Slavery can be a Good Thing

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Of course, slavery is never a good thing, it is a horrible thing and yet the long term results may not be as dire as we envision.

Al Roker a popular TV personality in the US is tracing his roots and found that his ancestors were brought to the Caribbean as slaves eventually received their own land and some of the family moved to the US. His story traced the horrific conditions imposed on his ancestors. Yet, as horrible as all that was (and is in certain parts of the world today), in the end is Al Roker and his family better off than if his ancestors were never brought to the Americas as slaves? Mr. Roker is educated, wealthy and a celebrity who has the ability to provide well for his family.

Are the millions of Americans who rightly lament over the plight of their ancestors better off than they would be if slavery had not existed?



Of course, that question can never be answered, but given the past and current state of Africa over the last 150 years it would seem that the price paid by African slaves provided rich rewards for many of their decedents. Even if the answer is yes, no doubt most people would rather have the ability to erase the past. But the question does pose an interesting possibility.

[K.Snyder]

Well I understand what you're saying but the question is mostly non conformative...

Slavery is more about statement than anything else and to associate someones' well being as the result of it is moot in consideration to ideology...That's to say that stripping someones' freedom in my own mind is the worst thing you could ever impose on anyone and the fact that it was done still emphasizes the fact that those to whom were enslaved were subjected to no rights, having their families stripped away from them, and physical harm...

If you were to ask everyone living today, to whom's a direct descendant of slaves, if they'd rather have not been born at all or to have their ancestors subjected to the atrocity of slavery they'd prefer to not have been born...

The fact still remains that there are people to whom do live in Africa with less of a fruitful future than anyone born in America for instance which means the question becomes moot associated with circumstance...

It's not a question of "Slavery can be a good thing" rather "Is sacrifice worth it"...

[Lon]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;970386 wrote: Of course, slavery is never a good thing, it is a horrible thing and yet the long term results may not be as dire as we envision.

Al Roker a popular TV personality in the US is tracing his roots and found that his ancestors were brought to the Caribbean as slaves eventually received their own land and some of the family moved to the US. His story traced the horrific conditions imposed on his ancestors. Yet, as horrible as all that was (and is in certain parts of the world today), in the end is Al Roker and his family better off than if his ancestors were never brought to the Americas as slaves? Mr. Roker is educated, wealthy and a celebrity who has the ability to provide well for his family.

Are the millions of Americans who rightly lament over the plight of their ancestors better off than they would be if slavery had not existed?



Of course, that question can never be answered, but given the past and current state of Africa over the last 150 years it would seem that the price paid by African slaves provided rich rewards for many of their decedents. Even if the answer is yes, no doubt most people would rather have the ability to erase the past. But the question does pose an interesting possibility.


You are right, the question can never really be answered, but it's almost like saying that the "HOLOCAUST" was beneficial in that it really demonstrated well to people man's inhumanity to man. The thing is----------the slaves and the Holocaust victims never had a choice in the matter.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Lon;972727 wrote: You are right, the question can never really be answered, but it's almost like saying that the "HOLOCAUST" was beneficial in that it really demonstrated well to people man's inhumanity to man. The thing is----------the slaves and the Holocaust victims never had a choice in the matter.


Don't think they are the same thing at all. Mans inhumanity to man goes much further back than the Holocost. The examples are too numerous to mention and cover every century since recorded time and before that. My example directly related the benefits derived by a group of people from the misfortune and extreme sacrfice (unwittingly) by others.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

If you were to ask everyone living today, to whom's a direct descendant of slaves, if they'd rather have not been born at all or to have their ancestors subjected to the atrocity of slavery they'd prefer to not have been born...


That's a pretty general statement that no one can possibly know is true. Besides the absence of slavery does not mean anyone would have to not been born, but rather where they were born, here or in Africa, that is the real choice if it could be made.

Of course, as I said slavery was never a good thing, but some good things may have come from it for some people.

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;974270 wrote: That's a pretty general statement that no one can possibly know is true. Well I was speaking in terms of empathy...Those to whom would choose to not care what their ancestors were subjected to would give credence to their not being different than those to whom subjected said peoples to slavery......I'm wondering how many African Americans you'll find to say that!!!...:wah:...

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;974270 wrote:

Besides the absence of slavery does not mean anyone would have to not been born, but rather where they were born, here or in Africa, that is the real choice if it could be made.

Of course, as I said slavery was never a good thing, but some good things may have come from it for some people.My emphasis is more so that "Slavery can be a good thing" is imprudent to those that are not effected at the same time those to whom are do not wish to be..."Slavery can be a good thing" is irrelevant because descendants to whom are not subjected to slavery know no different by virtue of their inability to relate to those prior to enslavement...The difference being the populations in said countries would remain the same rather at different intervals...

"Slavery can be a good thing" is a proposition giving credence to "Sacrifice: Is it worth it"...

[Nomad]

Using convoluted reasoning I can think of dozens of ways rewards offset tragedy.

Example:

Family of 5 gets strapped in to a mortgage they can no longer afford when the balloon payment pops up. 1 spouse suddenly dies in a horrific car wreck leaving the other with a life insurance pay out thus saving the remaining family from losing their home and they get to go furniture shopping.

:-6 Good Times !

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Nomad;974614 wrote: Using convoluted reasoning I can think of dozens of ways rewards offset tragedy.

Example:

Family of 5 gets strapped in to a mortgage they can no longer afford when the balloon payment pops up. 1 spouse suddenly dies in a horrific car wreck leaving the other with a life insurance pay out thus saving the remaining family from losing their home and they get to go furniture shopping.

:-6 Good Times !


This could go on forever and it is not that important, the only point is that everything has consequences, many unintended. I am sure that everyone would agree that we would all be better off if slavery never happened, but it did. Most of the consequences were bad and we suffer from them to this day. But some of the consequences though unintended were positive and thus lead to more positive results both for individuals and for society.

[hoxtonchris]

the "pros" and cons of slavery can never be considered ,one ancestors misery can never be thought worth it if new generation benefited.also i always consider the right to birth as well as the rite to life,if the slaves had stayed in africa chances are they would have met different partners and therefore had different children.so the children that would have been born have been denied life.,i know the children born today in the actual circumstances wouldnt have been born but the rite to birth must be with the kids born free from the tirrany

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

hoxtonchris;975426 wrote: the "pros" and cons of slavery can never be considered ,one ancestors misery can never be thought worth it if new generation benefited.also i always consider the right to birth as well as the rite to life,if the slaves had stayed in africa chances are they would have met different partners and therefore had different children.so the children that would have been born have been denied life.,i know the children born today in the actual circumstances wouldnt have been born but the rite to birth must be with the kids born free from the tirrany


There are of course no pros to slavery and certainly that is not implied, but there are consequences. Millions of Americans are Americans because of slavery and that is simply a fact. Whether they would rather not be so if slavery could have been wiped out retroactively is an unanswerable question.

But what is very clear is that America would be the worse off if many of these people were not Americans because their contributions to the Country would be lostl.

[wildhorses]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;970386 wrote: Of course, slavery is never a good thing, it is a horrible thing and yet the long term results may not be as dire as we envision.

Al Roker a popular TV personality in the US is tracing his roots and found that his ancestors were brought to the Caribbean as slaves eventually received their own land and some of the family moved to the US. His story traced the horrific conditions imposed on his ancestors. Yet, as horrible as all that was (and is in certain parts of the world today), in the end is Al Roker and his family better off than if his ancestors were never brought to the Americas as slaves? Mr. Roker is educated, wealthy and a celebrity who has the ability to provide well for his family.

Are the millions of Americans who rightly lament over the plight of their ancestors better off than they would be if slavery had not existed?



Of course, that question can never be answered, but given the past and current state of Africa over the last 150 years it would seem that the price paid by African slaves provided rich rewards for many of their decedents. Even if the answer is yes, no doubt most people would rather have the ability to erase the past. But the question does pose an interesting possibility.


I am not at all suprised that you started such an abhorrent thread as this.

[wildhorses]

It is ridiculous to say that the decendents of African slaves are better off than if their ancestors were not brought here as slaves. Africans could have immigrated here like everyone else on the planet.

Quinn suggests that those decendents would all be in Africa had their ancestors not been forced into slavery like animals. So it was a favor to the decendents of slaves to enslave their ancestors? OMG. This is sick.

In fact there are many Africans who have immigrated to USA....their ancestors were never slaves. Slavery was not a necessary component. Nothing good came out of slavery. Nothing.

This ideology comes out of white guilt about slavery. But whites today should not feel guilty about black slavery in this country. They were not even alive when it happened.

For modern day whites to be blamed for this is an insidious form of racism. Many blame present day whites for something done by someone else in another century.....and the only connection is the color of skin. That is racism against white people.

In fact the percentage of slave owners among whites at the time was very small. So, for the most part, not even white people who were living at the time were guilty. But all whites are blamed....only because of the color of their skin. Racism.

Think about it.

[Oscar Namechange]

I am currently living in a city of Britain .. Bristol that has a slavery history.

Bristol now hangs it's head in shame. they have recently officially apologised for the misery they brought to the people.

When is America going to have the balls to do the same Quinn?

It is not against the grain to be humble.

If our country can recognise what they did in the "Triangle", why can't you?

You seem to forget that although the descendants of slaves in America may have your capitalistic life-style that they should be oh so bloody grateful to you for.. for bringing them to you "New World" in the first place, many of the slaves taken did not live.

They were raped and murdered if they were not fit enough to serve your masters.

It is no different to Britain suddenly getting all smarmy and saying that if we didn't deport our criminals to Australia, then their descendants would be in the gutter. It's nonsence.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

wildhorses;1025013 wrote: It is ridiculous to say that the decendents of African slaves are better off than if their ancestors were not brought here as slaves. Africans could have immigrated here like everyone else on the planet.

Quinn suggests that those descendants would all be in Africa had their ancestors not been forced into slavery like animals. So it was a favor to the descendants of slaves to enslave their ancestors? OMG. This is sick.

In fact there are many Africans who have immigrated to USA....their ancestors were never slaves. Slavery was not a necessary component. Nothing good came out of slavery. Nothing.

This ideology comes out of white guilt about slavery. But whites today should not feel guilty about black slavery in this country. They were not even alive when it happened.

For modern day whites to be blamed for this is an insidious form of racism. Many blame present day whites for something done by someone else in another century.....and the only connection is the color of skin. That is racism against white people.

In fact the percentage of slave owners among whites at the time was very small. So, for the most part, not even white people who were living at the time were guilty. But all whites are blamed....only because of the color of their skin. Racism.

Think about it.
You really should think before you write. Nobody said slavery was a necessary component, I didn't say slavery did anyone a favor, but I did say given the chance most people would probably like to erase slavery regardless of the consequences.

I merely said that an unintended consequence of slavery was that many black Americans were better off (than if their ancestors never left Africa) as a result of their ancestors suffering the horror and indignity of slavery and that is a true statement. Even today in Africa many countries are suffering the consequences of colonialism and their own corrupt governments and dictators, drought, starvation and genocide and although I have never seen it first hand, what I have seen leads me to the conclusion that even poor black Americans are better off that many average Africans.

It would therefore seem that the hand of fate placed many African Americans in a better place, just as it did for those of us whose ancestors voluntarily emigrated to the US, assuming of course that in my case you can consider the starvation of the Irish voluntary.

[Oscar Namechange]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1025473 wrote:

what I have seen leads me to the conclusion that even poor black Americans are better off that many average Africans.

.


And that makes everything o.k.??

It'd be interesting to know what these African countrie's, with their corrupt leaders etc would be doing right now should their land not be pilaged by our fore-fathers. maybe, their economy's would be better, if we had left them in peace to decide how their own country should be run.

I understand your analogy of the Irish famine, my family are Irish.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

oscar;1025409 wrote: I am currently living in a city of Britain .. Bristol that has a slavery history.

Bristol now hangs it's head in shame. they have recently officially apologised for the misery they brought to the people.

When is America going to have the balls to do the same Quinn?

It is not against the grain to be humble.

If our country can recognise what they did in the "Triangle", why can't you?

You seem to forget that although the descendants of slaves in America may have your capitalistic life-style that they should be oh so bloody grateful to you for.. for bringing them to you "New World" in the first place, many of the slaves taken did not live.

They were raped and murdered if they were not fit enough to serve your masters.

It is no different to Britain suddenly getting all smarmy and saying that if we didn't deport our criminals to Australia, then their descendants would be in the gutter. It's nonsence.


Did I say anything about anyone being grateful for slavery or anything close to that? Did you actually read what I wrote?

The Portuguese started the slave trade and the English took it over and during the period when slaves were first brought to the Americas the English were in charge as well, I suspect you had nothing to do with either. The vast majority of Americans had nothing to do with slavery, the people who should apologize are long gone.

There is a long list of things countries and people should apologize for it you want to go there, the Americans to the native Americans, the English to the Irish, the Turks to the Armenians, the Germans to half the world, the Japanese to the Chinese, some Africans to other Africans and on and on and on.

I might abhor and regret what my ancestors did, but I can't apologize for something I had nothing to do with. Actually the closest I have come to slavery was my great, great grandfather who came to the US in 1862 from Germany after fighting in the Crimean War, promptly joined the Union Army and fought until 1865.

[K.Snyder]

oscar;1025409 wrote: When is America going to have the balls to do the same Quinn?

It is not against the grain to be humble.

If our country can recognise what they did in the "Triangle", why can't you?




Governments change.

For a government to apologize gives credence to their being no different...I don't believe anyone is going to argue against such a statement considering slavery has existed since the beginning of written history yet America had set the stage to abolish slavery less than 100 years after declaring and winning their Independence...By your argument one can just as easily say that African Americans should thank the American government...

The Civil Rights or lack thereof however I see being a very unethical fragment of American history but I still do not see an apology being significant...

An apology on behalf of those whom happened to have aided and embedded such events however I do see as being relevant but then again if people did that they'd have to apologize on behalf of all other human beings who have wronged anyone throughout history...

Quite frankly the American government has apologized by eliminating slavery in the United States...



*Edited* Who is the American government by the way?...You are aware that an African American is running for President in the American government and not only that is leading in the polls with 17 days left until the election not to mention countless other African Americans whom hold an office in the American government aren't you?...

[wildhorses]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1025473 wrote: You really should think before you write. Nobody said slavery was a necessary component, I didn't say slavery did anyone a favor, but I did say given the chance most people would probably like to erase slavery regardless of the consequences.

I merely said that an unintended consequence of slavery was that many black Americans were better off (than if their ancestors never left Africa) as a result of their ancestors suffering the horror and indignity of slavery and that is a true statement. Even today in Africa many countries are suffering the consequences of colonialism and their own corrupt governments and dictators, drought, starvation and genocide and although I have never seen it first hand, what I have seen leads me to the conclusion that even poor black Americans are better off that many average Africans.

It would therefore seem that the hand of fate placed many African Americans in a better place, just as it did for those of us whose ancestors voluntarily emigrated to the US, assuming of course that in my case you can consider the starvation of the Irish voluntary.


I thought about my post carefully...believe me.

The point is that they are human beings....not pegs on a board. They could have come here of their own free will. You are assuming that their decendents would have been born in Africa. But many Africans have gone to live in other countries and they might have done likewise.

Stop trying to alleviate your guilt. You are not guilty for slavery as you were not born at the time. Face up to what happened and stop trying to tweak it into something that is more pallatable to you.

It makes my skin crawl that you or anyone else would think that forcing people into slavery benefits their next generation. Especially when the original victims could have accomplished the same destination on their own and under much better circumstances.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

wildhorses;1026222 wrote: I thought about my post carefully...believe me.

The point is that they are human beings....not pegs on a board. They could have come here of their own free will. You are assuming that their decendents would have been born in Africa. But many Africans have gone to live in other countries and they might have done likewise.

Stop trying to alleviate your guilt. You are not guilty for slavery as you were not born at the time. Face up to what happened and stop trying to tweak it into something that is more pallatable to you.

It makes my skin crawl that you or anyone else would think that forcing people into slavery benefits their next generation. Especially when the original victims could have accomplished the same destination on their own and under much better circumstances.


It is difficult to have a debate with someone who is so tainted in their view they cannot view anything objectively. Your view is that someone said forcing people into slavery benefits their next generation as if there is a suggestion that is a justification for slavery. Certainly that is not the case and no suggestion of that kind was made. What I was trying to note is the unintended consequence of slavery. I seriously doubt that the many successful black Americans would find themselves in the same situation today as they do if there were no such thing as slavery, for that to occur millions of Africans would have had to immigrate to the US beginning at least in the mid 19th century. Do you truly believe that was a real possibility?

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1027041 wrote: It is difficult to have a debate with someone who is so tainted in their view they cannot view anything objectively. Your view is that someone said forcing people into slavery benefits their next generation as if there is a suggestion that is a justification for slavery. Certainly that is not the case and no suggestion of that kind was made. What I was trying to note is the unintended consequence of slavery. I seriously doubt that the many successful black Americans would find themselves in the same situation today as they do if there were no such thing as slavery, for that to occur millions of Africans would have had to immigrate to the US beginning at least in the mid 19th century. Do you truly believe that was a real possibility?


To be honest I completely understand where you're coming from but technically the concept is moot...

You see, the descendants of those slaves are American. They have African heritage, but are American and so ye cannot say to them as ye shalt not say to others. They're American that benefit from certain issues in the society they live in now at present in the same way they do not benefit from certain issues in that very same society.

What's left is the effects of prejudices induced by those to whom are the neighbors of those effected.

What you're really saying is that America is more fruitful of a country than Africa speaking in terms of overall perspective. I don't know of anyone that could disagree.

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;1027072 wrote: To be honest I completely understand where you're coming from but technically the concept is moot...

You see, the descendants of those slaves are American. They have African heritage, but are American and so ye cannot say to them as ye shalt not say to others. They're American that benefit from certain issues in the society they live in now at present in the same way they do not benefit from certain issues in that very same society.

What's left is the effects of prejudices induced by those to whom are the neighbors of those effected.

What you're really saying is that America is more fruitful of a country than Africa speaking in terms of overall perspective. I don't know of anyone that could disagree.


I understand the next argument is that African Americans, for the most part, would not be in America if it hadn't been for slavery but the fact that African population rates would have no significance for the greater whatsoever to the idea renders the entire conjecture non conformative...Philosophically speaking...It's no different than saying out right that America is more fruitful than every country that's seen a citizen of those very same countries in question migrate to America...

The only relevancy to the concept of "Slavery can be a good thing" is the time frame during slavery itself which renders the concept void of "Slavery can be a good thing" giving credence to "Is slavery worth the sacrifice"...Very simple in my mind. It most certainly is not considering the determining factor throughout the entire conjecture is whether or not those enslaved understands the difference between themselves and what they could have been had they not been enslaved.

[Accountable]

wildhorses;1026222 wrote: It makes my skin crawl that you or anyone else would think that forcing people into slavery benefits their next generation. Especially when the original victims could have accomplished the same destination on their own and under much better circumstances.Good Lord! Get off your high horse a sec, will ya? The people forcing people into slavery didn't give a tinker's damn about any future benefits or anything else. What Quinn said was that it appears that the benefit ocurred. No judgment, guilt alleviation, justification, or anything else. Just a simple observation.



Here's a similar observation: WWII leveled so many old and obsolete factories that Germany was able to modernize more quickly than the US, which still had old facilities.



See? No declaration that Naziism was justified or war is good. Just a simple observation.



Now, shake hands and find a neutral corner.

[wildhorses]

Accountable;1027653 wrote: Good Lord! Get off your high horse a sec, will ya? The people forcing people into slavery didn't give a tinker's damn about any future benefits or anything else. What Quinn said was that it appears that the benefit ocurred. No judgment, guilt alleviation, justification, or anything else. Just a simple observation.



Here's a similar observation: WWII leveled so many old and obsolete factories that Germany was able to modernize more quickly than the US, which still had old facilities.



See? No declaration that Naziism was justified or war is good. Just a simple observation.



Now, shake hands and find a neutral corner.


The point is that the benefit could have occurred anyway....if they were left alone. And if you don't like the fight....stay out of the ring.

[Accountable]

wildhorses;1027734 wrote: The point is that the benefit could have occurred anyway....if they were left alone. And if you don't like the fight....stay out of the ring.The point is they weren't left alone, and despite that, it happened anyway.

The neutral corner line was because you don't seem to notice you're both on the same side.

[wildhorses]

Accountable;1027829 wrote: The point is they weren't left alone, and despite that, it happened anyway.

The neutral corner line was because you don't seem to notice you're both on the same side.


We are not on the same side. The argument that somehow decendents of slavery benefitted from the slavery of their ancestors is VERY COMMONLY used by those whites who feel guilty about it. Even though they have no reason to feel that way. As if to detract from the event of slavery by highlighting the "benefit" of their decendents. By Quinn's logic you could also say that slave masters would not have gotten rich without slaves....and therefore there is some benefit to slavery. Slaves and their decendents are separate people.

OK so I just want to say this one more time.

Victims of slavery could have come to this country like everyone else....and many probably would have...in fact many did. Their children could have been born free. Their decendents could have been doing everything they have done. Quinn assumes that none of these decendents would have immigrated to America. And so he claims they would still be in Africa and would be worse off.

The point of Quinn's comment was not that they were not left alone as you assert. Because he states that IF THEY WERE LEFT ALONE THEY WOULD BE WORSE OFF AS THEY WOULD BE IN AFRICA. So it seems that his comments revolve around what would have happened if they WERE left alone. And if they were left alone many would have immigrated here like everone else.

So we are not on the same side as follows:

Quinn: If Africans were not forced into slavery then their decendents would be worse off as they would all be in Africa.

Me: If Africans were not forced into slavery then they would have immigrated here like everyone else and their decendents would still have been born here.

[Oscar Namechange]

As some-one with an interest in the sponsering of African children through school (we have put two through), there is no doubt that parts of Africa, due to drought, famine etc i.e Chad, Ethiopia, will always be third world countrie's and need Western help.

The area's were slaves were taken from (Without consulting my books) were the more productive are'a of Africa.

It is only sense that the slave captors would not have taken Africans suffering from starvation and disease. The area's they took from were self sufficient and by modern day, those Africans, would have education, jobs and a plane ticket to America if they wanted it.

[wildhorses]

oscar;1027870 wrote: As some-one with an interest in the sponsering of African children through school (we have put two through), there is no doubt that parts of Africa, due to drought, famine etc i.e Chad, Ethiopia, will always be third world countrie's and need Western help.

The area's were slaves were taken from (Without consulting my books) were the more productive are'a of Africa.

It is only sense that the slave captors would not have taken Africans suffering from starvation and disease. The area's they took from were self sufficient and by modern day, those Africans, would have education, jobs and a plane ticket to America if they wanted it.


I don't even think they would require a ticket. People from other countries show up in boats here all the time. Not really commerical boats. And they are people who really have nothing at all. I don't think Africans at the time would necessarily have to be educated to get here....they would just have to know the country was here. Some have come from Cuba on inner tubes even....not even in a boat. I hear the Aussies are always turning away boatloads of people. In the 1980's refugees came here on boats from Viet Nam. Everyone called them the "boat people" for that reason. They managed to come here on rickety little boats that you would not even think they were sea worthy...just to look at them.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

What you're really saying is that America is more fruitful of a country than Africa speaking in terms of overall perspective. I don't know of anyone that could disagree.


That is essentially what I am saying and that slavery was a perverse way of allowing millions of people to take advantage of that fact, just as my ancestors took advantage of it on a voluntary basis (if you consider the Irish famine totally voluntary, of course). Africa is not a country of course but is made up of many countries but I know of none where the opportunities come close to what we have even in light of ongoing prejudice and racism which by the way exists in every country and sadly will continue to exist in the world forever.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Me: If Africans were not forced into slavery then they would have immigrated here like everyone else and their descendants would still have been born here.


Really, there are 33.1 million immigrants living in the US, It is estimated that the current population of African Immigrants is 600,000. Does that probability you speak of sound realistic in light of the fact that immigrants from the entire continent of Africa today only equal 0.018 of the entire immigrant population? I suspect that in the last century the percentage was even lower.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

wildhorses;1027963 wrote: I don't even think they would require a ticket. People from other countries show up in boats here all the time. Not really commerical boats. And they are people who really have nothing at all. I don't think Africans at the time would necessarily have to be educated to get here....they would just have to know the country was here. Some have come from Cuba on inner tubes even....not even in a boat. I hear the Aussies are always turning away boatloads of people. In the 1980's refugees came here on boats from Viet Nam. Everyone called them the "boat people" for that reason. They managed to come here on rickety little boats that you would not even think they were sea worthy...just to look at them.


One thing is for sure, you clearly sound like you live on planet San Francisco.

[wildhorses]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1028461 wrote: Really, there are 33.1 million immigrants living in the US, It is estimated that the current population of African Immigrants is 600,000. Does that probability you speak of sound realistic in light of the fact that immigrants from the entire continent of Africa today only equal 0.018 of the entire immigrant population? I suspect that in the last century the percentage was even lower.


It is realistic Quinn. Previous generations did immigrate here, so their decendents are not "immigrants"....they are American citizens. I have several friends whose ancestors immigrated here (not by way of slavery) from Africa. And Africans also immigrate to other countries. And we are not only speaking of Africans who immigrate to America...but any other country with a standard of living equal to USA...and there are quite a few of those. So back to the point. Those Africans forced into slavery could have immigrated here or any other of a number of wonderful countries. Africans immigrate just like everyone else.

[wildhorses]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1028465 wrote: One thing is for sure, you clearly sound like you live on planet San Francisco.


Is that the best you can do Quinn? I am disappointed.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

wildhorses;1028813 wrote: Is that the best you can do Quinn? I am disappointed.


We are at an impasse, so whats the point.

[K.Snyder]

Nomad;974614 wrote: Using convoluted reasoning I can think of dozens of ways rewards offset tragedy.

Example:

Family of 5 gets strapped in to a mortgage they can no longer afford when the balloon payment pops up. 1 spouse suddenly dies in a horrific car wreck leaving the other with a life insurance pay out thus saving the remaining family from losing their home and they get to go furniture shopping.

:-6 Good Times !


The idea that the person whom died was not murdered negates the very idea the event were sacrificial. Without sacrifice you can't stage a question asking to decide between two variables associated with acceptance.

My suggestion is is that the descendants of the slaves would have to understand the difference of those two variables in direct corelation to what it is said people had given up. They can't make that comparison.

[AussiePam]

K.Snyder;1259018 wrote: The idea that the person whom died was not murdered negates the very idea the event were sacrificial. Without sacrifice you can't stage a question asking to decide between two variables associated with acceptance.

My suggestion is is that the descendants of the slaves would have to understand the difference of those two variables in direct corelation to what it is said people had given up. They can't make that comparison.


.......

:yh_flower

[K.Snyder]

AussiePam;1259048 wrote: .......

:yh_flower


:yh_wink

[Bruv]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;970386 wrote:

Are the millions of Americans who rightly lament over the plight of their ancestors better off than they would be if slavery had not existed?



......... but given the past and current state of Africa over the last 150 years it would seem that the price paid by African slaves provided rich rewards for many of their decedents.


I have not read the thread so apologise if my point has been mentioned.

What would be the state of Africa if slavery and then the following colonialisation had not happened ?

Maybe Africa with all its riches would have been THE dominant continent.

[K.Snyder]

Bruv;1259183 wrote: I have not read the thread so apologise if my point has been mentioned.

What would be the state of Africa if slavery and then the following colonialisation had not happened ?

Maybe Africa with all its riches would have been THE dominant continent.


I'd blame the lack of unity in Africa before I'd blame the International Monetary fund and World Bank.

All those "resources" and they still have such a diversity of "wealth". I don't buy it!

[BTS]

oscar;1025409 wrote: I am currently living in a city of Britain .. Bristol that has a slavery history.



Bristol now hangs it's head in shame. they have recently officially apologised for the misery they brought to the people.



When is America going to have the balls to do the same Quinn?

It is not against the grain to be humble.

If our country can recognise what they did in the "Triangle", why can't you?






Sheesh we (USA) have been apologising to minorities since after our civil war (which started out over states rights not slavery!!).



I Pity that you live in a city that hangs it head in shame and can't "get on with gettin on"

[gmc]

BTS;1263200 wrote: [quote=oscar;1025409]I am currently living in a city of Britain .. Bristol that has a slavery history.



Bristol now hangs it's head in shame. they have recently officially apologised for the misery they brought to the people.



When is America going to have the balls to do the same Quinn?

It is not against the grain to be humble.

If our country can recognise what they did in the "Triangle", why can't you?






Sheesh we (USA) have been apologising to minorities since after our civil war (which started out over states rights not slavery!!).



I Pity that you live in a city that hangs it head in shame and can't "get on with gettin on"








It's not dwelling on the past it's being prepared to look at it as it was rather than through rose tinted glasses. It was after all the british that banned the african slave trade and were powerful enough to actually enforce it.

Nor was it as simple as the english started it either. Slavery was a fact of life for many (the last serfs were freed in the UK in 1897) and a very real possibility for many if unlucky.

Ever wonder why so many north africans have blue eyes?

BBC - History - British History in depth: British Slaves on the Barbary Coast

Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one's racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement. Preachers in churches from Sicily to Boston spoke of the similar fates of black slaves on American plantations and white slaves in corsair galleys; early abolitionists used Barbary slavery as a way to attack the universal degradation of slavery in all its forms.




It took religious fervour to turn slavery in to solely the lot of the black man.