Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Another One Getting A Kicking For Stating The Obvious
120 Answers
https:/
It'd be a pretty poor slaver or owner that bumped off the assets wouldn't it?
It'd be a pretty poor slaver or owner that bumped off the assets wouldn't it?
Answers
jim - // Whether or not slavery was a genocide is, perhaps, only a matter of pedantry. // I suggest not. Pedantry is fussing over small details - there are no small details involved in the difference between genocide and slavery, only a massive gap, because the two are entirely unrelated. Large loss of life may have been a by-product of slavery but not its main...
20:29 Thu 02nd Jul 2020
tomus - // He's a known 'plain speaker' that's said many stupid things in the past and hence hasn't been seen on telly for a while. //
Whenever someone says they 'believe in plain speaking' I always immediately translate that as "I am someone who is arrogant enough to think that the world is waiting to hear my view, and once I have expressed it, no-one else needs to add anything because my view is the only one that counts. In view of the importance of what I think and have to say, I don't need to bother with common courtesies, and I can, and will, be as rude as I feel like.
As advised, this attitude eventually loses its appeal of being someone who 'says it like it is', and rapidly becomes someone who is actually a reactionary ignorant bigot with a big mouth and an absence of humility and sensitivity.
Time for any of these clowns is necessarily limited - there is a finite time when you can be 'controversial' for money simply for the sake of it, in the way that a performing seal will clap its flippers for a fish, and when the novelty wears off, the end result is a swift and final journey to richly deserved obscurity.
Whenever someone says they 'believe in plain speaking' I always immediately translate that as "I am someone who is arrogant enough to think that the world is waiting to hear my view, and once I have expressed it, no-one else needs to add anything because my view is the only one that counts. In view of the importance of what I think and have to say, I don't need to bother with common courtesies, and I can, and will, be as rude as I feel like.
As advised, this attitude eventually loses its appeal of being someone who 'says it like it is', and rapidly becomes someone who is actually a reactionary ignorant bigot with a big mouth and an absence of humility and sensitivity.
Time for any of these clowns is necessarily limited - there is a finite time when you can be 'controversial' for money simply for the sake of it, in the way that a performing seal will clap its flippers for a fish, and when the novelty wears off, the end result is a swift and final journey to richly deserved obscurity.
// Jim, you’ve gone from genocide to all around every other house you can think of in order to prove that black Africans were abducted into slavery simply because they were black and that really isn’t so. //
I'm not intending to reduce it to solely one cause, so it isn't true that I am trying to prove that black Africans were abducted "simply because they were black". I am, however, saying that it was a major contributing factor, in setting up the necessary mindset even to consider it. There is a world of difference between "a major factor" and "simply because". No doubt money motivated the decision to "enslave" rather than "exterminate", but the fact that this was seen as the choice to be made should speak words for how little regard was given to those of a different race, a different skin colour, from the "white settlers".
None of this is undermined by the existence of black slave traders, either. It would, of course, undermine the "simply because" argument -- but, as I say, that was never the argument I was making. The topic of the slavery of black Africans by other Africans is touched on, of course, in the same link I give, and amazingly the author manages to be insulting to everybody:
"That the African is an inferior variety of the human race is, I think, now generally admitted, and his distinguishing characteristics are such as peculiarly mark him out for the situation which he occupies among us... The most remarkable is their indifference to personal liberty. In this they have followed their instincts... by enslaving each other; but contrary to the experience of every race, the possession of slaves has no material effect in raising the character, and promoting the civilisation of the master."
They can't even do slavery properly, it seems! The racism inherent in this passage, and many others like it, is staggering.
The starting point for any path to slavery is always the same: to deny the humanity of the victims. Be it their race, their culture, it matters not. All can play a part. After that comes the choice of making money out of the victims, or merely disposing of them en masse.
* * * * *
It is gratifying, at least, to see agreement with andy that Starkey's resignations and sackings are appropriate, and not before their time. A fuss over the first half of his sentence may be mistaken, and is in any case pointless, but he was doomed the moment he asked "why are there so many damned blacks?" He deserves no sympathy.
I'm not intending to reduce it to solely one cause, so it isn't true that I am trying to prove that black Africans were abducted "simply because they were black". I am, however, saying that it was a major contributing factor, in setting up the necessary mindset even to consider it. There is a world of difference between "a major factor" and "simply because". No doubt money motivated the decision to "enslave" rather than "exterminate", but the fact that this was seen as the choice to be made should speak words for how little regard was given to those of a different race, a different skin colour, from the "white settlers".
None of this is undermined by the existence of black slave traders, either. It would, of course, undermine the "simply because" argument -- but, as I say, that was never the argument I was making. The topic of the slavery of black Africans by other Africans is touched on, of course, in the same link I give, and amazingly the author manages to be insulting to everybody:
"That the African is an inferior variety of the human race is, I think, now generally admitted, and his distinguishing characteristics are such as peculiarly mark him out for the situation which he occupies among us... The most remarkable is their indifference to personal liberty. In this they have followed their instincts... by enslaving each other; but contrary to the experience of every race, the possession of slaves has no material effect in raising the character, and promoting the civilisation of the master."
They can't even do slavery properly, it seems! The racism inherent in this passage, and many others like it, is staggering.
The starting point for any path to slavery is always the same: to deny the humanity of the victims. Be it their race, their culture, it matters not. All can play a part. After that comes the choice of making money out of the victims, or merely disposing of them en masse.
* * * * *
It is gratifying, at least, to see agreement with andy that Starkey's resignations and sackings are appropriate, and not before their time. A fuss over the first half of his sentence may be mistaken, and is in any case pointless, but he was doomed the moment he asked "why are there so many damned blacks?" He deserves no sympathy.
Any reference to BAMEs runs the risk of causing, ''offence.''
Like this article from the Times.
https:/
Like this article from the Times.
https:/
Jim, //No doubt money motivated the decision to "enslave" rather than "exterminate", but the fact that this was seen as the choice to be made//
‘Fact’? No it isn’t. It wasn’t a choice to be made - or even one to be considered. There was no suggestion that black Africans be exterminated - that would have defeated the whole purpose of the exercise which was to make money and to provide cheap labour - and in fact I’ve never seen a reference linking slavery to the holocaust until now. If anything that is a hijacking of another of the greatest crimes of humanity - and, as such, an insult to the millions of Jews who died in the gas chambers. Nevertheless, those who readily encourage deceit in order to further their cause don’t seem to mind about that. Something else to be brushed under the carpet.
I know it isn’t popular to reject a world where lies are accepted as the new truth, but that is the world we now inhabit and I do reject it. Where a few words can destroy a distinguished man’s career - just as a few words ruined Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt’s career. Similarly, a few words have recently resulted in the demonisation of a best selling author who was speaking the truth. A world where a pandemic has paralyzed practically every society on earth but we are reproached for mentioning the source of that pandemic because it’s deemed ‘racist’ - in fact the self-appointed arbitrators go so far as to deny the source. Never mind that thousands have died because of that source. Then we have our police, under attack, being instructed by their superiors to ‘take the knee’ (stupid expression and stupid act) in order to placate a baying mob of mindless morons bent on anarchy and destruction. Why is that acceptable? And just why is it acceptable to threaten me with violence simply because I refuse to refer to a man imitating a woman as ‘she’? I have no idea - but it very clearly is.
Whatever we say these days has to meet with the approval of the ‘woke’ regardless of whether or not that judgement is fair, honest, or rational. That is the world that has been created - and you really ought to make sure that it really is the world you want because if the increasingly sickened silent majority suddenly find their collective voice and say ‘Enough!’ it will come back to bite - and I sincerely hope it does.
roy, I call it flip-flopping. If you actually spend time reading all that's written you invariably find you end up a very long way from where you started.
‘Fact’? No it isn’t. It wasn’t a choice to be made - or even one to be considered. There was no suggestion that black Africans be exterminated - that would have defeated the whole purpose of the exercise which was to make money and to provide cheap labour - and in fact I’ve never seen a reference linking slavery to the holocaust until now. If anything that is a hijacking of another of the greatest crimes of humanity - and, as such, an insult to the millions of Jews who died in the gas chambers. Nevertheless, those who readily encourage deceit in order to further their cause don’t seem to mind about that. Something else to be brushed under the carpet.
I know it isn’t popular to reject a world where lies are accepted as the new truth, but that is the world we now inhabit and I do reject it. Where a few words can destroy a distinguished man’s career - just as a few words ruined Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt’s career. Similarly, a few words have recently resulted in the demonisation of a best selling author who was speaking the truth. A world where a pandemic has paralyzed practically every society on earth but we are reproached for mentioning the source of that pandemic because it’s deemed ‘racist’ - in fact the self-appointed arbitrators go so far as to deny the source. Never mind that thousands have died because of that source. Then we have our police, under attack, being instructed by their superiors to ‘take the knee’ (stupid expression and stupid act) in order to placate a baying mob of mindless morons bent on anarchy and destruction. Why is that acceptable? And just why is it acceptable to threaten me with violence simply because I refuse to refer to a man imitating a woman as ‘she’? I have no idea - but it very clearly is.
Whatever we say these days has to meet with the approval of the ‘woke’ regardless of whether or not that judgement is fair, honest, or rational. That is the world that has been created - and you really ought to make sure that it really is the world you want because if the increasingly sickened silent majority suddenly find their collective voice and say ‘Enough!’ it will come back to bite - and I sincerely hope it does.
roy, I call it flip-flopping. If you actually spend time reading all that's written you invariably find you end up a very long way from where you started.
naomi - An excellent post, and a fair summary of jim's tendency to avoid having his points dismantled as being incorrect, with appropriate evidence, by simply shifting the argument until he ends up a very long way from where he started.
My response was a few days ago now, but centered on pointing out the flaws in jim's desired connection between slavery and genocide. Since then he has embraced racism to an ever larger degree, and once again is finding himself accurately contradicted, and moving away from the point as a consequence.
Once again you demonstrate more patience that I have - I dipped out of exchanges with him because in my view he demonstrates a vested interest in refusing to see when his argument is untenable.
My response was a few days ago now, but centered on pointing out the flaws in jim's desired connection between slavery and genocide. Since then he has embraced racism to an ever larger degree, and once again is finding himself accurately contradicted, and moving away from the point as a consequence.
Once again you demonstrate more patience that I have - I dipped out of exchanges with him because in my view he demonstrates a vested interest in refusing to see when his argument is untenable.
Atheist - // AH and N: whereas you two are always conceding points and accepting other's arguments? We all think we're right, don't we? We all have a lifetime's experience behind us, and we've all formed strong views. Not quite true, but most of us tend that way. //
naomi will speak for herself if she wishes, but my record on here shows that on may occasions I am happy to admit either that i was entirely wrong in my view, or that I have been persuaded to change it.
naomi will speak for herself if she wishes, but my record on here shows that on may occasions I am happy to admit either that i was entirely wrong in my view, or that I have been persuaded to change it.
Atheist - // AH, I'm sure you're right about yourself; I'm not an expert on AB history. I'm not sure I've seen N readily ceding points; she doesn't seem the type to do it, although she is a doughty advocate for her views. She'd make a good Tory politician. //
Fair enough - that makes bracketing us together a doubtful proposition, as I am happy to see you acknowledge.
Fair enough - that makes bracketing us together a doubtful proposition, as I am happy to see you acknowledge.
// our police, ,,, being instructed by their superiors to ‘take the knee’ (stupid expression and stupid act) .... Why is that acceptable? \\
because of the disgraceful showing of the Met over Steven Lawrence where clearly that black life didnt matter and a white wash review found there was institutional racism..... but all that is history and doubtless being re written as we speak
because of the disgraceful showing of the Met over Steven Lawrence where clearly that black life didnt matter and a white wash review found there was institutional racism..... but all that is history and doubtless being re written as we speak
white slaves here
https:/
along the norf coast of africa - Barbary coast
and opera lovers will concur that there is even an opera about it
L'Italiana in Algeri - hmm doesnt sound too english to me
https:/
along the norf coast of africa - Barbary coast
and opera lovers will concur that there is even an opera about it
L'Italiana in Algeri - hmm doesnt sound too english to me
//can you not see that in the case of the jews, genocide was the intention?//
Is genocide only a thing if it's deliberate then? Could Pol Pot had said "Sorry, it was an accident" and all would've been forgiven?
I'm not convinced that slavery was a genocide, but as to whether intent is paramount in deciding what is genocidal or not seems preposterous to me.
Is genocide only a thing if it's deliberate then? Could Pol Pot had said "Sorry, it was an accident" and all would've been forgiven?
I'm not convinced that slavery was a genocide, but as to whether intent is paramount in deciding what is genocidal or not seems preposterous to me.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
News4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 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.