Arts & Literature4 mins ago
Holocaust v Slave Trade
26 Answers
Recently there as been much discussion on the Holocaust i.e. the worse crime in the history of man.
Taking this on-board got me into thinking:
Why is it that the German people are not forever held responsible for this fairly recent crime against humanity, when I along with my fellow countrymen, are still forever held responsible for that more distant of crimes?
I refer of course to the "Slave Trade".
Taking this on-board got me into thinking:
Why is it that the German people are not forever held responsible for this fairly recent crime against humanity, when I along with my fellow countrymen, are still forever held responsible for that more distant of crimes?
I refer of course to the "Slave Trade".
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I'm a second-year undergrad history student, and I've really not been aware of what you're referring to re guilt-trips over the slave trade. Well, apart from a couple of comments in seminars which were quickly presented with the complexity of the situation. That is just my experience, though, to be fair. But on the other hand I seem to recall there have been a few occasions where people have made a vague reference to it on here and you've leapt up and over-reacted somewhat.
Plus as an aside there are some people who do hold the Germans responsible - look up Daniel Goldhagen sometime: his book was a best-seller in Germany. But you're right that the general consensus among people generally (ie non-historians) is more forgiving.
Plus as an aside there are some people who do hold the Germans responsible - look up Daniel Goldhagen sometime: his book was a best-seller in Germany. But you're right that the general consensus among people generally (ie non-historians) is more forgiving.
>Recently there as been much discussion on the Holocaust i.e. the worse crime in the history of man.
What Stalin did in Russia and Mao did in China also rank alongside th Holocaust. Both Stalin and Mao killed many millions of their own countrymen.
Of course they were communist so that is OK, it is only when you are "right wing" is it held against you.
People protest when the BNP stand at an election in the UK, but nobody ever protests when communists stand at an election.
(Many of the Labour elite were communists when they were young - like Jack Straw and Peter Hain, but thats OK)
What Stalin did in Russia and Mao did in China also rank alongside th Holocaust. Both Stalin and Mao killed many millions of their own countrymen.
Of course they were communist so that is OK, it is only when you are "right wing" is it held against you.
People protest when the BNP stand at an election in the UK, but nobody ever protests when communists stand at an election.
(Many of the Labour elite were communists when they were young - like Jack Straw and Peter Hain, but thats OK)
I don't know where you have been hiding yourself, Kromovaracun but being forever made to burden ourselves with the full responsibility for the Slave Trade, is a ploy very often used by blacks and Left Wingers to somehow make every white person bear the full burden of guilt over slavery.
Regarding Daniel Goldhagen this makes for interesting reading, I bet he is as popular in Germany, as Nick Griffin was on Question Time.
But surely if Daniel Goldhagen is correct then why are the Germans not completely ostracised by people for being equally responsible for the Holocaust, just as Nick Griffin is for only suggesting it may have not taken place?
Regarding Daniel Goldhagen this makes for interesting reading, I bet he is as popular in Germany, as Nick Griffin was on Question Time.
But surely if Daniel Goldhagen is correct then why are the Germans not completely ostracised by people for being equally responsible for the Holocaust, just as Nick Griffin is for only suggesting it may have not taken place?
Well im English and have many friends from all over the world many black and i have never been accused of being responsible for the slave trade! yes our ancestors as well as many others had a hand in slavery, but to accuse innocent generations down the line is ludicrous and unfair.
It depends on which version of slavery you mean. Are you talking about the Egyptians who enslaved the people of Israel? Are you talking about the American Indians who enslaved other tribes? Are you talking about the Africans who enslaved residents of neighboring villages? Or the Nordic people? Or maybe the Asians who forced THEIR enemies into slavery? I suggest most people only know about the slavery that involved African-Americans in THIS country. It also went on throughout Europe but became unacceptable before the U.S. outlawed the practice. Recognize that slaves were brought here by Dutch traders. The Dutch wanted to do business in Africa, but there weren't many things that they could use from the Africans, so they traded goods for slaves. Africans would round up their enemies and trade them to the Dutch traders for trinkets. Many of the Africans were planning to kill their enemies, but instead they decided that they could trade them away, never have to deal with them again and get some goods in the process. The South (U.S) was one of the last places that used slave labor. Other parts of the world had correctly decided that it was both inhumane and unprofitable. The sountern plantation owners couldn't imagine a way to work their crops without slave labor, so they resisted the pressure from the north to do away with slavery.
But, the US was not the last place to have slavery. What about the Soviet Gulags, Nazi concentration camps, the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. And it may also still be practiced in some parts of Africa and Asia.
It depends on which version of slavery you mean. Are you talking about the Egyptians who enslaved the people of Israel? Are you talking about the American Indians who enslaved other tribes? Are you talking about the Africans who enslaved residents of neighboring villages? Or the Nordic people? Or maybe the Asians who forced THEIR enemies into slavery? I suggest most people only know about the slavery that involved African-Americans in THIS country. It also went on throughout Europe but became unacceptable before the U.S. outlawed the practice. Recognize that slaves were brought here by Dutch traders. The Dutch wanted to do business in Africa, but there weren't many things that they could use from the Africans, so they traded goods for slaves. Africans would round up their enemies and trade them to the Dutch traders for trinkets. Many of the Africans were planning to kill their enemies, but instead they decided that they could trade them away, never have to deal with them again and get some goods in the process. The South (U.S) was one of the last places that used slave labor. Other parts of the world had correctly decided that it was both inhumane and unprofitable. The sountern plantation owners couldn't imagine a way to work their crops without slave labor, so they resisted the pressure from the north to do away with slavery.
But, the US was not the last place to have slavery. What about the Soviet Gulags, Nazi concentration camps, the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. And it may also still be practiced in some parts of Africa and Asia.
VHG, I don't think it's anything to do with being rightwing, I think it's more that Stalin and Mao (and Pol Pot) killed their own people; the Germans did their best to kill people from all over Europe, in a systematic, industrialised kind of way. I'm not sure if exterminating your own race can be genocide.
sorry, that answer went too soon. I meant to say I think it implies killing the whole race, not just part of it. You might not get actually through the whole race, as Hitler didn't, but I think you have to intend to for it to be truly genocide. Just lynching blacks in the USA wouldn't be genocide, for instance.
well, Pol Pot killed lots of Cambodians, but he was one himself, and he didn't kill himself, worse luck. So can you call his actions genocide if he planned to leave one of them alive? (In practice of course he didn't just plan to leave himself alive, all those who agreed with his views would also survive.) I don't think so. And I think it's this that makes people take a less severe view of him than of Hitler. Somehow, rulers are allowed to kill their own people; they're seen as more wicked if they kill others.
jno's saying he's not sure if killing your own race can be considered genocidal because if you belong to the race which you are waging genocide against, then you would have to kill yourself.
=======
I've not been hiding anywhere. I'm in quite regular contact with people (like me) interested in history but still learning about it. So if it is very commonplace for people to guilt-trip the British over the slave trade based on a simplistic understanding of it, I'm pretty sure I'd be very likely to have come into contact with it quite a lot more than I have.
Though as I say, that is just my experience, and personal experience is a far from adequate measure of things and can't be taken in isolation.
=======
I've not been hiding anywhere. I'm in quite regular contact with people (like me) interested in history but still learning about it. So if it is very commonplace for people to guilt-trip the British over the slave trade based on a simplistic understanding of it, I'm pretty sure I'd be very likely to have come into contact with it quite a lot more than I have.
Though as I say, that is just my experience, and personal experience is a far from adequate measure of things and can't be taken in isolation.
"Somehow, rulers are allowed to kill their own people; they're seen as more wicked if they kill others. "
I think that's a very strong way of putting it (there's hardly popular indifference toward the actions of Pol Pot or Stalin), but I see what you mean - there's a difference in how it's seen. It's quite an interesting point.
I think that's a very strong way of putting it (there's hardly popular indifference toward the actions of Pol Pot or Stalin), but I see what you mean - there's a difference in how it's seen. It's quite an interesting point.
-- answer removed --
Whilst not wishing to be attacked for my added tuppny'worth, the slave trade was about money and business and trade, the Holocaust and the genocides discussed here were about oppression and murder, though none of them were right, and none of them can be defended, looking back at colonialism the motive of the trading companies was greed not hate or fear. It was the handling of a commodity through ignorance in a less enlightened age, which cannot be an excuse or defense for any 20th century atrocity. I live in lancashire, one of the biggest guiloty counties in the UK as far as the trade triangle goes. The history of the industry is somewhat suppressed i feel, especially in our Historic towns like Lancaster and to some extent Liverpool.
Latest Posts
Crosswords13 mins ago
Shopping & Style14 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
Film, Media & TV20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.