Black History Month is Ridiculous?

[sgtmac_46]

You think I'm kidding; thats cute. Perhaps you should take a criminal justice course. Then come laughing about it becoming our largest GNP.
Sean

I minored in criminal justice, for the record, though that's entirely irrelavent. Criminal justice degrees are overrated. This isn't a criminal justice issue, anyway, it's an economics issue.

The whole 'GNP' argument is a flyer for a conspiracy theory on the 'prison industrial complex', the rip-off of the ole' military industrial complex.

By the way, those incarcerated 2 million people are the reason why crime has been dropping drastically in the US for the last 15 years, while some other industrial countries, such as Great Britain, who like to point to our incarceration rates, are seeing a rise in crime. What's more, 2 million people aren't really even incarcerated, at least for not more than a few months at a time. Most of those people are on probation or parole, though they are listed as incarcerated, as they are, for the most part, listed under state and federal Bureau of Prisons inmate lists.

Speaking of which, i've heard some silly arguments along these lines. Arguments like 'Despite drop in crime, inmate numbers increase'...duh. Why do you think crime is dropping, folks? If several social programs failed, and crime kept rising (as they did during the 1970's and 1980's, leading to all time high murder rates) and society decided to get fed up and start putting criminals in prison, and crime started FALLING, what do YOU think is happening?

What's happened is, that all the clever and nuanced social worker ideas have failed, so we're back to putting the blame for crime on criminals, where it belongs.

Moreover, i'd be interesting in seeing the data that shows that prisons are becoming our largest 'GNP'.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the idea that the answer to racism is MORE racism.

 

[7starmantis]

Again I suggest a purposefull compliance to overide the mentality with a stake in the community.

We are discussing the apology argument. Do you honestly believe that an apology from anyone to anyone is really going to "overide the mentality" of racism? Do you honestly believe an apology from whomever to whomever is really going to create a "stake in the community"? I dont see it.

The debate over apology or no apology, is really cloaked in racism. To have one race of people apologize to another race is to accept devisional lines based on race. The argument against that is "we shouldn't ignore it". To that I ask why not? If you (generic term for any reader) came up to me and began shouting racist remarks at me, do you honestly believe any action is going to change your (again, simply a generic term for making a point) racist mind? Choosing to not accept racism and "ignoring" racism are very closely related. The point is in how and why we do either one. Choosing to refuse action based on race is a step towards ending racism. Small step as it is, its much closer to the end than action based on race.

Lets stop arguing about the apology (racist arguemtn any way you cut it) and start putting together action that will actually help someone or help end racism. See, racism can go as a two way street. A group of white americans can be racist even by supporting something like an apology. They may even think they are doing the right thing, but I seem to recall white support for "Jim Crow" laws based on, "Its for their own protection". Defining action based on race is racism, regardless of the action. Reparations in my book would be racist.

7sm

 

[Touch Of Death]

We are discussing the apology argument. Do you honestly believe that an apology from anyone to anyone is really going to "overide the mentality" of racism? Do you honestly believe an apology from whomever to whomever is really going to create a "stake in the community"? I dont see it.

The debate over apology or no apology, is really cloaked in racism. To have one race of people apologize to another race is to accept devisional lines based on race. The argument against that is "we shouldn't ignore it". To that I ask why not? If you (generic term for any reader) came up to me and began shouting racist remarks at me, do you honestly believe any action is going to change your (again, simply a generic term for making a point) racist mind? Choosing to not accept racism and "ignoring" racism are very closely related. The point is in how and why we do either one. Choosing to refuse action based on race is a step towards ending racism. Small step as it is, its much closer to the end than action based on race.

Lets stop arguing about the apology (racist arguemtn any way you cut it) and start putting together action that will actually help someone or help end racism. See, racism can go as a two way street. A group of white americans can be racist even by supporting something like an apology. They may even think they are doing the right thing, but I seem to recall white support for "Jim Crow" laws based on, "Its for their own protection". Defining action based on race is racism, regardless of the action. Reparations in my book would be racist.

7sm

I think affirmative action is a proactive step toward creating a stake in the community. Women have really come a long way with new policies. The differences between men and women will never be erased. I hope racial differences go way. I also accept that affirmative action causes as many problems as it solves; however, I have considered it whining. Those unworthy of promotion have a way of getting rid of themselves.
Sean

 

[7starmantis]

So would an apology from male americans aimed at female americans be in order and be productive? Would it change anything from the way it is now?

7sm

 

[sgtmac_46]

So would an apology from male americans aimed at female americans be in order and be productive? Would it change anything from the way it is now?

7sm

Most American women get apologized too all the time. 'I'm sorry, honey, I was wrong....please let me back in the house, it's getting cold and it's starting to rain.'

 

[Touch Of Death]

So would an apology from male americans aimed at female americans be in order and be productive? Would it change anything from the way it is now?

7sm

No its cluster**** there too but, It seems to be going smoothly. Don't get me started on that.
Sean

 

[sgtmac_46]

Basically, the 'white man' is 'the devil' and needs to PAY! Where have I heard all this before?

I mean, that's what we're really talking about. All this talk about 'institutions' apologizing and paying. Institutions are mental constructs, they don't exist outside our minds. If we aren't talking about certain individuals paying and apologizing, then we are talking about the entire country paying and apologizing. And we certainly don't expect african americans to apologize to themselves. Now we've said that women need an apology too. So, there's only one group of people that this is directed at...I wonder who.

I think it's long past time we used skin color as a determining factor of character.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Basically, the 'white man' is 'the devil' and needs to PAY! Where have I heard all this before?

I mean, that's what we're really talking about. All this talk about 'institutions' apologizing and paying. Institutions are mental constructs, they don't exist outside our minds. If we aren't talking about certain individuals paying and apologizing, then we are talking about the entire country paying and apologizing. And we certainly don't expect african americans to apologize to themselves. Now we've said that women need an apology too. So, there's only one group of people that this is directed at...I wonder who.

I think it's long past time we used skin color as a determining factor of character.

You know the whole reason we have a republic is so that "mob rule" doesn't become unjust. Let the republic do its job.
sean

 

[sgtmac_46]

You know the whole reason we have a republic is so that "mob rule" doesn't become unjust. Let the republic do its job.
sean

I'm sorry, i don't follow your analogy. What does mob rule have to do with any of this? Other than that some unscrupulous and disingenuous individuals are pushing apologies and reparations as a cynical way of making a play for the votes and political support of select minorities, under the premise that if it succeeds, they'll get some money out of it. Wooohooo, where do I sign on for some 'reparations'.

Mob rule indeed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's all about guilt, folks. Create artificial guilt for an act that you didn't commit, but that has been attached to you....then open the pocket book and start paying and, more importantly, you'll be bound to vote 'the right way' so as to appease that guilt, and try to make an end for an act that you had nothing to do with.

Of course, it only has power over us if we allow it. I say lets forget this silly racist non-sense, study the 19th century for what it is...history, AND move on in to the 21st Century.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It's all about guilt, folks. Create artificial guilt for an act that you didn't commit, but that has been attached to you....then open the pocket book and start paying and, more importantly, you'll be bound to vote 'the right way' so as to appease that guilt, and try to make an end for an act that you had nothing to do with.

Of course, it only has power over us if we allow it. I say lets forget this silly racist non-sense, study the 19th century for what it is...history, AND move on in to the 21st Century.

Actualy I was taught, in the criminal justice cources that I took, its about fear.
Sean

 

[elder999]

Does Black History Month actually separate us as Americans?

Not if it’s done right.

Freeman is hardly the first African American to gripe about Black History Month.

Funny story:

About 15 years ago, I was working in the training department at a commercial nuclear power plant, back in New York. I was partnered with a Caucasian fellow named Bob, who was and is simply one of the most upright, kind and completely unflappable people I’ve ever dealt with. We had lots of fun conversations in what was essentially a boring job-at least, it was supposed to be boring; when it was exciting, there was usually something terribly wrong.

Anyway, one day in late January-and remember, this is winter in upstate N.Y., cold to rival Alaska-I jokingly said, And what is up with giving us February? I know what it was, ‘they want their own month now? Let’s give ‘em February, and there’ll be no marching….” Bob looks right at me, deadpan, doesn’t miss a beat and in the utmost sincerity says, “It’s not your Black History Month; it’s all of ours.”

To which I could only say he was right-he was, like me, usually right….

More seriously, an uncle of mine used to complain, “Why do we get the shortest month?” Why, indeed?

It was Carter G. Woodson, a great black historian educated at Harvard and the University of Chicago who initiated what would become Black History month with “Negro History Week,” in 1926. He used to complain about it, too. He hoped the event would eventually put itself out of business by promoting the respectful integration of Negro history with everyone else’s history. In many ways, black history studies have made a lot of progress since those days. In many other ways, we’re still waiting.

Woodson chose the second week of February so the big week would coincide with the birthdays of Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. If Frederick Douglas, who escaped slavery to become a pioneer journalist, diplomat and advisor to Lincoln, were anywhere near as well integrated into American history studies as he is into African American history studies, there would be no need for Black History Month.

And the fact is, most Americans have at least a vague idea of who Douglas, G.W. Carver and Crispus Attucs were, and that’s about as far as it goes-they may have heard of these men, or even remember them in detail, but what they really remember is Paul Revere, and “two if by sea,” even though it didn’t quite happen that way. Sadly, there are numerous other African Americans throughout American history who made substantial contributions to America, and odds are good that without Black History Month, many of you would never know about them..

Fact is, there isn’t one aspect of today’s American culture that hasn’t been informed by or some form of a response to the presence of African Americans (and yes, that is a challenge), in spite of my famous joke about convening a meeting of ‘the Society of African American Nuclear Engineer..”(you know, as I’m heading off to sit on the toilet….)-and yes, along with my usually more noted American Indian heritage, mine is essentially an Anglicized African American name, and I am descended from freed slaves-who went on to rather famous success in shipping, agriculture and commerce, though one ancestor was burned alive in the slave riots of new York in 1712…..things you probably didn’t read about in American history class, but should have…..

Morgan Freeman offers a delightfully enlightened viewpoint on how to perceive people as individuals, but as far as eliminating racism goes-and it still exists-I’ve never known a problem to go away by not talking about it. The French sort of tried that: they swept their race problems under the rug in the spirit of “liberte, egalite, fraternite”, and refused, as a matter of French law, to recognize that different races exist, which made it hard, if not impossible, for the law to deal with decades of racial discrimination. Long standing racial and ethnic grievances led to the recent uprisings by poor, largely unemployed Arab and African youths in towns across France, just as they led to riots throughout American history.

We Amercians need not, and should not run from our own racial past. It is very much a part of our turbulent history, from the great debate the Framers of the Constitution staged over how to count slaves for purposes of reapportionment (“three-fifths of a person”??) to today’s first black woman Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

The bad old days of separtism tried to erase black folks from American history. Black History Month , if only for that month, puts us back in. It is not “:ridiculous” to study the tragedies and triumphs of the many, many people who made this country what it is. They have a lot to teach us. We need Black History Month. We don’t need to limit it to blacks only-or to only a month.

Oh, and that “apology?” If it were sincerely offered, I’d sincerely tell you where you could stick it……………

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actualy I was taught, in the criminal justice cources that I took, its about fear.
Sean

Fear has nothing to do with it. It's the natural stage when a culture becomes introverted and self-absorbed. The culture begins to re-examine it's earlier stages, and begins making value judgements on it's past and the actions of their ancestors. Conqueror's guilt. It's an inevitable stage of a successful civilization.

In times of plenty, we have the luxury of self-examination.

There used to be a mindset in psychology that dwelling on the past was healthy. Ironically, it was those who dwelled on the past all the time who needed the most therapy. Those who are able to move on from painful experiences are the healthiest and most successful. Learn the lessons of the past, then move on.

 

[Dan G]

In case you haven't heard, my friend, governments don't produce profits, ours produce deficits. If a company operated like most governments, they'd be bankrupt and their CEO's eating in a soup kitchen.

That you believe they ARE profit making is only an indication of how out of touch you apparently are.

Also if we're talking continuous institutions, such as governments, being liable, and if we are referring to financial liability as well, doesn't that make the British Crown the single MOST liable entity involved in the Slave Trade in the western hemisphere.

In fact, overwhelming majority of slaves brought to the area now called the US, were brought while it was a British holding. Importation of further slaves was abolished by congress in 1808, so only a very small number of slaves were brought in while the US was a soverignty. Further, the slaves brought in to what is now the United States represents only a small percentage of the overall slaves brought in to the New World by the Crown, to feed it's sweet tooth.

What's more, the Dutch, French, Portugeuse and Spanish, along with a few others, likewise profited.

This is shown to illustrate who is LARGELY responsible for the bulk of the slave trade. Perhaps Great Britain owes us and a few others some money and an apology. I wonder how many Brits are familiar with that part of their history?

The Italians pretty much invented the Global slave trade 2000 years ago, and slavery involved and continues to involve a wide range of peoples and ethnic groups both inside and outside of Africa.

It is estimated that about 10 to 15 million slaves were taken from Africa to between 1450 and 1900

The single biggest transatlantic trafficker of slaves was Portugal with about 4.5 million slaves total, Britain second with about 2.5 million, Spain with about 1.5 million France with about 1 million, and Holland with about 300,000.
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm
http://www.people.hofstra.edu/faculty/alan_j_singer/242%20Course%20Pack/2.%20Ninth/132.pdf

from 1701 Britain was by far the major trafficker as the Spanish Wars of sucession weakened their competitors.

On the other hand a quick look at the historical timeline shows that Britain was also a pioneer in attempting to abolish the Slave trade.

1569 - The legality of slavery in Britain was first challenged in the Cartwright case, involving a Russian slave. (Until the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople most slaves in Europe originated in Eastern Europe and Russia - history has gone full circle)

1772 - Somersett v Stewart establishes that any slave landing in Britain automatically becomes free."The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe, and so everyone who breathes it becomes free. Everyone who comes to this island is entitled to the protection of English law, whatever oppression he may have suffered and whatever may be the colour of his skin."

1807 - British nationals and shipping banned from the international Slave Trade.

18-25 onwards - British Navy very active in supressing the Slave Trade. an estimated 300,000 slaves freed from intercepted shipping and Schools and settlements fo freed slaves set up on islands such as the Seychelles.

1833 Britain Abolishes Slavery in entirety. 800,000 slaves emancipated from British colonies.

1885 - Berlin Treaty on Africa - European powers agree to ban slave trade

1903 - British Consul (Sir Roger Casement - later executed for his part in the Easter 1916 uprising) investigates slavery and human rights abuses in Congo Free State, a personal dominion of the utterly unpleasant Belgian King Leopold II. Report published in 1904 is used to whip up international pressure on Belgium over forced labour/slavery that relied on systematic use of amputation to prevent dissent.
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob73.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/casement_01.shtml

1908 - Belgium annexes Congo Free State to prevent human rights abuses and former colonial officials charged for atrocities commited.

1926 - Brussels Conference nations put in place Slavery Convention. (Oman finally signs in 1970!)

1948 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery. (Not binding on states)

1957 - Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (amends 1926 Slavery Convention)

Despite all the legislation and treaties to make slavery illegal, and all the enforcement action over 200 years it is surprising how much slavery is still going on.

2005 - Best monitoring of current global slavery trends largely comes from the US - US Department of State report estimates a worldwide slave trade of about 600,000 to 800,000 persons yearly (with about 14,500 - 17,500 in the US) It was estimated that about 1,400 women were trafficked into the UK for prostitution in 2000, but that figure is old, and fails to take into account other areas of forced labour, child trafficking etc..

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/


Looking at the title of the thread I don't find anything ridiculous about Black History Month; all history is important and looking at it with a particular focus can bring out things that would otherwise be missed (or have been sytematically ignored). Any examination of the slave trade and African-American history leads directly to a lot of material that is relevant to current issues that affect a lot of countries and people much more immediately than a debate over apologies and compensation for 100 - 150 year old human rights violations.

Good thread - a quick check to see if it was Britain or Portugal that was the biggest slave trader got me doing a lot of reading and thinking.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Good thread - a quick check to see if it was Britain or Portugal that was the biggest slave trader got me doing a lot of reading and thinking.

Yes and no. The Portugeuse, making a living as they did off of their shipping, were the largest actual transporters of slaves. However, the destination for those slaves was mostly British colonies of the West Indies, where the British profited off of their labor for production of sugar. So, it kind of depends on which part of the slave trade you are referring to, the actual transporter of slaves, or the end users. Either way, there is no serious dispute that the British and Portugeuse, along with the Dutch and Spanish, were responsible for the lion's share of the slave trade.

Which, I find ironic when Brits point to the US history of slavery with scorn. I find it ironic because, how much moral authority do you have, if you start an evil institution (the atlantic slave trade), you chiefly profit from it, are responsible for most of it. Then when it starts becoming less profitable for you, and other nations start getting involved in it that you are in conflict with, you decide that NOW it's time (after you've made many fortunes on the institution) to state that it's an evil instituted (that you mainly started to begin with).

The British squeezed every pound they could out of the slave trade, and the subsequent production of sugar, rum and other goods, and NOW they want to take the moral high-ground and condemn the US involvement in the institution they chiefly started? Ludicrious. They should condemn it, but they should remember THEY began it.

It's about like Tookie Williams claiming that his work against gang violence qualifies him for Sainthood....If you start an evil, and then work to end it, you don't deserve accolades, you're just cleaning up your own mess.

 

[Dan G]

Yes and no. The Portugeuse, making a living as they did off of their shipping, were the largest actual transporters of slaves. However, the destination for those slaves was mostly British colonies of the West Indies, where the British profited off of their labor for production of sugar. So, it kind of depends on which part of the slave trade you are referring to, the actual transporter of slaves, or the end users. Either way, there is no serious dispute that the British and Portugeuse, along with the Dutch and Spanish, were responsible for the lion's share of the slave trade.

Which, I find ironic when Brits point to the US history of slavery with scorn. I find it ironic because, how much moral authority do you have, if you start an evil institution (the atlantic slave trade), you chiefly profit from it, are responsible for most of it. Then when it starts becoming less profitable for you, and other nations start getting involved in it that you are in conflict with, you decide that NOW it's time (after you've made many fortunes on the institution) to state that it's an evil instituted (that you mainly started to begin with).

The British squeezed every pound they could out of the slave trade, and the subsequent production of sugar, rum and other goods, and NOW they want to take the moral high-ground and condemn the US involvement in the institution they chiefly started? Ludicrious. They should condemn it, but they should remember THEY began it.

It's about like Tookie Williams claiming that his work against gang violence qualifies him for Sainthood....If you start an evil, and then work to end it, you don't deserve accolades, you're just cleaning up your own mess.

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

The majority of the transatlantic slave trade went to Brazil - 4 million people, then the Spanish Empire - 2.5 million, British West Indies and British NorthAmerica and the US combined account for another 2.5 million.

The first time a slave was taken from Africa to North America was in 1528, by the Spanish to Florida.

The first recorded incident of the English engaging in the Transatlantic trade was John Hawkins in October 1562, he traded with the Spanish.

14 May 1607 - Jamestown founded.

August 1619 - first African slaves brought to an English American colony, by the Dutch to Jamestown.

http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html

Having said all that it doesn't really change the real point that the British made huge fortunes from the Transatlantic slave Trade, at it's height were the key player, and squeezed all they could from the colonial economies that were supported by slave labour - and I agree that it is hypocritical to focus only on abolition and ignore the behaviour that preceded it, particularly as Britain was happy to reap the rewards of slavery abroad whilst slowly reforming at home.

I am not convinced that the British abolition of slavery was mainly the result of lack of profitability - I think the main source of that theory is a book by the Marxist jamaican historian Dr Eric Williams - Capitalism and Slavery, published in the 60's just after Jamaican independence -when crediting any liberties acheived to the former colonial powers wasn't very fashionable.
The theory makes some sense though, especially after American Independence, but I think (but I am not that certain) the real downturn in Jamaica happened after unilateral abolition by Britain. Having said that there was a natural conflict between social reformers and business interests in Britain, and I imagine that had the colonies been producing more revenue (and had the US not become independent) the reformers would not have had as much influence.
I think a better argument is that abolition happened as a result of genuine principle when business opposition was weakened, but that having put themselves at a major economic disadvantage Britain was motivated by massive self interest in making major efforts to level the field by enforcing abolition using their Navy and pushing other countries to abolish slavery by treaty. Having control of 50% of the world's merchant shipping at the time, and the world's most powerful Navy gave Britain the muscle to abolish slavery unilaterally and then prevent anyone else from exploiting Britain's economic disadvantage for long.

The way I see it any country that has substantial power and influence and effects a reform is open to the charge of hypocrisy if it criticises another country for failing to make that reform, as the chances are that whatever injustice preceded the reform was done on a wider scale by the larger country. As a former superpower Britain still gets that criticism from time to time (normally internally), and the US now gets it daily. It is the price of success.

Similarly any country that slowly evolves a liberal regard for civil rights can be called hypocritical in comparison to a country that has no regard for civil rights whatsoever. The occasional failures of the US or Britain to extend their very liberal civil justice systems consistently to all its citizens can be called hypocritical in comparison to North Korea, for example, that couldn't give a damn and doesn't mind who knows. Both the US and Britain are hypocritical when it comes it human rights, it happens when a country has high ideals and sometimes fails to make them work in reality, but I know which systems I'd rather live under.

I don't know much of Tookie Williams, I don't respect the competence or integrity of lawyers, judges or politicians enough to support capital punishment, and it seems a waste to execute someone that might be able to do something socially useful, but he doesn't strike me as saint material either.

I enjoy the debate on this thread, it keeps me thinking.

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

The majority of the transatlantic slave trade went to Brazil - 4 million people, then the Spanish Empire - 2.5 million, British West Indies and British NorthAmerica and the US combined account for another 2.5 million.

The first time a slave was taken from Africa to North America was in 1528, by the Spanish to Florida.

The first recorded incident of the English engaging in the Transatlantic trade was John Hawkins in October 1562, he traded with the Spanish.

14 May 1607 - Jamestown founded.

August 1619 - first African slaves brought to an English American colony, by the Dutch to Jamestown.

http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html

Having said all that it doesn't really change the real point that the British made huge fortunes from the Transatlantic slave Trade, at it's height were the key player, and squeezed all they could from the colonial economies that were supported by slave labour - and I agree that it is hypocritical to focus only on abolition and ignore the behaviour that preceded it, particularly as Britain was happy to reap the rewards of slavery abroad whilst slowly reforming at home.

I am not convinced that the British abolition of slavery was mainly the result of lack of profitability - I think the main source of that theory is a book by the Marxist jamaican historian Dr Eric Williams - Capitalism and Slavery, published in the 60's just after Jamaican independence -when crediting any liberties acheived to the former colonial powers wasn't very fashionable.
The theory makes some sense though, especially after American Independence, but I think (but I am not that certain) the real downturn in Jamaica happened after unilateral abolition by Britain. Having said that there was a natural conflict between social reformers and business interests in Britain, and I imagine that had the colonies been producing more revenue (and had the US not become independent) the reformers would not have had as much influence.
I think a better argument is that abolition happened as a result of genuine principle when business opposition was weakened, but that having put themselves at a major economic disadvantage Britain was motivated by massive self interest in making major efforts to level the field by enforcing abolition using their Navy and pushing other countries to abolish slavery by treaty. Having control of 50% of the world's merchant shipping at the time, and the world's most powerful Navy gave Britain the muscle to abolish slavery unilaterally and then prevent anyone else from exploiting Britain's economic disadvantage for long.

The way I see it any country that has substantial power and influence and effects a reform is open to the charge of hypocrisy if it criticises another country for failing to make that reform, as the chances are that whatever injustice preceded the reform was done on a wider scale by the larger country. As a former superpower Britain still gets that criticism from time to time (normally internally), and the US now gets it daily. It is the price of success.

Similarly any country that slowly evolves a liberal regard for civil rights can be called hypocritical in comparison to a country that has no regard for civil rights whatsoever. The occasional failures of the US or Britain to extend their very liberal civil justice systems consistently to all its citizens can be called hypocritical in comparison to North Korea, for example, that couldn't give a damn and doesn't mind who knows. Both the US and Britain are hypocritical when it comes it human rights, it happens when a country has high ideals and sometimes fails to make them work in reality, but I know which systems I'd rather live under.

I don't know much of Tookie Williams, I don't respect the competence or integrity of lawyers, judges or politicians enough to support capital punishment, and it seems a waste to execute someone that might be able to do something socially useful, but he doesn't strike me as saint material either.

I enjoy the debate on this thread, it keeps me thinking.

I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, and it was never my intention to paint Great Britain as the largest offender in Slavery, just point out the European contention that slavery is singular wrong of the United States as hypocritical, as a half dozen countries of Europe traded and profited off many times more slavery than the US ever had, started with Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and France.

Again, i'm merely pointing out that there is a European myth about the US, that the US has a history of wrongs, and that slavery is evidence of how evil the US is....the hypocrasy comes in the fact that they apparently are ignorant of their own GREATER involvement in slavery. They feel that somehow, because they decided to disavow themselves, after profiting greatly, that they are somehow absolved of ALL consequences of slavery...yet, at the same time, the United States alone shares sole responsible for an institution it neither started, neither profited from the bulk of, nor committed the majority of, while Europeans get to pronounce their own history on the subject lilly white....it doesn't wash.

 

[Dan G]

I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, and it was never my intention to paint Great Britain as the largest offender in Slavery, just point out the European contention that slavery is singular wrong of the United States as hypocritical, as a half dozen countries of Europe traded and profited off many times more slavery than the US ever had, started with Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and France.

Again, i'm merely pointing out that there is a European myth about the US, that the US has a history of wrongs, and that slavery is evidence of how evil the US is....the hypocrasy comes in the fact that they apparently are ignorant of their own GREATER involvement in slavery. They feel that somehow, because they decided to disavow themselves, after profiting greatly, that they are somehow absolved of ALL consequences of slavery...yet, at the same time, the United States alone shares sole responsible for an institution it neither started, neither profited from the bulk of, nor committed the majority of, while Europeans get to pronounce their own history on the subject lilly white....it doesn't wash.

I agree, it doesn't wash, and there are plenty of examples of European countries taking very selective views of their history - of which Britain is no exception. (don't get me started on France, Belgium and Austria...)
I don't mind well argued criticism of Britain at all, much of it is fair, and actually depending on how you sample the statistics it is possible to show that Britain was at one point the largest offender in the Slave Trade. More relevant to the US it was unquestionably Britain that was responsible for any conditions in the US at the time of independence - absolutely no way that Britain can duck responsibility there.

Big targets make easy targets - and the US is the biggest around. Apart from the fact that verbally bashing the US is an (often) harmless world sport with relaxed rules that allow all but the most intellectually incompetent to excel, it is also a very convenient way of distracting attention from all sorts of domestic issues. Fact of life, and the price of having power and a respect for freedom of expression. Time to start worrying is when it all goes quiet...

I like these threads and particularly enjoy your contributions because the carefully argued US perspective forces me to question some of my basic assumptions, some of my views have definitely changed, and where I haven't changed my mind I have still learned things - some of which are professionally relevant. Cheers :asian:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree, it doesn't wash, and there are plenty of examples of European countries taking very selective views of their history - of which Britain is no exception. (don't get me started on France, Belgium and Austria...)
I don't mind well argued criticism of Britain at all, much of it is fair, and actually depending on how you sample the statistics it is possible to show that Britain was at one point the largest offender in the Slave Trade. More relevant to the US it was unquestionably Britain that was responsible for any conditions in the US at the time of independence - absolutely no way that Britain can duck responsibility there.

Big targets make easy targets - and the US is the biggest around. Apart from the fact that verbally bashing the US is an (often) harmless world sport with relaxed rules that allow all but the most intellectually incompetent to excel, it is also a very convenient way of distracting attention from all sorts of domestic issues. Fact of life, and the price of having power and a respect for freedom of expression. Time to start worrying is when it all goes quiet...

I like these threads and particularly enjoy your contributions because the carefully argued US perspective forces me to question some of my basic assumptions, some of my views have definitely changed, and where I haven't changed my mind I have still learned things - some of which are professionally relevant. Cheers :asian:

I find these discussionsequally enlightening and I always walk away learning something useful.:asian: