What is Wrong with this Headline?

[M.Dancer]

Replica of U.S. slave ship sails into Havana

HAVANA (Reuters) A replica of the 19th century slave ship Amistad, made famous in a Stephen Spielberg movie, sailed into Havana Bay on Thursday with U.S. and Cuba flags flying side by side in a hopeful display of friendship.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100325/lf_nm_life/us_cuba_ship_1

I won't say this is an example of bias...more like bad research.

Edited March 26, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Sir Bandelot]

Ok, I'll play along. I looked it up on my favorite resource, and the ship was built by the US, was owned by a Spanish slave trader, and was the scene of a rebeliion in which the slaves took control of the boat.

On July 2, 1839... the captives freed themselves. They were successful in gaining control of the ship and demanded to be returned home. The ship's navigator, Don Pedro Montez, deceived them about which direction their course was on and sailed the ship north along the North American coast to the eastern tip of Long Island, New York. The United States Revenue Cutter Service discovered the schooner and took it and its occupants into custody. They took the Africans to Connecticut to be sold as slaves.

So what part of this little story is bothering you, oh linguistically sensitive one.

[M.Dancer]

So what part of this little story is bothering you, oh linguistically sensitive one.

Replica of U.S. slave ship sails into Havana

1) It wasn't a US ship (although it was built in the US and sold to a Spaniard) it was a Spanish ship

2) It wasn't a slave ship. It played no part in the Africa- New World slave trade. It was a coastal schooner that normally for cargo, carried sugar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Amistad#The_ship

[Jack Weber]

Replica of U.S. slave ship sails into Havana

1) It wasn't a US ship (although it was built in the US and sold to a Spaniard) it was a Spanish ship

2) It wasn't a slave ship. It played no part in the Africa- New World slave trade. It was a coastal schooner that normally for cargo, carried sugar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Amistad#The_ship

Bad optics...

I wonder if relatives of Fulgencio Batista will be on board?

[Sir Bandelot]

It became an American ship at the moment the US took it into custody

[eyeball]

The fact the U.S. had no better morals than Spain did also makes the headline seem quite appropriate.

[Argus]

The fact the U.S. had no better morals than Spain did also makes the headline seem quite appropriate.

Not quite true. The US courts ordered them freed.

[M.Dancer]

It became an American ship at the moment the US took it into custody

That was the nub of the whole legal argument. Whether the ship and its cargo were salvage...The Queen of Spain argued it wasn't salvage, and the coast gaurd argued it was. The fact that the slaves were African born threw a curved into the case, as it was illegal to kidnap people in africa and make them slaves, which the spanish continued to do.

[M.Dancer]

The fact the U.S. had no better morals than Spain did also makes the headline seem quite appropriate.

Why not call it an african ship then? Without african complicity, there would not have been an african slave trade....

[eyeball]

Why not call it an african ship then? Without african complicity, there would not have been an african slave trade....

To swallow this you'd have to believe that supply actually drives demand as opposed to the other way around. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a free enterprise slave ship.

It's one thing to make it illegal for Europeans to kidnap Africans for the slave trade but what about Africans who sold other Africans at the time? As you suggested without accomplices in Africa there may never have been a slave trade.

[Oleg Bach]

Replica of U.S. slave ship sails into Havana

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100325/lf_nm_life/us_cuba_ship_1

I won't say this is an example of bias...more like bad research.

Nawh..it's buisness as usual...the american water boarding prison camp on the same soil that bans good cigars..someone is lieing.