on the question: should Georgia apologize for slavery

[rkitect]

Just curious: why hasn't an apology been demanded from the descendants of the tribes in Africa that sold their slaves to the Slave Dealers?


Racism works both ways.

[Deacon]

I'm sitting here in a hotel room in Montreal, and on CBC News they reported that Blair was giving a speech somewhere in the UK regarding the 200th anniversary of the British version of the Emancipation Proclamation, which would mean the UK didn't ban slavery until 1807.

[spikegirl7]

huh, that's odd.

When slaves were emancipated by Act of the British Parliament in 1834 the British Government paid compensation to slave owners.

[Deacon]

Yeah, pretty odd.

[minsx]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="728005"]I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Directly, sure, but people are still hurt by slavery, and by the lingering racism that slavery helped entrench and sanctify.[/quote]

It should be noted here that slavery did not lead to racism; but racism that already existed helped make slavery "ok" at the time.

Racism is a natural and normal thing; it stems from the preference for a comfort zone created by surrounding yourself with people like you. That doesn't make it RIGHT; but it would be silly to say that slavery -> racism.

I'm not sure that anybody can rightly say whether or not the current racism that exists is a lingering result of slavery or natural response to environment, or if both, how much each contributes. Certainly, events in recent history might contribute to feelings of prejudice as well.

[spikegirl7]

actually slavery did play a big part in magnifying racism against black people. When the US began importing black slaves the general feeling was that blacks were just fine as people. There was no strong general opinion that blacks were markably inferior. The only reason they used black slaves instead of white or Native American slaves was that blacks stood out more in a crowd and were easy to identify.

It wasn't until later that strong racism came into play and it was said that blacks were inherently inferior to whites. This came as a response to a lot of people saying "why are so many black people slaves?" It was a way to justify the enslavement of those people.

Not the greatest moment in our history, but not really uncommon in the world at the time.

And a lot of the current racism is held by blacks against whites. They have different reasons for it, but most of the time it's not the white people who are racist anymore.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="minsx";p="728627"][quote="StruckingFuggle";p="728005"]I'm not sure if that's entirely true. Directly, sure, but people are still hurt by slavery, and by the lingering racism that slavery helped entrench and sanctify.[/quote]

It should be noted here that slavery did not lead to racism; but racism that already existed helped make slavery "ok" at the time.

Racism is a natural and normal thing; it stems from the preference for a comfort zone created by surrounding yourself with people like you. That doesn't make it RIGHT; but it would be silly to say that slavery -> racism.

I'm not sure that anybody can rightly say whether or not the current racism that exists is a lingering result of slavery or natural response to environment, or if both, how much each contributes. Certainly, events in recent history might contribute to feelings of prejudice as well.[/quote]

In addition to what spikegirl said, racism isn't just a feeling, it's institutions (or at least, a part of institutions) and it's how they behave, and really .... argh. It's one of those things that I've been trying to figure out how to explain and can't think of how to put it into words.

[Makh]

[quote="Deacon";p="728074"]Regardless, IMHO it should be up to those demanding an apology to communicate why they believe it is necessary.[/quote]
Some people think that slavery still has impact on black population. Unfortunately, we do not have many black people here to discuss about this. I am not talking of vicitms, but normal black person. As I said, it is never too late for an apology. It is clear, however, that most people here are white and are strongly opposed to public apology, some for financial reasons, other for personal reasons. I do not see where is the problem with this, they are considered as your own people. If national apology can appease only half of them, then it would be a success. I do not think most black people want the white to kneel before them, and cover themself with shame. If all black people really want to humiliate white people, then the racial situation in USA is worse than I thought.

Russia never claimed to be the land of the free or champion of democracy.

Ah, so it should not retroactively be held to a modern societal standard, but the US should?

USA prides itself on its democratic past and its great achievement about human rights and freedom. If someone here, wants to compare the democratic aspect of USA with the country who had the most brutal regimes with the most ruthless leaders, Deacon, they are free to do it.

If it is foolish, why the Armenian are asking Turkey to apologize for what they have done more than 90 years ago?

You'd have to educate us on what exactly happened 90 years ago, how the matter has been handled since then, the current social attitudes among both the Armenians and the Turks, and exactly what it is the apology is supposed to accomplish. And events circa WWI are certainly more "fresh" than those in the mid 1800s...

The Armenian genocide of 1915 is one of fourth genocides recognized by European Union. The other being of course in WWII, Rwanda in 1994, and the one during the war in Bosnia (1992-1995). In 1915, Russia was at war with Ottoman empire, Armenians, who suffered from several massacres in the past, took the opportunity to ask protection from the tsar against the Turks. A part of Amernia was liberated by the Russians, and Armenians were considered as traitors. To make them pay, Turks deported and killed half of the 3 million people in the part that was not occupied by Russian troops, almost all civilians. People were deported in camps, in middle of desert. Most of them perished of thirst and starvation. Turks did, on smaller scale, the same thing in 1909 and 1895. Today, Turks refuse to recognize the genocide, many European historians openly condemn turkish government for destroying the archives. And it can be a problem of Turkey adhesion to EU.

I know, Struckingfuggle, you are playing devil's advocate again, but do you really think Armenians would take national apology lightly?

[Deacon]

[quote="spikegirl7";p="728636"]The only reason they used black slaves instead of white or Native American slaves was that blacks stood out more in a crowd and were easy to identify.[/quote]
I'm not sure that's true. I think they used mostly blacks as slaves because they were purchased as slaves from other Africans and were therefore already seen as slaves. In other words, they wouldn't grab, say, Ben Franklin and make him a slave because he was a free man. But if you were a slave or born into slavery, then, well, there go you. You were salve. Congratulations.

[spikegirl7]

partially. But if you remember they tried to hold the Native Americans as slaves for a while. They thought that Native Americans were savages and most people didn't have a very high opinion of them to say the least. However the Native Americans didn't do so well as slaves, they would run away and it would be impossible to find them because they knew the land and because they blended in well in the country.

Yeah, buying existing slaves was part of it, but not all the reason.

[rkitect]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="728661"].... argh. It's one of those things that I've been trying to figure out how to explain and can't think of how to put it into words.[/quote]

Racism = Misunderstanding?

I went to the most ethnically diverse high school in the Atlanta area at the time representing over 160 countries from around the world. I find that racism that other people hold towards other ethnicities (espacially blacks) is a misunderstanding of their culture. Mainly because that's just how they were taught to view other people of that race.

[Deacon]

rkitect, that's ridiculous bullshit. Any honest commentary on a culture of a group of people who share the same ethnic background that includes both the good and the bad will get you branded a racist. People like to claim that "racism is ignorance." That may be true in some situations regarding a race's inherent mental abilities or what have you, but when you point out that, say, there's a good chance that Federale pulling you over in northern Mexico may be looking for a bribe, you're called a racist--and that's not ignorance, but the exact opposite.

[rkitect]

*checks last post*

Nope. Didn't say anything about ignorance. Thesaurus seems to agree that the two (misunderstanding and ignorance) are not even related.

Thanks for playing though!

I agree with you on ignorance though.

[Deacon]

"I find that racism that other people hold towards other ethnicities (espacially blacks) is a misunderstanding of their culture. Mainly because that's just how they were taught to view other people of that race."

Which is a long way of saying the cliche "ignorance." Come on. "You just don't understand because that's just what you've been taught; you don't know any better." I'm pretty sure not knowing any better is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

[rkitect]

It's obvious that anything said by me is going to be misinterpreted here by you. With intent or not, I don't know but it just makes it so not worth arguing over.

btw: not knowing any better is the definition of ignorance, not knowing the truth is misunderstanding. I guess that's what I get for splitting hairs.

Congratulations you win.