Black Slavery Today

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Slavery?... Today? ... By blacks themselves??? No, this surely cant be!

Where is all the liberal wrath and indignation once heaped upon South Africa? Where are the calls for divestiture and boycotts? Where is Hollywood? Where is Jesse? Where is Rev. Al?


From the BBC
Niger rapped over slavery denial

Human rights groups have criticised Niger after it cancelled a special ceremony to free about 7,000 slaves.
The event was dropped at short notice after the government backtracked and said slavery did not exist in Niger.

Anti-Slavery International urged the Niger government to accept slavery was a "serious problem" and ensure slaves were made aware of their new rights.

At least 43,000 people are thought to live in subjugation across Niger, which officially banned slavery in May 2003.

Representatives of slaves, the government and human rights groups were due to attend the event at In Ates, near the border with Mali.

Timidria, Niger's anti-slave organisation, is reporting that government intimidation prevented slaves from attending the ceremony.

Anti-Slavery International said it has received reports about senior government officials warning slave masters not to release their slaves officially.

"It is very worrying to hear the Niger government is now declaring that slavery does not exist and of its intimidation of the population," said David Ould, deputy director of Anti-Slavery International.

Acting under pressure, Niger's parliament made slavery punishable by up to 30 years in prison in May 2003.

"The enactment of legislation that criminalises and penalises slavery does not automatically mean it has been eliminated," said Mr Ould.

"It is vital the Niger government acknowledges that slavery is a serious problem throughout the country and ensures that those in slavery are made fully aware of the new law and released."

 

[hobbit.]

Oh go on then.. no one else has, so i will..... And your point is?

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Oh go on then.. no one else has, so i will..... And your point is?

My point is....where is all the liberal indignation? From South Africa to Hollywood we had boycotts, speeches, marches, divestitures, celebrities and politicians screaming against the inhumanity of apartheid.

Now we have SLAVERY. Where is the wrath and indignation????? Would anybody argue that apartheid is worse than slavery?

Why is it that white over black injustice is so important but black over black injustice is not?



The silence is truely deafening as more liberal hypocracy is exposed.

 

[Bluesboy2]

I hope Killswitch replies to this.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

I hope Killswitch replies to this.

What about Loving Tongue?

 

[Bluesboy2]

What about Loving Tongue?

Him I don't care about.

 

[GirlMidnite]

My point is....where is all the liberal indignation? In South Africa we had boycotts, speeches, marches, divestitures, celebrities and politicians screaming against the inhumanity of apartheid.

Now we have SLAVERY. Where is the wrath and indignation????? Would anybody argue that apartheid is worse than slavery?

Why is it that white over black injustice is so important but black over black injustice is not?



The silence is truely deafening as more liberal hypocracy is exposed.

Not really, black slavery existed long before the racial enslavement of blacks for white labour. It's hardly a huge cover up, and reading into the origins of the slave trade will inform you of this.

black over white injustice 'seems' less bad because white slavery in the 18th century (as opposed to earlier periods of time) had a racist element, which clouded the moral issues surrounding enslavement. This type of slavery is purely whether a person has a right to utterly, economically subjugate another purely for profit, even in third world conditions, and how to eradicate such a thing.

I hate it when people take important issues such as this, and twist it with their own illiberal agenda. It doesn't help any which way.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Not really, black slavery existed long before the racial enslavement of blacks for white labour. It's hardly a huge cover up, and reading into the origins of the slave trade will inform you of this.

black over white injustice 'seems' less bad because white slavery in the 18th century (as opposed to earlier periods of time) had a racist element, which clouded the moral issues surrounding enslavement. This type of slavery is purely whether a person has a right to utterly, economically subjugate another purely for profit, even in third world conditions, and how to eradicate such a thing.

I hate it when people take important issues such as this, and twist it with their own illiberal agenda. It doesn't help any which way.

Why did apartheid get do much attention and this slavery NONE?

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

Not really, black slavery existed long before the racial enslavement of blacks for white labour. It's hardly a huge cover up, and reading into the origins of the slave trade will inform you of this.

black over white injustice 'seems' less bad because white slavery in the 18th century (as opposed to earlier periods of time) had a racist element, which clouded the moral issues surrounding enslavement. This type of slavery is purely whether a person has a right to utterly, economically subjugate another purely for profit, even in third world conditions, and how to eradicate such a thing.

I hate it when people take important issues such as this, and twist it with their own illiberal agenda. It doesn't help any which way.

What you really hate is when your own hypocracy is exposed.

 

[GirlMidnite]

Why did apartheid get do much attention and this slavery NONE?

Did you not read my post?

Because apartheid was a racialist system, imposed from the outside by non-indigenous Africans (which always seems more insulting.)

African on african slavery is however, a shoddy solution to an economic problem- the artificial suppression of wages or pay in order to sustain the prosperity of a minority. There is no racial justification for the suppression of human rights but an economic one.

That is why these situations whilst both being worthy in the human rights arena and for media reportage, they are not that comparable in the way you are attempting to compare them. Sorry.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

African on african slavery is however, a shoddy solution to an economic problem- the artificial suppression of wages or pay in order to sustain the prosperity of a minority. There is no racial justification for the suppression of human rights but an economic one.

Yes I read it. And frankly its nothing but sophistry. Your above description of slavery astonding!

You are saying that if slavery is racially motivated it is wrong but if it is economically motivated it is ok. Absolutely amazing.

What you are really saying there is black on black inhumanity is ok for economic reasons.

 

[GirlMidnite]

Yes I read it. And frankly its nothing but sophistry. Your above description of slavery astonding!

You are saying that if slavery is racially motivated it is wrong but if it is economically motivated it is ok. Absolutely amazing.

What you are really saying there is black on black inhumanity is ok for economic reasons.

Actually I didn't say that, didn't imply it and would never say that. If you are going to twist my words, be more astute.

I am actually saying that you are trying to compare racist oppression with economic oppression, and it doesn't work. They are both bad, they both lead to human suffering, they both need to be stopped- I am not going to argue as to 'quality' and 'quantity' of suffering. I am arguing however that they are different, because they have different causal rationale.
What made white on black slavery more odious was that in order to justify it and the transnational movement of slaves, modern racism was spawned (previous types of white and black slavery before the 12th century had not had the same racist element-but previous to the Enlightenment and the age of scientific thinking, there was no need for a defensive racist rationale for slavery.) This is why western slavery was so noteable. This is also what made American slavery more complex.

 

[hydrex]

Finally a post with a hot topic on it.

Slavery has been around probably as long as man has been around. Anyone ever hear of Moses, and Pharoh? Blacks in Africa have had as many if not more slaves that the U.S. ever did, and a lot of them probably still do.
The main difference being in the U.S. the slave owners were white. In Africa they didn't care what color your skin was, they cared if you were in the same "tribe" as it were.

GirlMidnite, Please don't take this the wrong way but I must disagree with you. The whites felt blacks weren't human in many cases, and so to them it was ok to have them as slaves. In Africa many tribes considered other tribe as less than human as well and so they would take them as slaves if possible.
Whites from all over the world have probably had blacks for slaves, certainly the British did. The Irish were basically slaves for the British as well who used them as "cannon fodder" for decades.

The Jews were seen as less than human by the Egyptians, which is one reason they were slaves. In truth the Egyptians saw almost every culture as less than human which is why they have had slaves of all colors as well. Don't you see racial injustice there?

Racial injustice is hardly a good argument about slavery as I am sure that in Africa had there been more white races, they too would have been slaves to someone.
Kind of hard to have racial injustice when the majority of people that you can make slaves happen to be the same color as the slave owners. That doesn't make slavery any less horrific.

We still have what basically amounts to slavery in the U.S. and some of it is perpetrated by people of the same race on each other. Sweatshops being a prime example. The Chinese still force other Chinese into slavery, though now they would call it indentured servitude to be politically correct.

Slavery was never really about color, it went deeper than that. Slavery was about one group of people being able to force another group of people to do what they themselves didn't want to do. It is about money, and status. Sometimes it's about economic development wherein it is cheaper to have slaves do the work for nothing but a little food than it is to hire workers at a decent rate.

When you're raised to believe that one group of people is less than human, and you can use them for free labor, it really doesn't matter what color they happen to be. it's still slavery and it's still every bit as wrong.

 

[GirlMidnite]

What you really hate is when your own hypocracy is exposed.

er yeah, that must be it.

 

[zipman]

My point is....where is all the liberal indignation? From South Africa to Hollywood we had boycotts, speeches, marches, divestitures, celebrities and politicians screaming against the inhumanity of apartheid.

Now we have SLAVERY. Where is the wrath and indignation????? Would anybody argue that apartheid is worse than slavery?

Why is it that white over black injustice is so important but black over black injustice is not?



The silence is truely deafening as more liberal hypocracy is exposed.

Maybe the liberal democrats felt that since conservative republicans have proclaimed themselves the party of morality that it should be their job to speak up for a change.

 

[GirlMidnite]

Finally a post with a hot topic on it.

Slavery has been around probably as long as man has been around. Anyone ever hear of Moses, and Pharoh? Blacks in Africa have had as many if not more slaves that the U.S. ever did, and a lot of them probably still do.
The main difference being in the U.S. the slave owners were white. In Africa they didn't care what color your skin was, they cared if you were in the same "tribe" as it were.

GirlMidnite, Please don't take this the wrong way but I must disagree with you. The whites felt blacks weren't human in many cases, and so to them it was ok to have them as slaves. In Africa many tribes considered other tribe as less than human as well and so they would take them as slaves if possible.
Whites from all over the world have probably had blacks for slaves, certainly the British did. The Irish were basically slaves for the British as well who used them as "cannon fodder" for decades.

The Jews were seen as less than human by the Egyptians, which is one reason they were slaves. In truth the Egyptians saw almost every culture as less than human which is why they have had slaves of all colors as well. Don't you see racial injustice there?

Racial injustice is hardly a good argument about slavery as I am sure that in Africa had there been more white races, they too would have been slaves to someone.
Kind of hard to have racial injustice when the majority of people that you can make slaves happen to be the same color as the slave owners. That doesn't make slavery any less horrific.

We still have what basically amounts to slavery in the U.S. and some of it is perpetrated by people of the same race on each other. Sweatshops being a prime example. The Chinese still force other Chinese into slavery, though now they would call it indentured servitude to be politically correct.

Slavery was never really about color, it went deeper than that. Slavery was about one group of people being able to force another group of people to do what they themselves didn't want to do. It is about money, and status. Sometimes it's about economic development wherein it is cheaper to have slaves do the work for nothing but a little food than it is to hire workers at a decent rate.

When you're raised to believe that one group of people is less than human, and you can use them for free labor, it really doesn't matter what color they happen to be. it's still slavery and it's still every bit as wrong.

This was a good response. I agree with most of it.

However, as someone who comes from a 'tribal' background, I can say that some of your arguements are not quite correct.

Tribalism differs from racism in that you still feel an affiliation to another group, however you are more tied by kinship and territory to your own group- it a way of describing extended family if anything else. It is closely related to racism, it is microracism, but it is much, much milder. In the case of Niger, slavery exists out of tradition than anything else. It is as purely economic as you are going to get.

I agree that all slavery has an economic basis, what's not to agree? What does make white on black slavery however more 'sore thumbish' is that there was a stronger, more purposeful racial element, which is the origins of many modern discontents globally. Niger slavery, whilst being a terrible thing, is more noteable for being the perpetuation of an archaic system than for having a direct knock on effect of people outside of Niger.

This is my arguement- Niger slavery is less complicated by racism, than white on black slavery- that is also why it is incorrect to try and compare their relative evils as if one is simply precisely the same as the other, because they are not.

 

[hydrex]

Actually I didn't say that, didn't imply it and would never say that. If you are going to twist my words, be more astute.

No, you didn't say that.


I am actually saying that you are trying to compare racist oppression with economic oppression, and it doesn't work. They are both bad, they both lead to human suffering, they both need to be stopped- I am not going to argue as to 'quality' and 'quantity' of suffering. I am arguing however that they are different, because they have different causal rationale.
What made white on black slavery more odious was that in order to justify it and the transnational movement of slaves, modern racism was spawned (previous types of white and black slavery before the 12th century had not had the same racist element-but previous to the Enlightenment and the age of scientific thinking, there was no need for a defensive racist rationale for slavery.) This is why western slavery was so noteable. This is also what made American slavery more complex.

I would have to disagree that white on black slavery for the U.S. started out as racist. I think it had more to do with economics than anything else, and became a racist thing during the Civil War in the U.S.

Remember the Americans were going by what they knew, which is British slavery of blacks. The majority of Americans originally came from Britain, they had been born to believe that slavery of blacks was ok. They passed that belief on down to their children as so on and so forth. Were there not black slaves in America right along with the first whites during the 1500's/1600's?

The Romans, and Egyptians had many slaves of all colors, were they not racist as well? They may not have been outright racists but I don't think the distinction can be made based on what you've said here so far.

Slavery is and always was about economies first and foremost.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

This was a good response. I agree with most of it.

However, as someone who comes from a 'tribal' background, I can say that some of your arguements are not quite correct.

Tribalism differs from racism in that you still feel an affiliation to another group, however you are more tied by kinship and territory to your own group- it a way of describing extended family if anything else. It is closely related to racism, it is microracism, but it is much, much milder. In the case of Niger, slavery exists out of tradition than anything else. It is as purely economic as you are going to get.

I agree that all slavery has an economic basis, what's not to agree? What does make white on black slavery however more 'sore thumbish' is that there was a stronger, more purposeful racial element, which is the origins of many modern discontents globally. Niger slavery, whilst being a terrible thing, is more noteable for being the perpetuation of an archaic system than for having a direct knock on effect of people outside of Niger.

This is my arguement- Niger slavery is less complicated by racism, than white on black slavery- that is also why it is incorrect to try and compare their relative evils as if one is simply precisely the same as the other, because they are not.

Whites enslaving blacks bad...Blacks enslaving blacks ok. Your hypocracy is astonishing.

 

[hydrex]

This was a good response. I agree with most of it.

However, as someone who comes from a 'tribal' background, I can say that some of your arguements are not quite correct.

Tribalism differs from racism in that you still feel an affiliation to another group, however you are more tied by kinship and territory to your own group- it a way of describing extended family if anything else. It is closely related to racism, it is microracism, but it is much, much milder. In the case of Niger, slavery exists out of tradition than anything else. It is as purely economic as you are going to get.

I agree that all slavery has an economic basis, what's not to agree? What does make white on black slavery however more 'sore thumbish' is that there was a stronger, more purposeful racial element, which is the origins of many modern discontents globally. Niger slavery, whilst being a terrible thing, is more noteable for being the perpetuation of an archaic system than for having a direct knock on effect of people outside of Niger.

This is my arguement- Niger slavery is less complicated by racism, than white on black slavery- that is also why it is incorrect to try and compare their relative evils as if one is simply precisely the same as the other, because they are not.

All good points. I agree that white on black slavery has a more racist bent to it simply because of the differences in color between the owners and slaves. I do not believe that was the reason that whites first became slave owners of blacks. I think blacks were just "easier to conquer" than some other races. Sometimes or rather mostly perhaps because their weapons couldn't stand up to the weapons of the slavers. Remember some blacks helped the whites enslave other blacks, simply for econimoc reasons and because they weren't of the same "tribe".

 

[GirlMidnite]

I would have to disagree that white on black slavery for the U.S. started out as racist. I think it had more to do with economics than anything else, and became a racist thing during the Civil War in the U.S.

Remember the Americans were going by what they knew, which is British slavery of blacks. The majority of Americans originally came from Britain, they had been born to believe that slavery of blacks was ok. They passed that belief on down to their children as so on and so forth. Were there not black slaves in America right along with the first whites during the 1500's/1600's?

The Romans, and Egyptians had many slaves of all colors, were they not racist as well? They may not have been outright racists but I don't think the distinction can be made based on what you've said here so far.

Slavery is and always was about economies first and foremost.

I didn't say white on black slavery started out as racist either- what I did imply was that it justified itself through racism (for example, I state that previous white on black slavery had not needed racist justification.) It was a way of dehumanising their stock in order to make it acceptable to use and import them like animals.

The Romans had not been racist in the same way- Tacitus for example records the stereotype that whilst celtics were attractive savages with low intellectual content, africans were intellectuals who were weedy and unattractive. Or something like that. Different racism you see.

More so, previous to the 17th century in England, racism was also different, it focused more on what was not known about Africans people (did they have five or seven arms?), what was known of black people came from the black-a-moors of Spain and other North African groups- racism in this case was a fear of their military prowess, security threats and prospective violence (i.e. Shakespeare's Othello.)
Previous to that, noteable racism in 12th century Scotland did not exist, black slaves were imported for skilled entertainment, they were paid and were treated well as well as highly respected.

Racism as we know it emerged as a necessity of the the 18th century slave trade.

 

[GirlMidnite]

Whites enslaving blacks bad...Blacks enslaving blacks ok. Your hypocracy is astonishing.

and your points of my hypocracy repetitive.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Just wanted to say that I am enjoying reading hydrex and girlmidnite's differing but well argued positions.

And kudos to both of them for ignoring the flamebait of BlewGuysInLevis.

 

[GirlMidnite]

All good points. I agree that white on black slavery has a more racist bent to it simply because of the differences in color between the owners and slaves. I do not believe that was the reason that whites first became slave owners of blacks. I think blacks were just "easier to conquer" than some other races. Sometimes or rather mostly perhaps because their weapons couldn't stand up to the weapons of the slavers. Remember some blacks helped the whites enslave other blacks, simply for econimoc reasons and because they weren't of the same "tribe".

I know this. The reason that slavery did flourish was not because of their weapons, it was because tribal leaders actively participated in the system to make a tidy profit.

 

[NonSexWithHer]

Just wanted to say that I am enjoying reading hydrex and girlmidnite's differing but well argued positions.

And kudos to both of them for ignoring the flamebait of BlewGuysInLevis.

I think BEIL should get a refund on his degree from Liberty U.

 

[GirlMidnite]

Just wanted to say that I am enjoying reading hydrex and girlmidnite's differing but well argued positions.

And kudos to both of them for ignoring the flamebait of BlewGuysInLevis.

I like a well argued statement from any position- I acquire knowledge from it, and my opinions are not rigid. What I dislike is when some cannot differentiate a debate from a slanging match.