Removal of Confederate Monuments

[Darrell]

(09-11-2017 07:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I just have one question: Why do we continually place the onus of slavery on just Americans, and specifically on those in southern regions of the U.S?

That's a good question. Perhaps the answer is similar to what the late Sam Francis said about the Confederate flag issue:
“The attacks on the Confederate flag and similar Confederate symbols are not aimed at the Confederacy or even at slavery and its legacy but at America itself and even more broadly at the white race." - Sam Francis - July 2, 2001

[Eva Elisabeth]

(09-11-2017 07:02 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 05:45 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  It's a great informative article, Laurie - thank you.
As for "Colonialism may have been an abrupt and rude awakening to the industrialized world, but it did bring several benefits."
This is from out point of view, and was our decision. Why do benefits (or what we think they are/were - ignoring the flip sides) legitimate or justify to force someone therero that way? Likewise I'd think the gentleman above would possibly have been "glader" if his ancestor had come as an immigrant by his own. (And overall I think we too often forget in the end we all originate out of Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_A...ern_humans )

Here's another interesting article on slave trade (just lately a Dutch gentleman and acquaintance in a conversation mentioned the Dutch, like all peoples some(or more)times in history, had quite the skeleton in the closet due to their big scale slave trade), and I appreciate that it distinguishes between (not) putting the blame on someone and (not) justifying, the one doesn't mean the other.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html

On the eve of the transatlantic slave trade

"In most parts of Africa before 1500, societies had become highly developed in terms of their own histories. They often had complex systems of participatory government, or were established powerful states that covered large territories and had extensive regional and international links.

"Many of these societies had solved difficult agricultural problems and had come up with advanced techniques of production of food and other crops and were engaged in local, regional or even international trading networks. Some peoples were skilled miners and metallurgists, others great artists in wood, stone and other materials. Many of the societies had also amassed a great stock of scientific and other knowledge, some of it stored in libraries such as those of Timbuktu, but some passed down orally from generation to generation.

"There was great diversity across the continent and therefore societies at different stages and levels of development. Most importantly, Africans had established their own economic and political systems, their own cultures, technologies and philosophies that had enabled them to make spectacular advances and important contributions to human knowledge.

"The significance of the transatlantic slave trade is not just that it led to the loss of millions of lives and the departure of millions of those who could have contributed to Africa's future, although depopulation did have a great impact. But just as devastating was the fact that African societies were disrupted by the trade and increasingly unable to follow an independent path of development. Colonial rule and its modern legacy have been a continuation of this disruption.

"The devastation of Africa through transatlantic slavery was accompanied by the ignorance of some historians and philosophers to negate its entire history. These ideas and philosophies suggested, that among other things, Africans had never developed any institutions or cultures, nor anything else of any worth and that future advances could only take place under the direction of Europeans or European institutions." Source: http://www.understandingslavery.com/inde...d=151.html

I just have one question: Why do we continually place the onus of slavery on just Americans, and specifically on those in southern regions of the U.S? It was traders from Europe who first brought them to our shores and after they had also exploited the Africans in varying European and Asian countries.

You will also notice as you read more and more African history that the Muslim religion played a big role in enslavement also. It was not just Christians who contributed to the institution.

Also, don't forget that the great civilization of the Egyptians was also a part of African history. Is it safe to say that the American institution of slavery was based on those who had been conquered on their home turf - by both Europeans and Africans themselves? Therefore, American society developed the belief that those held in slavery were too weak to make it on their own?

Laurie - did you read the site on slave trade I linked to? It is exactly about this and concludes:

"Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so. As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".

Of course, what was also (horribly) unique about the Western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the unfair treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation (which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet can claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).

That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others.

Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors; but nobody has written books and filmed epics about those sailors (often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe when they were drunk).

To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an aberration of the USA, not their own invention.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas."

[Darrell]

(09-11-2017 05:45 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  "Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery. In 1792 English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king and emperor had ever done so. As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".

Of course, what was also (horribly) unique about the Western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the unfair treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation (which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet can claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).

That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others.

Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors; but nobody has written books and filmed epics about those sailors (often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe when they were drunk).

To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an aberration of the USA, not their own invention.

By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas."

Historian Robert Collins makes a related point in stating that “the historic obsession with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery in the Americas has often obscured the trade to Asia and slavery within Africa” (article by Martin Plaut linked below). Plaut also describes a 2003 UNESCO Conference on “Arab-Led Slavery of Africans” which declared that “the Arab-led slave trade of African people predates the Trans-Atlantic slave trade by a millennium, and represents the largest and, in time, longest involuntary removal of any indigenous people in the history of humanity.”

In addition to noting the far greater antiquity of the Arab slave trade, the author emphasizes that African slavery still exists. Plaut states: "What is far more worrying is the almost total silence from the African Union, the United Nations and almost all other international bodies about the continuing scandal of modern Africa slavery."

Antislavery International reports that "descent based slavery" is still practiced in Africa, particularly in Sudan, Niger, Chad, Mali and Mauritania. The latter country is of particular note as Mauritania didn't "abolish" slavery until 2007 - and that was in name only. According to one report at least 4% of the population (155,600 people) is currently enslaved against their will. One of Antislavery International's webpages (also linked below) gives a description of slave life in the aforementioned countries, including a profile of Moulkheir, a Mauritanian ex-slave. Her story sounds as atrocious of some of the more egregious accounts of chattel slavery in the antebellum South. (And, like the South, Mauritanian slavery is race-based - as it consists of Arab masters with black slaves.)

http://www.newstatesman.com/internationa...-trade-too

https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-toda...d-slavery/

[My Name Is Kate]

Could it be that the ultimate goal is not to abolish slavery, but to abolish the white race, and the white male in particular? But why would so many white people (men, too) be pushing for it? Sometimes it seems to me that many people don't even know that slavery was abolished a long, long time ago. Even on this forum there are people who keep harping about how oppressed "people of color" are in this country, and how helpless they are.

[Darrell]

(09-12-2017 12:46 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Could it be that the ultimate goal is not to abolish slavery, but to abolish the white race, and the white male in particular? But why would so many white people (men, too) be pushing for it?

Another good question. I'd say the "usual suspects" are reasons such as political correctness (again), pathological altruism, virtue signaling, white guilt, cultural Marxism, religion (particularly Christianity), mindlessly following the crowd, and indoctrination by today's schools and universities.

None of the above (or combinations thereof) are an ultimately satisfying answer for me. However, I believe I've seen examples of all of them - most recently at the Confederate monument rally in Knoxville, TN a few weeks ago. Thankfully, the event was very peaceful. In fact, at times it felt more like a street party than a protest.

That said, there were a lot of insults hurled, mainly by leftists screaming at SCV types and Confederate reenactors, whom they somehow imagined to be Nazis and KKK members. However, there were about 2,800 anti-monument protestors, compared to only about 40 on the other side, so naturally the former were more vocal. Interestingly, the competing online petitions about the issue are running in the opposite direction with an over 2 to 1 margin in favor of retaining the monument (5,380 to 2,283).

From all the accounts I've seen, most city residents were unaware of the monument's existence until someone vandalized it shortly after the Charlottesville rally. It's on a quiet residential street and could be fairly described as nondescript - although that's not my opinion. However, I can see how someone might easily walk by it without even taking notice. Below is a photo of it being cleaned after a second instance of vandalism. Apparently, those preaching tolerance, inclusion and diversity like to demonstrate those values by splashing paint on a memorial erected over 100 years ago by the UDC to honor their dead fathers, sons, brothers and husbands.

[L Verge]

Laurie - did you read the site on slave trade I linked to? It is exactly about this and concludes:

Eva, I did read your link, and that inspired me to start googling for more information. While in college and again as a teacher, I took several black history courses; but this old mind wanted to refresh its memory. I was pleased to find that there are still some good sources of documented history out there - not just those who choose to resort to half-truths and inflammatory rhetoric.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(09-12-2017 07:08 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Laurie - did you read the site on slave trade I linked to? It is exactly about this and concludes:

Eva, I did read your link, and that inspired me to start googling for more information. While in college and again as a teacher, I took several black history courses; but this old mind wanted to refresh its memory. I was pleased to find that there are still some good sources of documented history out there - not just those who choose to resort to half-truths and inflammatory rhetoric.

I found it interesting that the author was an Italian scholar from Turin.

[L Verge]

Firing of salutes spontaneously rang out as news of the surrender reached nearby Union lines. At once, Grant sent out the order, “The war is over; the rebels are our countrymen again; and the best sign of rejoicing after the victory will be to abstain from all demonstrations in the field.”

Wish the General were here today to inform people that the war ended over 150 years ago. We still have things to learn, but continually harping on the past is not the solution -- seriously working on non-divisive, pro-active programs should be the order of the day (and realizing that there are puppet masters behind the scenes pulling some folks' strings).

[J. Beckert]

(09-12-2017 04:22 PM)Darrell Wrote:  I'd say the "usual suspects" are reasons such as political correctness (again), pathological altruism, virtue signaling, white guilt, cultural Marxism, religion (particularly Christianity), mindlessly following the crowd, and indoctrination by today's schools and universities.

With the exception of Christianity, that one sentence sums it up for me perfectly. We now have a generation of self loathing, low functioning, "it's all about me and my feelings" lemmings that can't think for themselves and have idea how much they're assisting the media with tearing the very fabric that has made this the greatest country in the history of the world to shreds.

[Darrell]

(09-13-2017 05:20 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 04:22 PM)Darrell Wrote:  I'd say the "usual suspects" are reasons such as political correctness (again), pathological altruism, virtue signaling, white guilt, cultural Marxism, religion (particularly Christianity), mindlessly following the crowd, and indoctrination by today's schools and universities.

With the exception of Christianity, that one sentence sums it up for me perfectly. We now have a generation of self loathing, low functioning, "it's all about me and my feelings" lemmings that can't think for themselves and have idea how much they're assisting the media with tearing the very fabric that has made this the greatest country in the history of the world to shreds.

Your comment about Christianity is a fair criticism. I hesitated in including them, but eventually did so based on my experience at the Knoxville rally - where there was a sizable contingent of pastors and their flocks advocating for the removal of the monument. Their primary motivator seemed to be the desire to spare African-Americans from offense. In fact, I got the clear sense that they'd be fine with the monument remaining if not for the "pain it causes our black brothers."

Despite their good intentions, I believe that capitulating to the demands to remove Confederate monuments will not have the desired result that the Christian groups in Knoxville envision (i.e., racial reconciliation and harmony). Rather, I think that it would just further embolden those who are engaged in tearing apart the fabric of our country (as you aptly put it).

Therefore - to the extend that Christians are engaged in activism as described above - I thought they should be included with the other "suspects." However, I didn't mean to infer that I was speaking about Christianity as a whole.

[J. Beckert]

(09-14-2017 12:03 AM)Darrell Wrote:  Your comment about Christianity is a fair criticism. I hesitated in including them, but eventually did so based on my experience at the Knoxville rally - where there was a sizable contingent of pastors and their flocks advocating for the removal of the monument. Their primary motivator seemed to be the desire to spare African-Americans from offense. In fact, I got the clear sense that they'd be fine with the monument remaining if not for the "pain it causes our black brothers."

Despite their good intentions, I believe that capitulating to the demands to remove Confederate monuments will not have the desired result that the Christian groups in Knoxville envision (i.e., racial reconciliation and harmony). Rather, I think that it would just further embolden those who are engaged in tearing apart the fabric of our country (as you aptly put it).

Therefore - to the extend that Christians are engaged in activism as described above - I thought they should be included with the other "suspects." However, I didn't mean to infer that I was speaking about Christianity as a whole.

No offense taken, Darrell and I do see your point.

[Gene C]

They're still at it

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/confede...opposition

[mbgross]

The book, "Robert E. Lee and Me", had an interesting and insightful discussion of the confederate monument at Arlington.

[J. Beckert]

More mindless babble from SJW's that couldn't name one CW battle and just regurgitate what their TV tells them. Next.

[Gene C]

There does seem to be an approach that believes the answer of tearing things down is the best way of fixing the problem.

I'm offended by these SJW's. I'm going to throw a tantrum, and then go sit in my safe space and pout with my cuddly blanket over my head
(you can get your "official" hypoallergenic, synthetic, SJW blanket manufactured in a green energy sweat shop with illegal child labor in an impoverished third world socialist leaning country, and subsidized by your tax dollars, at Target, Disney stores, and the Gap).
While I'm sulking can you please bring me some Ben & Jerry's vegan ice cream.