Why White People Should Be Proud Of Their Anti-Slavery Legacy

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If Sowell says it's true it's true.

 

As far as modern day slavery goes you can google that as well as I can.

IMO the modern definition of slavery is too broad to have meaning.

There's a huge difference between people who have to give up sex to their owners and people who just have a low standard of living. 

I'm all for a purging of people who "own the rights" to other people's genitalia. The more violent, the better. The whole 'economic slave' thing is not really the same thing at all. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by WestCanMan

[SpankyMcFarland]

Indentureship, the institution that replaced slavery in the British Empire and supplied tropical colonies with a vast supply of inexpensive labour, receives remarkably little attention these days.

 

Quote

The importation of Indian indentured workers into post-emancipation British Guiana was part of a continuing search by the sugar planters for a labour force that was tractable, disciplined and accustomed to plantation agriculture under harsh tropical conditions. They perceived immigrant labour as a means of restoring the control they had exercised under the iniquitous slave system as well as enabling them to keep plantation wages down and reduce operational costs. Their attempt to introduce black labour from the overpopulated West Indian islands, West Africa and Southern United States, and white labour from Europe and the Portuguese Atlantic islands, had limited success. It was India with its teeming millions in heavily congested areas which satisfied their needs, and the planters never stopped reiterating the importance of Indian labor to resuscitate the sugar industry and prevent an impending ruin.
 

https://www.stabroeknews.com/2013/05/04/news/guyana/an-overview-of-indian-indentureship-in-guyana-1838-1917/

 

 

The family of the great Liberal politician, William Gladstone, was intimately involved in both trades. In his maiden speech, Gladstone demanded fair compensation for slave owners, one of whom happened to be his extremely wealthy father, John Gladstone. Naturally, many of these rich individuals were worried about the transition to indentureship. Here an agent offers reassurance:

 

Quote

In January 1836, John Gladstone, father of William Ewart Gladstone and owner of plantations Vreed-en-Hoop and Vreed-en-Stein, wrote to the Calcutta firm of Messrs Gillanders, Arbuthnot and Company enquiring whether the firm could supply 100 “young, active, able-bodied” labourers on contracts for his estates. The exporters replied that they did not envisage any recruiting problems, “the natives being perfectly ignorant of the place they agree to go to, or the length of the voyage they are undertaking.” This reply virtually set the stage for the deceit, fraud, coercion and kidnapping which permeated the whole recruiting system.
 

https://www.stabroeknews.com/2013/05/04/news/guyana/an-overview-of-indian-indentureship-in-guyana-1838-1917/

The system of indentured labour was not abolished in the British Empire until 1917:

https://www.striking-women.org/module/map-major-south-asian-migration-flows/indentured-labour-south-asia-1834-1917

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Rue]

On 6/24/2020 at 2:57 PM, Infidel Dog said:

If that were true it might be worth reading the rest, but it's not.

The OP clearly states its premise:

"The new narrative going around the world today is that whites are the slaver drivers of the human race and blacks are the sole victims.

A lot of us have known for a long time that's just divisive bullshit"

He's not arguing fairness. He's arguing truth. He's specifically telling you that the claim whites are the specific drivers of an ideology which created and perpetuated slavery against specifically blacks is bullshit.

That has nothing to do with pride. It has to do with fact. If you have an argument against that factual statement present it. There are specific arguments that show you to be incorrect. They are, as you say, "selective" only in that they will specifically counter any argument you might make to further what the OP calls "divisive bullshit."

Nonsense. The phrase "whites are the slaver drivers of the human race and blacks are the sole victims" is a subjective statement or opinion. Wes  then took thissubjective statement which is clearly defective as it generalizes an entire category of individuals defined by an ambiguous term preventing true identification of that group and any similar characteristics and counters it not with facts but more subjective generalizations equally as irrational. His comments are not fact nor are they "truth".

Of course he responded to the original statement because he thought it was unfair. That is precisely why he and you and Argus responded as you did. You think the statement is unfair. A subjective statement can not be true. It has no facts. Until it is presented with objective facts its neither true or untrue, its just a speculated subjective opinion.

Wes advanced the concept of white pride in response to this subjective statement which is an emotional response and emotional responses are based on emotion not rational thought process.

Please provide the specific arguments that show I am incorrect.  Don't just say they are incorrect. You disagree with them that is your absolute right but at least make an effort to debate them.

Finallym the only divisive comments on this thread are the statements feeling the need to counter a clearly defective subjective opinion about race with others that do the same thing.

I have argued the thread is about taking a divisive racist statement and responding to it with racist statements. Both are equally as pointless and show in your response in particular as well as the other responses you, Argus and Wes are caught up in divisive, emotional, subjective generalizations about others.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Rue

[Infidel Dog]

What's a supportable fact is the idea blacks are experiencing unequal treatment by a white governance derived out of, responsible for and still influenced by slavery is unsupportable. 

Just as the OP stated.

Would you like me to prove it? Go ahead then. Put your "fairness" strawman to the side for now and try to support that actual premise disavowed by the OP.

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Rue said:

Nonsense. The phrase "whites are the slaver drivers of the human race and blacks are the sole victims" is a subjective statement or opinion.

The subjective opinion that G Floyd's killing had something to do with race has been treated like it was scientifically proven or that Cahuvin was making racist comments when he killed him.

You know as well as I do that the topic of slavery in North America is handled as if in the whole history of the world it has only ever been a whites-owning-blacks phenomenon. 

Don't try to use such a weak and disingenuous statement to try to derail what you know to be a perfectly accurate & relevant topic in this day and age.

Quote

Wes  then took thissubjective statement which is clearly defective as it generalizes an entire category of individuals defined by an ambiguous term preventing true identification of that group and any similar characteristics and counters it not with facts but more subjective generalizations equally as irrational. His comments are not fact nor are they "truth".

This is getting to be insulting Rue. 

You know god-damned well that everything I said in that OP was accurate and true.

The topic of slavery in North America is discussed as though only white Anglo-Saxons owned slaves, in the whole history of the world. It's not looked upon as something that was normal throughout the entire history of the world.

There's no discussion of wealthy black men who owned slaves. If you asked most people in north America if there were even any blacks who weren't slaves in America during that period I bet that you'd get about 80% of all people saying "all blacks were slaves back in the 1800s. 

Maybe 1% of people in North America are aware that there were wealthy black men who owned a lot of slaves. 

The whole topic, as it is presented to Americans and the world, is a huge exercise in dishonesty and deceit.

If you think that anything I said here is inaccurate then go ask around Rue. See how many people that you know are aware that there were any free black men in the US in 1860. See how many of those enlightened few are aware of black slave owners in America. 

Quote

Of course he responded to the original statement because he thought it was unfair. That is precisely why he and you and Argus responded as you did. You think the statement is unfair. A subjective statement can not be true. It has no facts. Until it is presented with objective facts its neither true or untrue, its just a speculated subjective opinion.

The original statement of:

"The new narrative going around the world today is that whites are the slaver drivers of the human race and blacks are the sole victims."

IS ENTIRELY TRUE.

You know it's true in Canada, it's true in the US, and in the UK even Sadiq Khan is talking about how important it is to get rid of the statues of people who owned slaves. I don't think he has ever heard of Mohammed.

Quote

Wes advanced the concept of white pride in response to this subjective statement which is an emotional response and emotional responses are based on emotion not rational thought process.

Honestly, you're calling my OP too subjective and then right out of the blue you're equating my statement with white pride? FYI white pride has nothing to do with any altruistic endeavours.

If you said that I was advancing the concept of white pride to my face that would be the immediate end of dialogue.

Saying that white people should be proud of their anti-Slavery legacy is not an advancement of white pride at all. 

Quote

Please provide the specific arguments that show I am incorrect.  Don't just say they are incorrect. You disagree with them that is your absolute right but at least make an effort to debate them.

Here's one of your quotes that's incorrect as it could be:

Quote

Your thread appears from content and title to advance the premises that all "white" people have been unfairly accused of slavery and because of that  so damaged they now  need to cherry pick selective passages from history to heal their trauma. I would argue that premises is problematic because :

The truth is that "white people have been singled out as the history's biggest slavers". That is a myth and couldn't be any further from the truth. Dispelling that myth doesn't make me a member of the white pride movement and the accusation is repugnant.

Quote

Finallym the only divisive comments on this thread are the statements feeling the need to counter a clearly defective subjective opinion about race with others that do the same thing.

You of all people should be aware that you have no right to tell people what they feel. 

You don't know how many times I have seen "white people" being blamed for slavery while no other race or creed of people gets mentioned. 

I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize to absolutely nobody. If you want an apology from me for slavery you can straight to fucking hell. My ancestors didn't own slaves. My ancestors fought in wars and worked in coal mines. We don't own anything we didn't earn. If you feel compelled to take something from me, come heavy and don't leave any loose strings behind. 

Quote

I have argued the thread is about taking a divisive racist statement and responding to it with racist statements. Both are equally as pointless and show in your response in particular as well as the other responses you, Argus and Wes are caught up in divisive, emotional, subjective generalizations about others.

It's not a racist statement to say that "white people abolished slavery" because it's an accurate reply to the ignorant comment from the intentionally uninformed.

By the same token it's also non-racist and even more accurate to say that "white men from Britain and America abolished slavery", because they were the powers-that-be behind the worldwide abolitionist movement. They could have easily remained in the slave owning business, there was no one who had the power to force them to end it and no one even tried.

The people who were involved in the decision-making process and the voters behind them were white majority by a vast margin (and sadly no one else was allowed to vote because they were still a bit racist at the time, not even women). 

 

There's nothing inaccurate at all in this post. This is Full "gfys if you don't understand any of it" Disclosure. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by WestCanMan

[SpankyMcFarland]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

By the same token it's also non-racist and even more accurate to say that "white men from Britain and America abolished slavery", because they were the powers-that-be behind the worldwide abolitionist movement. They could have easily remained in the slave owning business, there was no one who had the power to force them to end it and no one even tried. 

The Brits did have the workforce of India to cut their sugar cane. Once they abolished slavery in their own empire, it was to their advantage to discourage it elsewhere. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The Brits did have the workforce of India to cut their sugar cane. Once they abolished slavery in their own empire, it was to their advantage to discourage it elsewhere. 

Let's say you were a fly on the wall in the British parliamentary backrooms and the financial board rooms of the 19th century. Let's say as a mind-reading fly you read the minds of the movers and shakers of the British Empire. So now you know for a fact that after the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 all efforts to stop slavery were purely mercenary.

That wouldn't explain the decades of effort by William Wilberforce and the other Christian abolitionists leading to the passage of the Act.

So efforts of the white Christian west both altruistic and utilitarian led to the global abolition of slavery. I'd still be fine with that. Are you saying there's a problem?

[SpankyMcFarland]

54 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Let's say you were a fly on the wall in the British parliamentary backrooms and the financial board rooms of the 19th century. Let's say as a mind-reading fly you read the minds of the movers and shakers of the British Empire. So now you know for a fact that after the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 all efforts to stop slavery were purely mercenary.

That wouldn't explain the decades of effort by William Wilberforce and the other Christian abolitionists leading to the passage of the Act.

So efforts of the white Christian west both altruistic and utilitarian led to the global abolition of slavery. I'd still be fine with that. Are you saying there's a problem?

No, I never said ‘purely mercenary’. I’m not denying the idealism of Wilberforce and Co. at all, merely pointing out the truism that motives are rarely simple in life. The Industrial Revolution reduced the demand for slave-based labour in Britain and slaves in multiple Caribbean islands began fighting back. As for global abolition, that took a very long time. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Infidel Dog]

And in Canada the slave trade was abolished in 1793. And in America they fought a war. All kinds of reasons and methods everywhere it was being stopped.

For Britain the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans between 1808 and 1860.

For America Thomas Jefferson created the United States Marines and with France put a stop to the North African slave trade. (They were enslaving whites. Millions of them.)  

Since the beginning of civilization there have been slaves. Then it was for the most part stopped worldwide. Who was responsible? Hint: It wasn't the Muslims.

You can lasso one of the many motivating factors as to why the abolishers of slavery might have done it if you like. Go ahead, blow that factor up and present it as the only thing that matters to you but it won't change the answer to the question. It was the white Christian West that brought an end to slavery after so many millenia.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

You can lasso one of the many motivating factors as to why the abolishers of slavery might have done it if you like. Go ahead, blow that factor up and present it as the only thing that matters to you but it won't change the answer to the question. It was the white Christian West that brought an end to slavery after so many millenia.

Something no one on the Left wants to give much attention to.

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

You can lasso one of the many motivating factors as to why the abolishers of slavery might have done it if you like. Go ahead, blow that factor up and present it as the only thing that matters to you but it won't change the answer to the question. It was the white Christian West that brought an end to slavery after so many millenia.

The abolition of slavery was a good thing, no question.

Edited June 29, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Infidel Dog]

I know. Thank you white Christian west.

[-TSS-]

It is absolutely annoying how the woke-crowd are trying to push the American identity-politics into the European countries as well even though the context and the circumstances couldn't be more different.

In Europe we just don't categorize ourselves by things like white, black, latino, asian etc.

In Euriope we categorize ourselves based on our nations and the people from those nations.