Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

snood wrote:

Quote:
The blacks of Africa were not enslaved because they were black or because they were from Africa, it was because they had no power to resist.

But there most certainly existed the rationale (besides the fact that they had "no power"), in order for slavery to be a practice that was state sanctioned and carried out on a large scale, that it was more acceptable because blacks were somehow subhuman or otherwise less significant, no?

I certainly believe that had the blacks not been seen as lesser men that the church would have stepped up to the plate. They would have resisted the practice, so race did figure in that way. The Christian belief in duel classes of humans is very distasteful, and I wish we could pull some of them back from the grave and make them defend the practice. To me it looks like the Christians not practicing what they preached caused them to not stand up against slavery and the abuse of the Indians. While I am loath to blame individuals for not doing the right thing,I think that this period of history, as well as the failure to stand up against the nazi killing of the Jews, shows how weak the church had become even starting hundreds of years ago. There is a big difference between the victors enslaving the defeated in war, and profiteers pulling up to the coast of Africa and buying slaves to take back to the new world. The Christians should have had a problem with that. Race is part of the reason that they did not.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The systematic use of West African slaves by English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch settlers in the Americas began in the 17th century and focused primarily on agriculture. Africans were preferred, not because they were thought to be subhuman, but rather because they already had immunity to the African/Asian/European diseases which were proving so devastating to the native population of the new continent, and exhibited better survival under the conditions then existing.
.

You are clearly arguing that there was another place to source slaves other than west Africa at the time. East Africa yes, but any other place? This does not seem right to me. I thought that at the time Africa was the only go to place to find slaves, that other peoples would have resisted. Africans willingly sold their neighboring tribes to the traders, sometimes even family members if I recall correctly.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

hamburger wrote:

i also noticed the comment :

Quote:
You can't judge history by modern values.

i'm wondering where HISTORY ends and MODERN values start - is there are cutoff line somewhere ?
JUST WONDERING .
hbg
i always wonder this too, but that question never seems to get answered satisfactorily.
Who decides the cutoff and why?

There is none. The statement itself in reference to slavery is ridiculous.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

The systematic use of West African slaves by English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch settlers in the Americas began in the 17th century and focused primarily on agriculture. Africans were preferred, not because they were thought to be subhuman, but rather because they already had immunity to the African/Asian/European diseases which were proving so devastating to the native population of the new continent, and exhibited better survival under the conditions then existing.
.

You are clearly arguing that there was another place to source slaves other than west Africa at the time. East Africa yes, but any other place? This does not seem right to me. I thought that at the time Africa was the only go to place to find slaves, that other peoples would have resisted. Africans willingly sold their neighboring tribes to the traders, sometimes even family members if I recall correctly.

Initially, the Spanish colonies relied upon the use of native people for their labor--but the succumbed in large numbers to disease, and primarily to malaria. In the English, French and Dutch islands of the West Indies, the laborers were initially European bond servants. But there were two problems with them, apart form the fact that they were as vulnerable to malaria as were the Amerindians. That was that they were not physically equipped to deal the exceptionally heavy labor of sugar cane plantations in the hot climate of the islands. The other was that those who survived were, even if illiterate, smart enough to insist upon the term of their indenture--they had to be paid off and let go. Different people were tried as laborers in the West Indies, even including coolies from India and China. But the West African Negro became the laborer of choice. In the very beginning, these "bond servants" were ostensibly employed just as would be any indentured servant. But, of course, they didn't understand about terms of service, and became slaves de facto, even if not de jure. It wasn't long until the charade was dropped, and they were imported as slaves.

Sickle cell disease is endemic in West Africa. One of the stages of the life cycle of the plasmodium which causes malaria is the colonization of the red blood cells in the circulatory system. They cannot do this as effectively in a population with sickle cell disease. The eventual result was that without understanding the biochemical equation, sugar cane planters realized that West African Negroes could survive the heavy labor, the climate and malaria as no other population could. The added incentive was that any other laborers were under terms of employment, and had to be paid off and let go. West African Negroes could simply be held as slaves.

I have already explained this in detail--but i understand that most people probably don't bother to read my long posts.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

[ The added incentive was that any other laborers were under terms of employment, and had to be paid off and let go. West African Negroes could simply be held as slaves.

I have already explained this in detail--but i understand that most people probably don't bother to read my long posts.

So to make a long story short you are agreeing with my take that Africa was the only place to go to get mass quantities of slaves. Everybody else demanded to be paid for work. Other peoples would not sell some of their own into slavery. The concept the the Negroes were genetically well suited for plantation work has not been disputed here.

0 Replies

[quote="hawkeye10].......So to make a long story short you are agreeing with my take that Africa was the only place to go to get mass quantities of slaves. ..............[/quote]

Or even a single one! Nowhere else on earth were people to be found for sale, as they still are in parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Blaming Washington for any of this is incredible.

To the point: anyone in New York later this month may wish to attend this event or just plain buy this book, just published:

Quote:

Mar. 27: New Book! Francois Fursternberg, In the Name of the Father: Washington's Legacy, Slavery, and the Making of a Nation, 6:30 p.m. Free to members; general public $6. Refreshments provided.

Quote:

Published online monthly by The Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York

54 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10004

212-425-1776

http://www.mariadering.com/sr/march/patriot0308.pdf

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
[ The added incentive was that any other laborers were under terms of employment, and had to be paid off and let go. West African Negroes could simply be held as slaves.

I have already explained this in detail--but i understand that most people probably don't bother to read my long posts.

So to make a long story short you are agreeing with my take that Africa was the only place to go to get mass quantities of slaves. Everybody else demanded to be paid for work. Other peoples would not sell some of their own into slavery. The concept the the Negroes were genetically well suited for plantation work has not been disputed here.

No, i'm not agreeing to any such thing. The Tatars of the Crimean peninsula routinely raided the Ukraine and southern Russia, taking thousands, often tens of thousands of captives who were sold as slaves. The Tatars and Turks both routinely took captives in the Caucasus Mountains to be military slaves, as the Caucasian tribesmen (who were largely wild men) were considered the finest people to be had for military slaves. Of course, slaves were taken in East Africa. Until 1816, when the United States Navy finally put the Barbary pirates out of business (mostly), Europeans and North Americans were routinely taken and sold as slaves by the Algerines and the Tripolitanians. In France and Spain, condemned criminals were frequently used as galley slaves. Their sentences of death would be commuted to a life sentence chained to a bench and pulling an oar on a naval galley--and if the ship went down, they went with it. Indian and Chinese coolies were slaves in all but name.

My point (and i can't think why anyone would have missed this after i've pointed it out twice) is that only West African Negroes were able to survive the heavy labor in the brutal climate of the Sugar Islands, and possessed a resistance to malaria. This includes the slaves taken in East Africa, who had no immunity to malaria.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

My point (and i can't think why anyone would have missed this after i've pointed it out twice) is that only West African Negroes were able to survive the heavy labor in the brutal climate of the Sugar Islands, and possessed a resistance to malaria. This includes the slaves taken in East Africa, who had no immunity to malaria.

WE are talking about American slavery, not those brought in to work sugar cane in the islands. You don't find a lot of malaria in Georgia. Picking cotton is not demanding like working cane either. As for the availability of slaves from the Ukraine and such at the time I don't know. Your take is not what I remember from my history schooling, but I don't know that you are wrong.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Mexica wrote:
Well, lets see. They knew it was wrong to enslave other whites, did they not? Are you suggesting that it was impossible for them to, and unreasonable for contemporary society expect that they, extend that knowledge to blacks? If so, I do not agree.

Those with power enslave those with out power, thus is how it has always been. The blacks of Africa were not enslaved because they were black or because they were from Africa, it was because they had no power to resist. The question is not about race, nor is it about America specifically because were were not the only ones to partake of African slaves. It is is question of man's right to enslave other men, in general. So far as we know humans have always enslaved other humans, I would argue that we still do economically and sexually enslave other humans, so let's not get all high and mightily offended by black slavery. Human kind has evolved, we now believe slavery is wrong and we are working to end it. We still allow it though, there are constant news stories about the trafficking and bondage of immigrants and young females harvested for the sex business both in America and through out the world. If you are so upset by slavery (and I am glad that you are because I am also), why don't you do something about that instead of picking on Jefferson, Washington, and the rest because they did not do more to resist or end the enslaving of the Negros? Doing something about the problem seems more worthy of respect to me then complaining that someone else did not do more than they did.

Oh lord, have I been "picking on Jefferson, Washington, and the rest"? How shameful I must look, disparaging - or trying to, at least - the memory of slave owners.

No one (at least not me) is getting "high and mighty" and of course the question is about slavery in "America", or did you not read the title and the initial post of this thread?

You brought up the idea that the slave owners in question "can only be judged upon what they did with what information and conditions they had." So, we know that they knew it was wrong to enslave whites, why did they not extend that idea towards Blacks as well? And why can't or why shouldn't the fact that they failed to extend the human right of freedom from being chattel to Blacks be counted against them? Modern values being applied historical figures? Fine, then when is the line of demarcation and why?

If you want to overlook an inconvenient and ugly truth in favor of remembering only the good deeds of slave owners, fine. But telling others, who do not share your POV on the matter, that they are "wrong" and acting "high and mighty" is more than a bit arrogant and bigoted.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Mexica wrote:
Well, lets see. They knew it was wrong to enslave other whites, did they not? Are you suggesting that it was impossible for them to, and unreasonable for contemporary society expect that they, extend that knowledge to blacks? If so, I do not agree.

Those with power enslave those with out power, thus is how it has always been. The blacks of Africa were not enslaved because they were black or because they were from Africa, it was because they had no power to resist. The question is not about race, nor is it about America specifically because were were not the only ones to partake of African slaves. It is is question of man's right to enslave other men, in general. So far as we know humans have always enslaved other humans, I would argue that we still do economically and sexually enslave other humans, so let's not get all high and mightily offended by black slavery. Human kind has evolved, we now believe slavery is wrong and we are working to end it. We still allow it though, there are constant news stories about the trafficking and bondage of immigrants and young females harvested for the sex business both in America and through out the world. If you are so upset by slavery (and I am glad that you are because I am also), why don't you do something about that instead of picking on Jefferson, Washington, and the rest because they did not do more to resist or end the enslaving of the Negros? Doing something about the problem seems more worthy of respect to me then complaining that someone else did not do more than they did.

Oh lord, have I been "picking on Jefferson, Washington, and the rest"? How shameful I must look, disparaging - or trying to, at least - the memory of slave owners.

No one (at least not me) is getting "high and mighty" and of course the question is about slavery in "America", or did you not read the title and the initial post of this thread?

You brought up the idea that the slave owners in question "can only be judged upon what they did with what information and conditions they had." So, we know that they knew it was wrong to enslave whites, why did they not extend that idea towards Blacks as well? And why can't or why shouldn't the fact that they failed to extend the human right of freedom from being chattel to Blacks be counted against them? Modern values being applied historical figures? Fine, then when is the line of demarcation and why?

If you want to overlook an inconvenient and ugly truth in favor of remembering only the good deeds of slave owners, fine. But telling others, who do not share your POV on the matter, that they are "wrong" and acting "high and mighty" is more than a bit arrogant and bigoted.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

If you want to overlook an inconvenient and ugly truth in favor of remembering only the good deeds of slave owners, fine. But telling others, who do not share your POV on the matter, that they are "wrong" and acting "high and mighty" is more than a bit arrogant and bigoted.

If in my opinion someone is wrong then in their opinion I am wrong. Arrogance is equal, we both think we are right. Someone is wrong, that is why we talk about stuff. If you are going to lob the charge of arrogance at me make sure you label yourself arrogant as well.

I don't see your point about "high and mighty". Slavery has been around forever, there were at the time Americans owned slaves a lot of others around the world. American black slavery is not that special, yet some make it out to be this great evil sin. Perspective is missing. Those who have their panties in a twist over black slavery are "high and mighty" about black slavery being so much worse and more important then all of the other slavery that took place before and during the time of black slavery. We could I suppose go down the list of all of the cultures that have for sure engaged in slavery, call them names in the history books, say they were evil men. That might make us feel better about all of the nasty crap we do, but it would however serve no other purpose.

As for "bigoted", you seem to misunderstand what that word means. I am not intolerant of other peoples I ideas, I simply happen to think some of the ideas expressed in the thread are wrong, clearly wrong, and I wonder about the thought process that went into forming those opinions. I am dismissive of those who want to excoriate our founding fathers for owning slaves for no other reason then their view is with out merit. If you disagree then make your case. The fact that you have gone personal indicates that you can't.

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

You brought up the idea that the slave owners in question "can only be judged upon what they did with what information and conditions they had." So, we know that they knew it was wrong to enslave whites, why did they not extend that idea towards Blacks as well? And why can't or why shouldn't the fact that they failed to extend the human right of freedom from being chattel to Blacks be counted against them? Modern values being applied historical figures? Fine, then when is the line of demarcation and why?
.

Slaves were by definition property and not citizens so human rights as outlined in the Founding do not apply to black slaves.

Modern feminists would argue that women of the time were enslaved by the men, so I don't accept your pronouncement the whites knew it was wrong to enslave whites.

All writings of the time do not equate men and women or whites and blacks. We do count women and blacks as full people now, that is the modern value, it was not the value at the time. The line of demarcation is now/past. You can not fairly judge people or events in the past by the current standard. If you want to get precise about it you can't judge yesterday by today's standard if the standard has changed between then and now.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

American black slavery is not that special, yet some make it out to be this great evil sin. Perspective is missing. Those who have their panties in a twist over black slavery are "high and mighty" about black slavery being so much worse and more important then all of the other slavery that took place before and during the time of black slavery. We could I suppose go down the list of all of the cultures that have for sure engaged in slavery, call them names in the history books, say they were evil men. That might make us feel better about all of the nasty crap we do, but it would however serve no other purpose.

American black slavery is special because it took place in America; it's personal.(especially for blacks of African descent)

Also, while the enslavement of Africans in America was not the first instance and certainly wasn't the last, as more than 800,00 are enslaved in Niger; this is inconsequential in reference to the founding fathers and their participation.

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

American black slavery is special because it took place in America; it's personal.(especially for blacks of African descent)
.

It was personal for who were alive at the time, those who lived after had nothing to do with slavery so it can't be personal for them.

How old are you, that American slavery is personal for you? Were you a slave or a slave owner in a past life maybe??

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

jasonrest wrote:

American black slavery is special because it took place in America; it's personal.(especially for blacks of African descent)
.

It was personal for who were alive at the time, those who lived after had nothing to do with slavery so it can't be personal for them.

How old are you, that American slavery is personal for you? Were you a slave or a slave owner in a past life maybe??

I never stated as much but I'll go along with it.

I don't believe slavery and its effects are limited to those who participated, whether slave or slave owner. Blacks born immediately after the end of slavery, that never "participated" could not describe the experience but I'm sure they could explain how it has affected them, "personally".
Whites born immediately after the end of slavery, that never "participated" could also not describe the experience but I'm sure they could explain how it has affected them, "personally".

Furthermore, of course I could not tell you personally about slavery, but I could discuss the far reaching affects of slavery till this very day.And even if I could not explain those far reaching effects, just the sole fact that blacks enjoy the benefits of their predecessors' hardships in slavery and the struggle for civil rights........ The word "personal" is an understatement.

0 Replies

hawkeye10,

I do see your point on the whole "right/wrong" question. Of course, not all topics are argued in such terms; thus, I don't agree that your point is applicable here. I do not see your opinion as being wrong, while seeing my opinion as being right; we simply just differ. However, it is your seeming inability to grasp and/or understand that there can be at least two differing opinions on this topic, with neither opinion being wrong or right, that causes me to term your POV (not you) bigoted and arrogant. And, that's not even considering your implied charge of me acting "high and mighty" (whatever the f***k that means) on the issue of black slavery. If you consider calling your tendencies - the ones outlined above- "getting personal", then I'd appreciate it if you'd define what you mean by that, as I do not see my comments, so far, as an example of an ad hominem attack on your character.

As for your line of demarcation: it seems amazingly simple and poorly thought out. By that rationale, actions committed yesterday, literally, could not be "fairly" judged today. While that may not be wrong, it's as close as to being wrong - without actually being wrong - that anything can get.

Now, other than a possible explanation on what you meant when you said I got personal, I see no reason for me to continue on exchanging ideas on this topic with you.

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Furthermore, of course I could not tell you personally about slavery, but I could discuss the far reaching affects of slavery till this very day.And even if I could not explain those far reaching effects, just the sole fact that blacks enjoy the benefits of their predecessors' hardships in slavery and the struggle for civil rights........ The word "personal" is an understatement.

A person who heals from abuse learns quickly that trying to figure out what part of today is caused by the abuse of yesterday is a fools game. For the most part it is making guesses, nothing more. We don't have the brain power or the degree of perception needed to tell what part of today is caused by what part of yesterday. Using our abuse to justify how things are today is thus nothing more than playing the victim, and that practice should be discouraged.

Blacks love to play victim. They have been free for a long time, they have had loads of special deals which had no other purpose then to rectify any negative impact that slavery might have had on them. And yet new immigrants can and do come to America with nothing ( not even the language) and with-in one generation generally make a better life for themselves then the complaining blacks do. The black underclass is the black underclass not because of slavery, but because they refuse to make their lives better. They use slavery as an excuse, and a fair number of whites are prone to suffering from unjustified guilt over slavery, but that don't make it a legitimate reason. The Black middle class is another proof, those blacks who want a better life enough to work for it have no trouble obtaining it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Blacks love to play victim.

What is the difference between this statement and "Whites are greedy and insensitive pigs?"

0 Replies

Mexica wrote:

Now, other than a possible explanation on what you meant when you said I got personal, I see no reason for me to continue on exchanging ideas on this topic with you.

According to my understanding of the English language people can be arrogant and bigoted, positions can not be. But maybe I am wrong.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Quote:
Blacks love to play victim.

What is the difference between this statement and "Whites are greedy and insensitive pigs?"

Drop the pig out and I would say not much....they are both generally true statements that can be supported with the historical record. I think that whites have done a lot better of late than they used to, and blacks only partly so. Blacks are stuck with the historic truth of Jackson, Sharpton and Cornel West. These Black leaders have only been black leaders because many in the black community have been willing to dive into the mythology of the black race being the victim of the white race. Whites put down the skin heads and the white supremists for the most part, and they were never more than extreme fringe groups anyways.

0 Replies

Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know