Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With so many people lately discussing slavery in the U.S in relation to the founders and confederates I think many may be losing sight of the fact that the whole western hemisphere shares a similar history.
The history of the U.S isn't that unique. What happened in the U.S is similar to what happened in nearly every country in the western hemisphere. Almost every country in the western hemisphere had Native American removal of some form by Europeans and the importation of African slaves by Europeans.
So how do other countries in this hemisphere make sense of the Native American removal and African enslavement that happened in their countries? Do they have the types of debates that we do in the U.S on these issues?
None of them kept slavery for 400 years. Except Bulgaria, where they kept Romani enslaved until well into the late 1800s. Romani are still reviled throughout Europe to this day as some sort of subhuman criminal separate species.
So when some Euro psuedo-intellectual brings up race relations in the US, all I have to do is say "Romani" - and in nothing flat I'm on the receiving end of a torrent of abusive language about "Gypsies" (a pejorative term for Romani).
Then I ask "How is that different from the way you accuse us of treating black people?" And of course they've got a million excuses for why Romani really ARE subhuman trash that should be exterminated. Exactly the same baseless excuses white people have traditionally used here for why its OK to keep black people repressed and mistreated here in the USA.
It makes me sick to my stomach. Go back 100 years in the US - how we treated black people back then is how they treat Romani today all across Europe. Segregation, no job opportunities, intermarriage considered "miscegenation". They actually paid bounties in some places for killing Romani men - and eventually expanded that program to include adult women as well. Stealing their children and sending them to "state schools" like we did with the Native Americans. Burning them out of their homes - and burning them IN their homes. Lots of present day hatred directed at Romani all throughout Europe.
So the answer (partly) is - nowhere in Europe did they enslave black people the way we did, but consider the way they treat the Romani. That's a valid comparison.
And the upshot of that situation is that they pretty much universally treat Romani worse than we treat black/brown people today, with Moslems running a distant second for most-hated minority in Europe.
None of them kept slavery for 400 years. Except Bulgaria, where they kept Romani enslaved until well into the late 1800s. Romani are still reviled throughout Europe to this day as some sort of subhuman criminal separate species.
So when some Euro psuedo-intellectual brings up race relations in the US, all I have to do is say "Romani" - and in nothing flat I'm on the receiving end of a torrent of abusive language about "Gypsies" (a pejorative term for Romani).
Then I ask "How is that different from the way you accuse us of treating black people?" And of course they've got a million excuses for why Romani really ARE subhuman trash that should be exterminated. Exactly the same baseless excuses white people have traditionally used here for why its OK to keep black people repressed and mistreated here in the USA.
It makes me sick to my stomach. Go back 100 years in the US - how we treated black people back then is how they treat Romani today all across Europe. Segregation, no job opportunities, intermarriage considered "miscegenation". They actually paid bounties in some places for killing Romani men - and eventually expanded that program to include adult women as well. Stealing their children and sending them to "state schools" like we did with the Native Americans. Burning them out of their homes - and burning them IN their homes. Lots of present day hatred directed at Romani all throughout Europe.
So the answer (partly) is - nowhere in Europe did they enslave black people the way we did, but consider the way they treat the Romani. That's a valid comparison.
And the upshot of that situation is that they pretty much universally treat Romani worse than we treat black/brown people today, with Moslems running a distant second for most-hated minority in Europe.
Thank you for the enlightenment on this topic, one I never knew of. I must read more, thanks to you. No doubt I'm astounded and just down right disgusted with the talking points of "they did it too" as if that would make it ok.
But for the last century Brazil has tried to forget its past, refusing to accept the legacy of the slave trade. It has sought to project the image of a country of mixed descent, where the colour of a person's skin does not count, a land unfettered by racism where cordial relations reign between citizens of Indian, European and African descent.
The US might be unique in this hemisphere because the country was divided between free states and slave states all under one constitution that officially granted 3/5 free personhood to slaves. Since representation in congress and the electoral college was based on the number of free persons in a state or district, the slave states got an additional boost of power in governmental affairs beyond what they rightfully deserved if representation was only based on "free" persons. This is why the south wanted to extend slavery to new states to keep a pro-slavery edge in congress. Legislation such as the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas Nebraska Act might have had a different outcome without the 3/5 rule giving added representation to the south. There were very heated debates between the north and south over slavery as the nation grew.
So the debates in the US go back long before emancipation. Sectionalism and expansion played a big part. Slave importation was banned in 1807. Slavery existed in a much lessor extent in the north but was abolished in the 1820s (I think) and was not really a representation issue as it was in the south. Britain's emancipation act in 1833 which began to free the slaves in the colonies (with some compensation to slave owners) spurred more debate and encouraged abolitionists in the US. Since we had a representative form of government, not subject to whims of a king or dictator or censorship, the debates were very public.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19482
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
The US might be unique in this hemisphere because the country was divided between free states and slave states all under one constitution that officially granted 3/5 free personhood to slaves. Since representation in congress and the electoral college was based on the number of free persons in a state or district, the slave states got an additional boost of power in governmental affairs beyond what they rightfully deserved if representation was only based on "free" persons. This is why the south wanted to extend slavery to new states to keep a pro-slavery edge in congress. Legislation such as the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas Nebraska Act might have had a different outcome without the 3/5 rule giving added representation to the south. There were very heated debates between the north and south over slavery as the nation grew.
So the debates in the US go back long before emancipation. Sectionalism and expansion played a big part. Slave importation was banned in 1807. Slavery existed in a much lessor extent in the north but was abolished in the 1820s (I think) and was not really a representation issue as it was in the south. Britain's emancipation act in 1833 which began to free the slaves in the colonies (with some compensation to slave owners) spurred more debate and encouraged abolitionists in the US. Since we had a representative form of government, not subject to whims of a king or dictator or censorship, the debates were very public.
In terms of Britain, due to the efforts of people such as William Wilberforce and John Newton, Slavery was banned by Britain and in her Empire.
The actual slave trade was banned under the Slave Trade Act 1807 (the same year as the US), whilst slavery itself was abolished under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 with subsequent legislation in 1843. Slavery in the US itself was banned in the American Civil War of 1861-65.
John Newton was born in Wapping London, in 1725 ( 24 July 1725 – 21 December 1807) and was an English sailor, in the Royal Navy later a becoming a captain of slave ships. After being saved from death in s storm, he vowed to devote his life to God and turned his back on the slave trade, he later became ordained as an evangelical Anglican cleric and served Olney, Buckinghamshire in England for two decades and later a parish in London. Newton wrote a number of hymns, his best known being "Amazing Grace" and "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken".
With so many people lately discussing slavery in the U.S in relation to the founders and confederates I think many may be losing sight of the fact that the whole western hemisphere shares a similar history.
The history of the U.S isn't that unique. What happened in the U.S is similar to what happened in nearly every country in the western hemisphere. Almost every country in the western hemisphere had Native American removal of some form by Europeans and the importation of African slaves by Europeans.
So how do other countries in this hemisphere make sense of the Native American removal and African enslavement that happened in their countries? Do they have the types of debates that we do in the U.S on these issues?
Other countries don't dwell on it, not from my experience in business travel. The preoccupation with past slavery and race is a unique US thing. It's practically an industry in this country and also intertwined into US politics.
Of course the practice of slavery isn't that unique, slavery existed under the colonists of the European powers for centuries in both North and South America, brought over by European slave traders, often captured and sold by warring African tribes themselves. Everyones hands are dirty. Slavery actually existed in this independent nation for less than 100 years. Same thing with native American removal, which, besides also occurring in Central and South America, also has many anologies in history in the conquering and subjecation of other lands in the world. Too numerious to mention.
Our country has a unique trait of inward retrospection on the sins of the past. That's a good thing for the most part, we don't hide our past....it's our American trait of our freedom to exchange ideas, but it's also misused for social or political purposes, its obsessed upon, its used as justification or an excuse for some of the more abohorent actions and behavior today of extreements groups, and its used to distort history or unjustly compare it to the moral ideals of today. That's not a good thing.
In terms of Britain, due to the efforts of people such as William Wilberforce and John Newton, Slavery was banned by Britain and in her Empire.
The actual slave trade was banned under the Slave Trade Act 1807 (the same year as the US), whilst slavery itself was abolished under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 with subsequent legislation in 1843. Slavery in the US itself was banned in the American Civil War of 1861-65.
Slavery was actually banned in some northern US slaves before it was banned in the UK.
One could be cynical and say that, when UK lost its US colonies, particularly the agricultural south, the practice of slavery was no longer economically advantageous to them. They had little to lose and much to gain via global economics by banning slavery.
Other countries don't dwell on it, not from my experience in business travel. The preoccupation with past slavery and race is a unique US thing. It's practically an industry in this country and also intertwined into US politics.
Of course the practice of slavery isn't that unique, slavery existed under the colonists of the European powers for centuries in both North and South America, brought over by European slave traders, often captured and sold by warring African tribes themselves. Everyones hands are dirty. Slavery actually existed in this independent nation for less than 100 years. Same thing with native American removal, which, besides also occurring in Central and South America, also has many anologies in history in the conquering and subjecation of other lands in the world. Too numerious to mention.
Our country has a unique trait of inward retrospection on the sins of the past. That's a good thing for the most part, we don't hide our past....it's our American trait of our freedom to exchange ideas, but it's also misused for social or political purposes, its obsessed upon, its used as justification or an excuse for some of the more abohorent actions and behavior today of extreements groups, and its used to distort history or unjustly compare it to the moral ideals of today. That's not a good thing.
+1
European countries practiced slavery in their far-flung colonies.
Unless the black populations of Brazil, Haiti, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc are indigenous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
