the late middle-ages) people were trying find a link between Jesus and man. They assume him to be light skinned, blond haired, blue-eyed, and protestant. Thus people that were associated with this image or enough to not be considered impure were called, "white." White as in pure people or those that relate most closely to "their" Jesus. Thus the term use of white and black began. But these mostly revolved around religion more so than appearance.

The Irish (because they were catholic), Slavs (because they were orthodox and not protestant), Latinos (because they were catholic), Asians (because they were either muslim, buddhist, or polytheistic), Jews (because they were seen often as the enemies of Jesus), Africans (because they were either Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, or seen as savages), and Native Americans (because they seen as pure savages even more so than Africans) were all called initially, "Black People."

Black didn't really began with skin color. It was originally about the people that didn't follow the ideal standard of what was considered white or Jesus-like. This standard was later use by Nazis to issue out the "Master Race."

Eventually the term color was taking into practice to move Catholics and Jews away from being identified as black. And soon enough so was everyone else, except for African Americans, because they choose to stay with the term. Since they thought it best suited them or because they thought it actually was base on their skin color.

But you see this practice was very common in Europe especially with the Romans and Greeks. Since they considered anyone who wasn't Roman or Greek to be a barbarian.

**RadioM** · 13 Mar 07, 02:17

Originally Posted by soutie

we must remember that it was not only america and britain who was involved in the slave trade,zanzibar used to be the biggest slave trading market in africa and who ran it the arabs,i do not see them lining up to apologize for the slave trade.

You can't apologise for something that you are still involved in. Slavery may not be alive and well today in Africa and the Middle East but it is certainly still alive.

**Timeseer** · 13 Mar 07, 02:23

Originally Posted by RadioM

You can't apologise for something that you are still involved in. Slavery may not be alive and well today in Africa and the Middle East but it is certainly still alive.

They would have to end slavery first or their apology wouldn't be sincere.

**gunnut** · 13 Mar 07, 04:54

Originally Posted by Timeseer

People tend to do their best when their life is at stake. Immigrants have to survive and thats pretty much the very reason why they strive so hard and work so hard with the end result of them gaining so much.

More input = More output.

Thank you. Someone believes in working hard and not take any handouts. We need more of you here in California.

Originally Posted by Timeseer

Also did you know that the term black and white was originally used as a means of identifying purity and impurity with the figure of Jesus Christ. Back since who knows when (probably the late middle-ages) people were trying find a link between Jesus and man. They assume him to be light skinned, blond haired, blue-eyed, and protestant. Thus people that were associated with this image or enough to not be considered impure were called, "white." White as in pure people or those that relate most closely to "their" Jesus. Thus the term use of white and black began. But these mostly revolved around religion more so than appearance.

I knew Jesus was not white European with blue eyes and blond hair. He was most likely middle eastern/Medditerranean.

I did not know white/black had more to do with religion than simple skin color.

Did you know blacks here were called "negroes" a few decades ago? Not as a demeaning term, but as a socially acceptable term.

I don't want to call Americans who decended from African slaves "African Americans" because there are real African Americans who had just arrived from Africa. They are nothing like the blacks here.

A friend of mine looks like a real "white man" but he's Jewish. His parents were born in Egypt. Last time I checked Egypt is still a part of Africa. He would technically be "African American."

Originally Posted by Timeseer

But you see this practice was very common in Europe especially with the Romans and Greeks. Since they considered anyone who wasn't Roman or Greek to be a barbarian.

Every culture on earth considers others to be barbarians.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 13 Mar 07, 07:27

My roommate is African American. He was born in Nigeria, grew up there and in Ghana, but has American citizenship. He's of Dutch, Swiss, and English ancestry.

My soccer coach is African American. He is a naturalized American citizen from South Africa, as white as you can be.

I'm African American. I've never been to Africa, and most people think I'm of Middle Eastern ancestry; rarely am I called "black."

What, exactly, do we three have in common? Not much. But we're all "African Americans." I consider it a useless category. Just call me black, even though I'm brown- or even better, call me American.

**ExNavyAmerican** · 13 Mar 07, 07:34

My roommate is African American. He was born in Nigeria, grew up there and in Ghana, but has American citizenship. He's of Dutch, Swiss, and English ancestry.

My soccer coach is African American. He is a naturalized American citizen from South Africa, as white as you can be.

I'm African American. I've never been to Africa, and most people think I'm of Middle Eastern ancestry; rarely am I called "black."

What, exactly, do we three have in common? Not much. But we're all "African Americans." I consider it a useless category. Just call me black, even though I'm brown- or even better, call me American.

Bravo! Well said, sir!!

Thread: Apologies For Slavery

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Apologies to WAB Admin/ mods and fellow WAB'ites

What will happen if China war with Japan?

apologies to TopHatter

What would have happened if the US had been one of the allies in 1939?

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions