Moderator: maddog986
Listening to people they tend to become more racial aware with more exposure. Its those lack in depth interaction that are the most naive.
yet the world tells me that is not possible only Iam racist as a white male.
warspite1ORIGINAL: RichG
ORIGINAL: warspite1
But I think that it is not that easy as saying 'they must have understood'. Take this example. I was born in London in the sixties. In the schools I went to there was no minority issue. Even in the seventies there was probably almost as many non-whites as whites where I lived. So from an early age I have mixed with other races, other nationalities. That has continued in work, still living in London as I do, there is no escaping the multi-cultural society in which I live. If I were a racist I would have no excuse for being so given my upbringing and my personal experience.
But what about someone living in 1700? I think you are not giving enough credit for what the world was like then. Think about it? You've never seen an African, you've never heard an African speak. You have no idea why they are black, but compared to you that can't be normal can it? You may have been told 'horror' stories about them by others that feed your ignorance - about sub human savages and you may have heard things from people who 'know' like the local slave-owning vicar! In such a world, where many people rarely stepped out of their own community, no I don't see why someone should definitely 'know' slavery was wrong or that the black man was not simply a savage. This is why education is so important - education that wasn't available to most in the past.
Now clearly, the more you know, the less excuse you have for being a mindless racist ****, but lets face it - then as now - some neanderthals are just wired that way. But that is not everybody.
.... In Britain slavery was illegal and largely condemned.
And also, from my understanding people of colour where not such an unusual occurrence, particularly in London where Colston spent the majority of his life. Colston would almost certainly have met African immigrants in the course of his work and travels.
And he must have spent some time observing what his fleet of, at one time, 40 slave ships was doing. He cannot have been ignorant to the horrors. Yet Colston chose to ignore this and proceeded to transport what some estimate was in excess of 100,000 slaves to a miserable existence.
warspite1
quote:
Listening to people they tend to become more racial aware with more exposure. Its those lack in depth interaction that are the most naive.
Yes, that is what I said above
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes but not until the 1830's
warspite1ORIGINAL: RichG
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Yes but not until the 1830's
I'm afraid you're wrong on that. It was judged by a court to be illegal in 1569 and that any slave setting foot in England would be a free man.
There is an article in wikipedia that talks about this. Search for 'Slavery_in_the_British_Isles'. unfortunately I'm not yet allowed to link to it.
RichG: In the case of fascist / communist, I'd suggest it is due to concerns that there is a rise in fascist movements across Europe where as communism has for the large part been side lined. I for one, find the rise of extreme right wing groups very worrying and feel it's important to look on history and see where that kind of thinking can take us. I currently don't have the same immediate concerns over left wing movements (I don't think we can paint Russia into that particular corner any more). If Stalinist were taking over Europe I would be equally worried.
yet the world tells me that is not possible only Iam racist as a white male.
Yes, and this is where PC and the question of who decides rears its head yet again - and is central to this whole debate.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
So why weren't all slave owners and merchants arrested in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century? So morality aside, you are saying that the whole Caribbean sugar plantation thing was one big illegal operation. So all those individual slave owners - vicars, MP's, well to do ladies, etc etc were paid £25bn in compensation by the Government despite breaking its own law? Sorry I don't understand that.
ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
Screaming "Iam not a racist" will do one no good when one is surrounded by those that dont care.
warspite1ORIGINAL: RichG
ORIGINAL: warspite1
So why weren't all slave owners and merchants arrested in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century? So morality aside, you are saying that the whole Caribbean sugar plantation thing was one big illegal operation. So all those individual slave owners - vicars, MP's, well to do ladies, etc etc were paid £25bn in compensation by the Government despite breaking its own law? Sorry I don't understand that.
These are all good questions I don't have an answer for. It's clear that it was allowed to happen - I guess because of all the wealth and goods that came back to Britain. Again another turning a blind eye to wrong doing.
The compensation payments were something I've only heard brief mention of in the past and I had the impression that most thought it was some kind of 'conspiracy theory' and didn't really happen. I need to see that documentary you mentioned. Would be very interesting.
ORIGINAL: RichG
ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
Screaming "Iam not a racist" will do one no good when one is surrounded by those that dont care.
Depends if it's followed by the word 'but' or not ....
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I hope you get to see it - it is well worth a look. And I will have to read up on this law you say was passed in the 16th century - because there is clearly something wrong. It is well documented that the abolition of slavery came about in the early 19th Century thanks to Wilberforce and his chums. But why make such a big thing about abolishing something that is apparently already illegal? That has scrambled the few brain cells I have left [;)]
warspite1ORIGINAL: RichG
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I hope you get to see it - it is well worth a look. And I will have to read up on this law you say was passed in the 16th century - because there is clearly something wrong. It is well documented that the abolition of slavery came about in the early 19th Century thanks to Wilberforce and his chums. But why make such a big thing about abolishing something that is apparently already illegal? That has scrambled the few brain cells I have left [;)]
Wilberforce abolished the slave trade by the English and stopped the use of ships for this purpose - he didn't bring about an end to slaves in Britain. A common misconception.
ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
Check out this survey by YouGov out of Britain (September 2016): ...
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Right so if I understand what you are saying is right then post 102 is right or wrong depending how one reads what you wrote. Slavery in Britain i.e slaves actually in the UK, as opposed to In Britain, slavery was seen by the British as.....
But I was right that Colston would not have been breaking the law because the 16th century law didn't apply to the operation in the Caribbean - and the whole point about education, knowledge [about Africans] still applies.
warspite1ORIGINAL: RichG
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Right so if I understand what you are saying is right then post 102 is right or wrong depending how one reads what you wrote. Slavery in Britain i.e slaves actually in the UK, as opposed to In Britain, slavery was seen by the British as.....
But I was right that Colston would not have been breaking the law because the 16th century law didn't apply to the operation in the Caribbean - and the whole point about education, knowledge [about Africans] still applies.
Yes, legally it's rather grey. But morally ??
I think Snake726 touched on this very well above. If something fits the law of the time does that make it morally OK?
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I always like to go back to the Donner Party when this subject comes up: Times can get so bad that you'll not only kill your neighbors, you'll eat them, too.
Our present moral codes are the product of the circumstances we live in: Extreme luxurious plenty. Change those circumstances and those codes would go out the window. Suppose the Earth were hit by a large asteroid. And as a result, it would only support 7 million people, instead of 7 billion. How could the present codes remain in place under those conditions? Don't you think there would be massive genocide (not to mention cannibalism) under those circumstances? Those fortunate enough to be held as slaves would regard themselves as blessed.
Back in ancient times slavery was seen as a good thing - by the slaves! To understand that, you have to understand how one became a slave: Your city was sacked and you had the choice of death or slavery. And you don't have to go that far back to find most people living very close to the edge of existence - with death around every corner. Today's moral codes would be laughable to them.
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC is a leading English criminal case which established a precedent, throughout the common law world, that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Ah another grey area [:D]. Not necessarily no it doesn't, but again the question of knowledge, education etc come into play which may mitigate the action. And if you think I am overplaying that 'excuse' then I am sure you have heard of how Hartlepools United (as was [;)]) got their nickname?
