Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Chris Rock: "White people need to own the actions of their ancestors"
Options
Comments
-
Just because you cant comprehend the Point does not make it stupid,it rather Points to your own limitations instead.
Nothing you have added refutes the Point-you have only presented a hypothisis which is conjecture because slavery did happen in the reigon.
I can imagine that Life is better in the USA than it is in West Africa-what I would base that on would be factors like-
Black people have a higher level of education in the USA than in West Africa.
They are wealthier in the USA.
They have better access to better Healthcare in the USA.
There is more political stability in the USA.
Nothing,I have said is a defense of slavery.
Now,to make my Point stupid,you ought to explain to me why it is more beneficial to be born in west africa than it is to be born in the USA.
On the topic of being owed,because they built America is false.The USA would not have become the super/hyper Power it is today if it was Reliant on the Tobacco and cotton industries,which were themselves Reliant on slaves( though even Economists have done studies that shows not only is slavery immoral,but it is also economically self-defeating).The building of America as a superpower had much more to do with the rust-belt states and industrialization than the (in relative terms)impoverished Southern Slave States.
I understand your point. It's really not that difficult. It's still stupid.
You argument only works, if at all, if you look at one individual case only. That's hardly an effective rebuttal to his argument about race relations generally. And particualrly given he will be first to acknowledge his family will grow up quite privileged.
If you apply your "logic" to slavery in the USA as a whole, then without slavery both West Africa and the USA would look very different today.
Indeed, as would the British empire.
We would possibly all be speaking Spanish today, as the Spanish empire could have emerged as the more powerful entity given the ample resources in Latin America and their access to indigenous slave labour.
Though given the hacienda system implemented by the spanish authorities and their self defeating economic policies at the time, they probably still would have shot themselves in the foot.
And actually, the success of America is tied up in the general economics and trade between the Americas, Africa and Europe as a whole.
The very fact that the U.S. colonies were allowed set up industry owes much to their lack of resources in comparison to the Caribbean colonies.
Since they weren't seen as economically important, they were allowed do their own thing and could develop these industries. In the (at the time) much more productive and lucrative careibean colonies, all native industry was illegal except for sugar/spice production.
That allowed the US develop an economic system and gave it market outlets.
So remove the slave variable and we could see very different results throughout the Americas.0 -
Please refer to my reply to Karl Stein above.Where did Chris Rock mention compensation or reparations?
Why so? I gave a rational reason why, which was echoed by at least one other poster and your rebuttal is that it's "ridiculously stupid". Any chance you could explain why it's "ridiculously stupid" or was this just some comment in lieu of you actually having an argument?And they argument that their descendants are better of because of the suffering of the slaves is ridiculously stupid.
Do you mean the slavery they were practicing long before Europeans set foot there? The slavery that persisted in some cases only until colonialism, because it was the Europeans that outlawed it?If you want argue that, then you have to ask would West Africa be in the state it was in without colonialism and Slavery?
You appear to know very little about African history.
Probably. After all slavery was something found throughout the Americas and it hardly benefited the other countries very much. It also was not really practiced in Canada, yet that nation is far more prosperous than almost all the other American nations that did practice it.Would the US be as prosperous as it was without the slave labour which built Irs southern economies? Or without being able to trade with the slave colonies or Caribbean?
You claim that America principally owes it's prosperity to slavery. I've now pointed out in two replies how this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Unless you can back up your claim at this stage we can all just presume that you don't really know what you're talking about next time you repeat it.
What history book for illiterates are you getting this from?Without Slavery, would the British economic policies in the Americas have changed? Would the white colonists have been directed towards the spice producing carribean colonies instead of new England in order to make up the labour deficit.
I can if I cite historical facts - you appear to be making up as you're going along.You can't play the "what if" game selectively.
LOL. The butterfly effect. You do know your pulling desperate theories from random directions doesn't make your argument sound any more clever. Especially as your response had absolutely nothing to do with what you were even quoting.And that's ignoring the "butterfly effect". Change one variable and we really va t guess what the world would look like.0 -
-
There are plenty of successful countries that have had no or very little interaction to slavery e.g. Canada or New Zealand. There are also countries that have a deep history of slavery that are no where near as successful as those countries mentioned. e.g. Brazil, Jamacia.
In other words, correlation does not equal causation.
If you analyse the economic history of those places, their success or failure is very much a product of the colonial policy adopted in respect of each by Britain, Portugal etc.
Ironically, the U.S. prospered and Jamaica didn't due to the perceived lack Of economic value of the US colonies in comparison to Jamaica, which was extremely valuable as a result of sugar and spice production.
The British government allowed those in the US colonies to do their own thing, and develop an industry base and middle class, as a result. This ultimately was the basis of the success of the U.S. colonies, which was subsequently built on following independence.
On the other hand, as Jamaica was able to produce valabuable resources in great numbers (sugar and spices etc were of great value at the time), it was worked intensively by a large and disposable slave population, no other industry or production was allowed (so that basic furniture and tools all had to be imported) and there was little development of a middle class - you basically had uneducated slaves and wealthy landlords and plantation owners who exported much of their wealth instead of investing in the economy.
When the value of sugar and spices fell, there was nothing for Jamaica to replace it with, they had no middle class capable of supporting a domestic economy and the majority of the people were uneducated and impoverished.
Let's not pretend the U.S. was successful in a bubble or solely as a result of their own endeavour. There are a lot of reasons why they succeeded and others failed.
While I am not too familIar with the economic histories of Canada (though really it would be quite similar to the US), Australia and New Zealand, I would imagine British colonial policy, economic resources and the prevailing global economics at the time of their establishments was again determinative.
As for the Latin American colonies, again their abundance of resources is partially responsible for their own lack of success, as well as the "latifunda" estate system established which actually harmed the economy and stifled any growth or development. Funnily enough, the British trading policy was also crucial again here, as most of the wealth generated in those colonies ultimately benefited the British coffers, as the Brits stepped in to provide the manufactures goods that Spain, Portugal and their colonies failed to produce themselves (in some cases they agreed not to under some rather self defeating treaties with Britain AFAIK).0 -
Were there actual laws against industry in the West Indies, or was it more a case of industry being uneconomical compared to plantations?
The British government allowed those in the US colonies to do their own thing, and develop an industry base and middle class, as a result. This ultimately was the basis of the success of the U.S. colonies, which was subsequently built on following independence.0 -
Advertisement
-
You do know that the industrial revolution took place almost entirely after the American revolution, so I'm not really sure what the British government could have allowed or not.The British government allowed those in the US colonies to do their own thing, and develop an industry base and middle class, as a result. This ultimately was the basis of the success of the U.S. colonies, which was subsequently built on following independence.
But do go on with your in-depth knowledge of history...0 -
I understand your point. It's really not that difficult. It's still stupid.
You argument only works, if at all, if you look at one individual case only. That's hardly an effective rebuttal to his argument about race relations generally. And particualrly given he will be first to acknowledge his family will grow up quite privileged.
If you apply your "logic" to slavery in the USA as a whole, then without slavery both West Africa and the USA would look very different today.
Indeed, as would the British empire.
We would possibly all be speaking Spanish today, as the Spanish empire could have emerged as the more powerful entity given the ample resources in Latin America and their access to indigenous slave labour.
Though given the hacienda system implemented by the spanish authorities and their self defeating economic policies at the time, they probably still would have shot themselves in the foot.
And actually, the success of America is tied up in the general economics and trade between the Americas, Africa and Europe as a whole.
The very fact that the U.S. colonies were allowed set up industry owes much to their lack of resources in comparison to the Caribbean colonies.
Since they weren't seen as economically important, they were allowed do their own thing and could develop these industries. In the (at the time) much more productive and lucrative careibean colonies, all native industry was illegal except for sugar/spice production.
That allowed the US develop an economic system and gave it market outlets.
So remove the slave variable and we could see very different results throughout the Americas.
Thank you for the reply.
To dismiss my Point as ridiculously stupid you would have to have refuted that being born in Contemporary USA is preferable to being born in Contemporary West Africa.
You have not done that.
You have gone off on a tangent about The spanish empire and Spices which are at very best,tenuous.
That the spanish and french prioritized the sugar cane fields of the caribbean over their american and canadian interests is just Another in the long list of historically backing the wrong horse.(earlier again the Dutch also relinquished New Amsterdam in Exchange for the Dutch east indies)
Who knows what would have happened to west africa without Europeans buying slaves?Slavery would have continued-as it had Before the europeans,and as it does to the present day.
I would be interested in hearing how you Believe,that without the trans-Atlantic slave trade,west africa would have a higher standard of living than the US.0 -
To dismiss my Point as ridiculously stupid you would have to have refuted that being born in Contemporary USA is preferable to being born in Contemporary West Africa.
It's not much of a point at all. The underlying message you and others are subtly conveying is 'shut up and be thankful for your lot'.Who knows what would have happened to west africa without Europeans buying slaves?
You do it seems.Slavery would have continued-as it had Before the europeans,and as it does to the present day.
So you accept that all this is idle conjecture and then in the very next sentence you claim that everything would have stayed exactly as it was? You're contradicting yourself and this adds to the stupidity of your non-point.
Worse than that you are zealously attempting to portray what happened as fortuitous for the ancestors of the victims of slavery by stitching together an incoherent tapestry of irrelevant 'ifs' and useless conjecture.
If your Aunt had been born with balls she'd have been your uncle.0 -
Karl Stein wrote: »It's not much of a point at all. The underlying message you and others are subtly conveying is 'shut up and be thankful for your lot'.
You do it seems.
So you accept that all this is idle conjecture and then in the very next sentence you claim that everything would have stayed exactly as it was? You're contradicting yourself and this adds to the stupidity of your non-point.
Worse than that you are zealously attempting to portray what happened as fortuitous for the ancestors of the victims of slavery by stitching together an incoherent tapestry of irrelevant 'ifs' and useless conjecture.
If your Aunt had been born with balls she'd have been your uncle.
Yet again,you bring nothing at all to the discussion,it just seems as though you have chosen this subject to get through your quota of 10 pointless internet fights on boards per day.
The poster Floggg,made a Point (we disagreed)but you come to the table with nothing other than you suspect that I Think that "they should shut up,and be grateful for their lot".
If a poster asks a hypothetical question,how should one best reply?
He wanted to know,if trans-Atlantic slavery didn't exist in the past,how different would the Contemporary societies be? A reasonable question.One can use the history of the reigon pre and post trans-Atlantic slavery,but because what happened,happened,we can only guess.I gave my opinion,if somebody,perhaps your good self could give reasons as to why I would be incorrect,then post them,if the Points you make are good enough,I would have no problems revisiting and changing my veiws
So,either come out with reasons or Points as to why I'm wrong or just wait a couple of hours and post your overly used "They only come out at night"clip.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »You do know that the industrial revolution took place almost entirely after the American revolution, so I'm not really sure what the British government could have allowed or not.
But do go on with your in-depth knowledge of history...
FYE.
Industrial Revolution: circa 1760 - 1840
American Revolution: circa 1776 - 1783
Post AR IR: circa 1783 - 1840 or 71.25% of IR.
Not quite the 'entirely' you so emphatically implied.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've omitted the childish baiting, and waffle, and extracted the sentences that are some bit coherent.One can use the history of the reigon pre and post trans-Atlantic slavery,but because what happened,happened,we can only guess. I gave my opinion,if somebody,perhaps your good self could give reasons as to why I would be incorrect,then post them,if the Points you make are good enough,I would have no problems revisiting and changing my veiws
As you've pointed out yourself your 'opinion' is nothing but a guess and a guess that underpins your 'they're better off for slavery' non-point. I have no interest in trying to prove a guess incorrect and the fact that you're even attempting to have me follow you down 'crockholm's rabbit-hole of of idle conjecture' underscores that you are unable to grasp how silly the discussion has become.So,either come out with reasons or Points as to why I'm wrong
Conjecture cannot be proved wrong or right.or just wait a couple of hours and post your overly used "They only come out at night"clip.
Oh, I hadn't realised you were such a fan of mine.0 -
Probably worth noting that the Industrial Revolution occurred slightly later in America. In any case it isn't that relevant since;FYE.
Industrial Revolution: circa 1760 - 1840
American Revolution: circa 1776 - 1783
Post AR IR: circa 1783 - 1840 or 71.25% of IR.
Not quite the 'entirely' you so emphatically implied.
1) The IR wasn't strictly speaking an exact timeframe - more a period where most of the advancements were made.
2) Industry existed before the IR.0 -
Jimoslimos wrote: »Probably worth noting that the Industrial Revolution occurred slightly later in America. In any case it isn't that relevant since;
1) The IR wasn't strictly speaking an exact timeframe - more a period where most of the advancements were made.
2) Industry existed before the IR.
Fair points.0 -
Jimoslimos wrote: »Probably worth noting that the Industrial Revolution occurred slightly later in America. In any case it isn't that relevant since;
1) The IR wasn't strictly speaking an exact timeframe - more a period where most of the advancements were made.
2) Industry existed before the IR.
What should also be noted is that after independence from Britain the US ignored Britain's 'free trade' orthodoxy and engaged in economic protectionism to nurture US industry.the first Secretary of the Treasury, was an early proponent of protectionism as a matter of policy. In the 1790s, he argued that America should impose tariffs to protect its "infant industries" from foreign competition.
www.wsj.com0 -
Karl Stein wrote: »I've omitted the childish baiting, and waffle, and extracted the sentences that are some bit coherent.
As you've pointed out yourself your 'opinion' is nothing but a guess and a guess that underpins your 'they're better off for slavery' non-point. I have no interest in trying to prove a guess incorrect and the fact that you're even attempting to have me follow you down 'crockholm's rabbit-hole of of idle conjecture' underscores that you are unable to grasp how silly the discussion has become.
Conjecture cannot be proved wrong or right.
Oh, I hadn't realised you were such a fan of mine.
Yup,as I expected,more mealy-mouthed mush from a Lionel Hutz School of Law dropout.Since you have nothing of substance to add,we can park it here Rumpole.0 -
more trouble caused by white people and their ancestors0 -
-
Whurl Star!0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Please refer to my reply to Karl Stein above.
Why so? I gave a rational reason why, which was echoed by at least one other poster and your rebuttal is that it's "ridiculously stupid". Any chance you could explain why it's "ridiculously stupid" or was this just some comment in lieu of you actually having an argument?
Do you mean the slavery they were practicing long before Europeans set foot there? The slavery that persisted in some cases only until colonialism, because it was the Europeans that outlawed it?
You appear to know very little about African history.
Probably. After all slavery was something found throughout the Americas and it hardly benefited the other countries very much. It also was not really practiced in Canada, yet that nation is far more prosperous than almost all the other American nations that did practice it.
You claim that America principally owes it's prosperity to slavery. I've now pointed out in two replies how this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Unless you can back up your claim at this stage we can all just presume that you don't really know what you're talking about next time you repeat it.
What history book for illiterates are you getting this from?
I can if I cite historical facts - you appear to be making up as you're going along.
LOL. The butterfly effect. You do know your pulling desperate theories from random directions doesn't make your argument sound any more clever. Especially as your response had absolutely nothing to do with what you were even quoting.Were there actual laws against industry in the West Indies, or was it more a case of industry being uneconomical compared to plantations?The Corinthian wrote: »You do know that the industrial revolution took place almost entirely after the American revolution, so I'm not really sure what the British government could have allowed or not.
But do go on with your in-depth knowledge of history...Thank you for the reply.
To dismiss my Point as ridiculously stupid you would have to have refuted that being born in Contemporary USA is preferable to being born in Contemporary West Africa.
You have not done that.
You have gone off on a tangent about The spanish empire and Spices which are at very best,tenuous.
That the spanish and french prioritized the sugar cane fields of the caribbean over their american and canadian interests is just Another in the long list of historically backing the wrong horse.(earlier again the Dutch also relinquished New Amsterdam in Exchange for the Dutch east indies)
Who knows what would have happened to west africa without Europeans buying slaves?Slavery would have continued-as it had Before the europeans,and as it does to the present day.
I would be interested in hearing how you Believe,that without the trans-Atlantic slave trade,west africa would have a higher standard of living than the US.
I won't go through it all, but a couple of points in response:
(i) I am well aware that slavery was already widespread in africa before europeans arrived In fact, arab slavers probably were the worst offenders. Africans themselves did engage in "slavery", though it was not really in the same form as europeans or arabs conducted - more akin to indentured servitude i believe.
What europeans did bring though was colonialism - which went hand in hand with the western slave trade. Colonialism utterly destroyed pre-existing social and political systems, and post-colonial policies actively promoted tribal and ethnic conflicts and tension and autocratic dictatorships which prevent stable political systems developing. Arab slavers set up trade routes and posts - but never set out to occupy.
So if you want to play the what if black people never made it to the americas game, then you should ask what if white people never made it to Africa - since their arrival was so inexorably linked with the western slave trade which brought them to america in the first place.
2. As i said in subsequent posts, there were reasons why the US colonies proposed while other colonies didn't - most of which had little to do with the initial settlers in the US colonies or simply the use of slavery. It was primarily determined by resources, and the economic and political policies adopted in their respective colonies by Britain, Spain and Portugal. The British adopted policies in the US colonies which enabled it to develop politically and economically, whereas the policies adopted in other colonies stifled such growth.
3. the births did introduce laws against certain industrial activity in the british carribean colonies. See Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America as my source.
The lucrative sugar and spice colonies were prohibited from enagaging in industrial activity by the british, which meant their economies were one trick ponies. the northern colonies (US and Canada) weren't, so developed industry - which later flourished as part of the industrial revolution.
That industrial revolution couldn't have happened if there wasn't a pre-existing industrial base and tradition, and if there wasn't a market for their goods. that market was provided both by the US population but also by trade with the carribean colonies, african colonies and britain. hence the triangle trade.
4. My reference to the sugar and spice economies was primarily intended to refer to the british sugar and spice colonies (such as Jamaica which i referred to). The brits prioritised sugar and spice in the carribean, but since the northern colonies lacked any resources that weren't readily available in europe, the brits didnt prioritise any one resource and let the economy develop organically - but with the benefit of the carribean and latin american markets for their goods.
5. As i said, the "contemporary USA is better than contemporary Liberia" argument only works (if at all) in individual cases. its stupid though in a general discussion of race and the legacy of historic injustices.
The whole argument is predicated on the assumption that both west africa and northern america would be in the same condition it is now if europeans hadn't gone to west africa and carried off millions of people to northern america. But that is a pretty huge assumption - the history of both places would read very differently if europeans hadn't colonised africa and instituted the triangle trade.
I'm not saying west africa would now be like the east coast of usa, but i am saying the east coast of the usa would be nothing like what it is today.
6. Slavery wasn't the primary determining factor in the history of africa and the americas.
Colonialism, colonial economic and social policies and the distribution of resources were (though Slavery was a key part of the economic system in many places).
It would be extraordinarily naive to think any of these economies developed in a vacuum or that the success or failure of one country or colony was solely down to the people who occupied it.0 -
Overheal used the word "vitriolic" in AH
Aye you changed mate.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yup,as I expected,more mealy-mouthed mush from a Lionel Hutz School of Law dropout.
This is funny coming from someone completely contradicts himself in the space of two sentences and when it's broken down and pointed out to him, all simple so he can see, ignores it in favour of spitting the dummy.Since you have nothing of substance to add,we can park it here Rumpole.
Back to the colouring books with you.0 -
Karl Stein wrote: »This is funny coming from someone completely contradicts himself in the space of two sentences and when it's broken down and pointed out to him, all simple so he can see, ignores it in favour of spitting the dummy.
Back to the colouring books with you.
Still codding yourself that you said anything valid or made a relevant Point.
If I were to colour you in,what colour would signify self-delusional?
Or just Brown for full of shyt?0 -
But a country like New Zealand is not without racial strife, a holdover from the policies of the colonial state.
It may not have been slavery but it generated a racially delineated underclass of Maori people, with issues around education, alcohol abuse and employment.
Should the Anglo folks of NZ "own" this historical behaviour that led to this situation?
I'm not talking about taking responsibility as if they did it but rather acknowledge the situation exists, take a objective view of history, and use available resources to make a more equitable society.
Australia is in the same boat with their native population versus the colonial stock.
No slavery exactly but certainly since racially dubious policies and discrimination that have only driven the socio economic gap wider.
AFAIK the government there has recognised their part in the problem in the past and are working towards solutions .
This is what I think Chris Rock is trying to say.
Maoris an underclass? Mate, I lived in NZ and would never consider the Maori's an underclass and very few Maoris themselves would consider themselves an underclass. There is pretty good social stability in NZ with Maori's and Pakeha get on reasonably well. Maori customs, laws and land is generally respected by all. The country is in someway bilingual e.g. national anthem and the Maori's get an over representation in paraliament. Lots of land is title land that belongs to a tribe and cannot be sold to the state or privately. There are some historical grievances due to the mixed up intereptations of the Treaty of Waitangi but as I said, there will always be some with a grievance, regardless if they are right or wrong.
As you said, should the Anglo-Celtic folks of NZ own this 'problem'. No, why should they? Once the law recognises everyone equally and both feel included in the running of the state.
Australia is different to NZ for a number of reasons. The native Aborigines were not united in the way the Maori's were thus were not able to fight back in any way to the initial land grab.
The Aborigines were also not as technologically advanced as the Maori's or their Polynesians brothers. Even though it is the longest continuing running culture in the world, they were as advanced technologically as a European hunter gathers from a few thousand years ago. Very little they could do to fight back.
http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/introduction.shtml
They were also colonised sooner, so when more enlightened explorers reached NZ, they did not want to make the same mistakes that occurred in Australia.
Many wrongs happened initially in Australia but it seems that many want to keep old wounds open and pour vinegar over them to shame or guilt trip people into action they deem appropriate rather than asking Aborigines themselves what they actually want. Remember, it was the same kind of 'we know better' attitude of 1950's do gooders that stole children from Aborigine mothers to be given to white european Australians.
There was a TV program on SBS recently about Australian attitudes to Aborigines. It was a typical one eyed view on the issue. The people they picked were 6 white men and women even though Australia is no longer really white. There should have been an Asian person there, a Muslim and as well as a pacific islander to reflect the true nature of the demography, yet the tried and trusted way to 'shame' white Australia into action and discourse gets perpetrated in the general discourse.0 -
While I am not too familIar with the economic histories of Canada (though really it would be quite similar to the US), Australia and New Zealand, I would imagine British colonial policy, economic resources and the prevailing global economics at the time of their establishments was again determinative.
As for the Latin American colonies, again their abundance of resources is partially responsible for their own lack of success, as well as the "latifunda" estate system established which actually harmed the economy and stifled any growth or development. Funnily enough, the British trading policy was also crucial again here, as most of the wealth generated in those colonies ultimately benefited the British coffers, as the Brits stepped in to provide the manufactures goods that Spain, Portugal and their colonies failed to produce themselves (in some cases they agreed not to under some rather self defeating treaties with Britain AFAIK).
1) If as you said initially the success of America is derived exclusivly by Africans crossing the Atlantic then surely it can be extended to Canada, Australia or NZ. You seem to be changing your argument to suit the counter argument.
2) There has been many studies and theories why Latin America has not succeeded like North America, the latest coming from Niall Ferguson in his book Civilisation. It was basically down to the rule of law (protecting trade and contracts), the protestant work ethic and the right to private property among a few other. Basically as you kinda mentioned, Latin American emerged has a kind of feudal system, with all the wealth being generated for the Kings and Queens of Spain and Portugal with a few very wealthy people on top, with everyone remaining poor. While in North America, it was up to the individual to make wealth and the rewards could be kept and reinvested which emerged a big educated middle class society. Read his book, some good insights.0 -
If he stopped using the word cracker and being a racist I might take him seriously when he speaks about race issues.
As it stands I just see another attention seeking celebrity attempting to get on a soapbox and be taken seriously.
I wouldn't worry about it.0 -
The first thing that strkes me about this is that you have very little knowledge about history - something we established before when you were discussing how the British fostered American industry; somehow they managed this before the industrial revolution, and while we're at it let's not forget that the American revolution was in large part as a result of the British not fostering anything doing the opposite (ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?).(i) I am well aware that slavery was already widespread in africa before europeans arrived In fact, arab slavers probably were the worst offenders. Africans themselves did engage in "slavery", though it was not really in the same form as europeans or arabs conducted - more akin to indentured servitude i believe.
What europeans did bring though was colonialism - which went hand in hand with the western slave trade. Colonialism utterly destroyed pre-existing social and political systems, and post-colonial policies actively promoted tribal and ethnic conflicts and tension and autocratic dictatorships which prevent stable political systems developing. Arab slavers set up trade routes and posts - but never set out to occupy.
Here you tell us that slavery in Africa was really indentured servitude you believe (i.e. you don't actually know). Reality is that there was indentured servitude, but there was also formal slavery and which was more common varied from region to region. The authority with which you make your fantastical historical claims is actually breathtaking.
Firstly, as you've already conceded, sub-Saharan Africa had already been affected by Arab colonialism - and it was colonialism as evidenced by places such as Zanzibar and the spread of Islam.So if you want to play the what if black people never made it to the americas game, then you should ask what if white people never made it to Africa - since their arrival was so inexorably linked with the western slave trade which brought them to america in the first place.
But let's say neither the Europeans nor Arabs went to Africa, what then?
What you would have had was pretty much what you'd had for the previous few millennial. A huge continent, with hundreds, if not thousands of petty kingdoms and the occasional 'empire' springing up for one or two hundred years (the only one that lasted any longer was Abyssinia). A continent where large portions were still living at pre-Neolithic levels. Where constant warfare was a fact of life as were the spoils of such warfare, including slavery.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, feel free to share it, but do please back it up with some supporting facts and not the wishful thinking you've been presenting to date.
Indeed; taxation without representation which led to the revolution that displaced them and gave the colonists independence to pursue their own economic agenda. Of course, you meant the opposite, which unfortunately is at odds with the historical facts.The British adopted policies in the US colonies which enabled it to develop politically and economically, whereas the policies adopted in other colonies stifled such growth.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »The first thing that strkes me about this is that you have very little knowledge about history - something we established before when you were discussing how the British fostered American industry; somehow they managed this before the industrial revolution, and while we're at it let's not forget that the American revolution was in large part as a result of the British not fostering anything doing the opposite (ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?).
Here you tell us that slavery in Africa was really indentured servitude you believe (i.e. you don't actually know). Reality is that there was indentured servitude, but there was also formal slavery and which was more common varied from region to region. The authority with which you make your fantastical historical claims is actually breathtaking.
Firstly, as you've already conceded, sub-Saharan Africa had already been affected by Arab colonialism - and it was colonialism as evidenced by places such as Zanzibar and the spread of Islam.
But let's say neither the Europeans nor Arabs went to Africa, what then?
What you would have had was pretty much what you'd had for the previous few millennial. A huge continent, with hundreds, if not thousands of petty kingdoms and the occasional 'empire' springing up for one or two hundred years (the only one that lasted any longer was Abyssinia). A continent where large portions were still living at pre-Neolithic levels. Where constant warfare was a fact of life as were the spoils of such warfare, including slavery.
If you have an alternative hypothesis, feel free to share it, but do please back it up with some supporting facts and not the wishful thinking you've been presenting to date.
Indeed; taxation without representation which led to the revolution that displaced them and gave the colonists independence to pursue their own economic agenda. Of course, you meant the opposite, which unfortunately is at odds with the historical facts.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post.
I said I believed it was in was akin to indentured servitude. I never stated it as fact. I KNOW that it was akin to indentured servitude in some places - i don't know if it was in all, hence my qualifier.
Its not really the gotcha moment you think it is when the person already acknowledges that they don't know for certain whether its true.
I have no idea how Africa would have turned out. Neither do you mind, it it would be unlikely to stay the same. No place really does.
Without colonialism, there was still plenty of trade and outside contact. Arabs never colonised africa - they set up trading posts and cities and spread their religion and culture, but never exerted dominion over large swathes of the continent. Chinese traders had also reached east africa at some point, and i'm sure indian traders did as well. trade meant an exchange of ideas and technologies, so it would not have stagnated.
Would it have developed into a first world continent? Probably not - its geography and environment are too extreme and unfavourable.
Would there have been the systematic destruction of political and social structures and deliberate sowing of tribal and ethnic tensions? Probably not.
So it may well still be a relatively poor continent, but it may also be far less unstable.
You would also not see as much of a gap between Africa and Europe and North America, since much of the latter success was built on exploitation of african resources and trade.
This is the fallacy of the what if game - you change one detail in history, and you change a lot of other things around the globe.
And I never said britain directly fostered north american industry. i said they allowed the north american colonists to foster it. they allowed economic activities to be conducted there that were not allowed in many other colonies at the time.
that meant that the northern colonies could build a diverse and sustainable economic base, unlike other american colonies which were often tied to a single lucrative resource such a sugar and spices (particularly in the carribean) and it meant they had an export market for their goods as the other colonies needed to purchase the goods they couldnt produce (though it may have been britain itself which benefited most from this export market, thus feeling britains own industrial revolution).
honestly, you criticise my history, but you seem to have read only the fischer price version. I'm sure my knowledge is lacking in many regards, but I imagine where I have erred is to oversimplify the inter-connected nature of colonial trade and activity.
It would be absurd to think that the US industrial revolution happened spontaneously after independence and without the necessary base of knowledge, expertise, industrial activities and markets being already there. A country can't just industrialise over night and without any injection of outside capital or expertise.
I also haven't seen much in depth historical facts cited by yourself. You cite a few rudimentary and obvious pieces of historical fact, and which don't contradict my position, but thats it.0 -
1) If as you said initially the success of America is derived exclusivly by Africans crossing the Atlantic then surely it can be extended to Canada, Australia or NZ. You seem to be changing your argument to suit the counter argument.
2) There has been many studies and theories why Latin America has not succeeded like North America, the latest coming from Niall Ferguson in his book Civilisation. It was basically down to the rule of law (protecting trade and contracts), the protestant work ethic and the right to private property among a few other. Basically as you kinda mentioned, Latin American emerged has a kind of feudal system, with all the wealth being generated for the Kings and Queens of Spain and Portugal with a few very wealthy people on top, with everyone remaining poor. While in North America, it was up to the individual to make wealth and the rewards could be kept and reinvested which emerged a big educated middle class society. Read his book, some good insights.
I never said the success of America was derived exclusively from slavery. I said America wouldn't be what it is today without slavery and the slave trade. It was one key element to its success - but not the only one.
there was no change in my position.
And i don't know enough about the colonial economies of Canada, NZ or Oz to comment.
However, unlike the US, I don't think Canada or Oz were ever industrial powers before the 1900s. I had thought that they owed much of their development to the resources booms experienced in the 20th century, but i don't know how true that is.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hardly any need given the number of gotcha moments earlier in this thread where you made no such admissions.I said I believed it was in was akin to indentured servitude. I never stated it as fact. I KNOW that it was akin to indentured servitude in some places - i don't know if it was in all, hence my qualifier.
Its not really the gotcha moment you think it is when the person already acknowledges that they don't know for certain whether its true.
Actually, it does. If you bother to educate yourself on sub-Saharan African History you'll find that it has largely remained the same. From that it is pretty safe to say that had there been no interaction from Europeans the chances of any substantial difference would have been negligible in the last five centuries.I have no idea how Africa would have turned out. Neither do you mind, it it would be unlikely to stay the same. No place really does.
You're 'sure' Indian traders did? Why don't you check some of your facts before you present them. Otherwise it's probably better to presume that nothing you state is to be trusted.Chinese traders had also reached east africa at some point, and i'm sure indian traders did as well. trade meant an exchange of ideas and technologies, so it would not have stagnated.
How so? I ask because I'd like to make sure you didn't just pull that statement out of a hat.Would it have developed into a first world continent? Probably not - its geography and environment are too extreme and unfavourable.
What do you base this opinion on? Actual facts please.Would there have been the systematic destruction of political and social structures and deliberate sowing of tribal and ethnic tensions? Probably not.
The latter would be North America, so you're saying that North American much of the success of North America was built on exploitation of African resources and trade. Other than slave labour, what resources did North America plunder from Africa. What trade did it do with Africa?You would also not see as much of a gap between Africa and Europe and North America, since much of the latter success was built on exploitation of african resources and trade.
What do you base this opinion on? Actual facts please.
Or you change nothing. You talk as if the butterfly effect is an established law of physics that can be equally be applied to sociology. It's not. As a theory it even states that the ultimate consequences of an action may amount to next to nothing.This is the fallacy of the what if game - you change one detail in history, and you change a lot of other things around the globe.
Actually you specifically cited industry; which given that there was only an overlap of about 15 years between British rule and the industrial revolution is a bit laughable. Now you say it's commerce.And I never said britain directly fostered north american industry. i said they allowed the north american colonists to foster it. they allowed economic activities to be conducted there that were not allowed in many other colonies at the time.
More amusing is your claim that Britain fostered American commerce, despite the fact that it did the opposite and in doing so helped bring about the American revolution.
So no, your assertion is rubbish, based on an ignorance of American history and confusion in even what you're discussing.
You've erred on the basis of making basic errors in timelines and seemingly inventing historical events based on a complete lack of knowledge.honestly, you criticise my history, but you seem to have read only the fischer price version. I'm sure my knowledge is lacking in many regards, but I imagine where I have erred is to oversimplify the inter-connected nature of colonial trade and activity.
The American industrial revolution happened as a result of the same reason it happened elsewhere - the means to automate production were invented. It's called the steam engine!It would be absurd to think that the US industrial revolution happened spontaneously after independence and without the necessary base of knowledge, expertise, industrial activities and markets being already there.
Seriously, if you don't even know such a basic historical fact, how seriously should I or anyone else take your arguments?
Here's a few:I also haven't seen much in depth historical facts cited by yourself. You cite a few rudimentary and obvious pieces of historical fact, and which don't contradict my position, but thats it.- Industrial revolution is recognized as covering the period of around 1760 to 1840. Almost entirely after America got her independence.
- The American revolution was a political upheaval in the British American colonies that took place between 1765 and 1783, with an armed revolt around 1774, resulting in independence.
- The principle cause for said revolution was cited as "taxation without representation", of which the most important taxes levied against colonial commerce were the Currency Act (1764), Sugar Act (1764), Quartering Act (1765), Townshend Acts (1767) and most notoriously the Tea Act (1773) which led to the Boston Tea Party. All evidence directly contrary to your assertion.
- Slavery (not indentured servitude) in Africa continued legally in African kingdoms before, during and after the western slave trade. Indeed, one of the last countries to outlaw slave ownership was Ethiopia - in 1936, after it was abolished by the invading European power.
- Between 1519 and 1867, only 6.5% of all African slaves transported to the Americas went to British North America. Putting in question the apparent importance of the US to this discussion in the first place.
- By the time of the American Civil War Slavery was gone in the northern (USA) states, having adopted industrialization. The south (CSA) remained dependent on agriculture and thus slavery. If discussing which approach brought greater success, the famous General Sherman noted "The North can make a steam-engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. [The south] are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth--right at your doors. [They] are bound to fail." Given the result of the civil war, it seems clear that it was mechanization and not slavery to which the US owes it's success.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KeXgli768
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement