firemedic30ca
It's not really an argument of which was worse as much higher as it is a demand for recognition. The fact of the matter is every race on the planet has been a victim of slavery. It's rich vs poor, and was never skin color vs skin color, like most are taught to believe. The sickening part of this is the refusal of any one to accept it, there by allowing another part of our dark history to be forgotten.
Now, slavery was horrible no matter what your color. However, there was a point in time in which African slaves were highly priced and sought after as they were considered harder workers, while white slaves were not. This lead to more deaths among the white slave population simply because they were a dime a dozen and less desirable. The torture and punishment was essentially the same, but whites suffered a higher mortality rate. One could argue that because the blacks lived longer and suffered more, that life for them was worse because they weren't afforded the mercy of dying and no longer being a victim.
Facts are facts. This happened, and the circumstances are what they are. Accepting it doesn't make you racist, doesn't down play black suffering or change it in anyway for the rest of the world. It only changes the perceived power of those that continuously attempt to use black slavery to their favor.
deathtokoalas
i was responding to the comments section, which is full of debates about which is "worse".
but it's equally important to take slavery out of the western colonial context you're pigeonholing it into. the largest slave trading civilization in history was not america but the islamic empire, which transported upwards of ten times as many slaves out of an area that included modern day africa, india and ukraine. it's quite instructive to look at the systemic system of slavery that the arabs set up. it's a little bit unique in it's "diversity of slavery" due to the fact that they were in the middle of the world. an arab slave harem would have had people of just about every colour in it. nor would their colour have had anything to do with their condition. the mongols also took white slaves.
from the racial perspective, the arabs did not treat ukrainians any differently than they treated africans. both were inferior peoples. and they lived roughly similar lifestyles based around small agricultural villages, pastoralism and hunting. arab slave traders would land in the crimea and go out and round them up out of their villages. it was really identical to anything you'd imagine a spanish slave raid of west africa would look like, except the skin colour was reversed.
what it actually had to do with in all of these circumstances was not race or wealth but religion. i mean, it's about economics, obviously. but the criteria for oppression was always "you're in the wrong religion". the muslims simply enslaved anyone who wasn't muslim. white, black, whatever - didn't matter. the basis of slavery in western colonies is actually based on a papal emulation of this muslim economic policy, starting from a papal bull in 1452 that gave the portugese king the right to enslave non-christians. the british enslavement of catholic ireland is also religious in justification.
and, they were consistent about this in weird ways, too. one of the oldest churches in the world is actually in ethiopia. it seems to have been christianized in the roman era, and then cut off from europe - and never islamized. when the portugese arrived in ethiopia and found christians, they did not enslave them - because they did not have papal authority to do so. in fact, they formed an alliance with them against the "saracens". the result was a war where white europeans and black africans fought against arabs based on religion rather than skin colour.
so, what you're saying is correct. but it needs broader context. slavery is not and never has been about one race's superiority over another. it's always been economic in justification, and centered around broad civilizational themes. skin colour was one civilizational theme, but very short-lived. things like religion and language have historically been far more important in determining who the elite subjugates.
cogli
you are absolutely correct. And that is continuously manipulated for and by what ever socioeconomic agenda is being foisted upon us at any given moment..at which time talking of Koala we could use the ReClaim Australia movement as a classic example of your theme...the main thing that stands out with all of this is the manipulation of ignorance, lack of historical knowledge and context. Interesting also that throughout these discussions when discussing the Americas nobody has thought to mention the Chinese..on a scale of who had it worse ..phew! that's like losing the number 10. .............. But the interesting thing with the Irish that I have found, is how profoundly the Ireland Irish were shocked and horrified by what racist bigots the American Irish had become by the early 1900s..this blog and others like it made me do a little digging and there are a massive number of comments by De Valera, Collins, The IRA right the way through to the 70s when discussing funding from The USA how they are happy to work with The American Black liberation movements and Islamic groups but were not in favour of accepting aid from Irish American groups they labelled " a bunch of racist bigots"..which was bit surprising compared to urban myth....... Interesting also is that the polling in the USA showed that The Jewish Americans were by far and wide the greatest supporters of the Black Liberation and Black equality movements throughout the 40s 50s 60s and 70s ..so some eye openers there...and if we go back to your premise and apply it to the current elite model, it is interesting to see that Ireland has deliberately and forcefully blocked all attempts for anti Islamic protests to get off the ground.. their anti Islamic march as a result, managed to get only 12 protestors..where as the Australian elite are using these protests as an asset/ blind/diversion...so the alignments are still following very very old trading paths at the same time as showing,... how cultures self colonise to fit the elite of their environment in order to survive and succeed...your comment reminds me of the statement by the ex head of IBM at a Multinational Corporations meeting in the 90s :::"we are now in the privileged position where we farm the entire world by the logic of profit..We decide what education a country gets or if it gets one. What toothpaste they use and what they eat for breakfast and Culture, Race, Religion and National Boundaries are just another marketable product."
deathtokoalas
i think that nativism is a natural and almost inevitable reaction to oppression, and a lesson we have a hard time learning. up in canada, protest movements tend to integrate themselves with indigenous groups. over time, it seems like we've lost the plot on this. the reality is that an indigenous protest has greater legal protection; so, a native group can blockade an oil company and not have the cops break it up the same way that they'd break up an environmental group's blockade. it makes a lot of sense to build alliances out of that to get to common ends, and it consequently makes sense for protest groups to push solidarity with indigenous sovereignty struggles.
but, nobody really looks into the society they're fighting for: one where gender roles are enforced through expulsion, women have very few rights, gays are banned from everything, positions of civil authority are limited by ethnic background...
i look at their proposals and say "this is israel.". and, yet it's the same friends organizing solidarity rallies for the native groups that are organizing solidarity rallies for palestine. ironically, the only answer i can come to with this is that it's a type of marginalization. that is, it seems to be rooted in some kind of weird stereotype of the "benevolent indian" - the "noble savage" - that couldn't possibly cause anybody any harm.
i think if you really take a look around at the world, this is a pattern that repeats itself through history. the more you tear down an identity, the more it breeds violent forms of nationalism and extremism.
in some cases, there's little choice. the black liberation movements into the 70s were necessary, and their work has been left unfinished. with the racial profiling, school-to-prison pipeline and massive racial inequality in the united states, it seems like there's no other way to go. that's going to produce these exclusivist strains. like, i'm not on the side of anybody that clams that white people shouldn't be allowed to rap - or black people can't like rachmaninov. but, when your culture is constantly being ripped apart, that exclusivity is an inevitable reaction by people trying to reconstruct an identity.
it's easy to say "these are the last people you'd expect this from, they should know better". but, maybe that's misunderstanding the issue. maybe, it's more reasonable to think "you'd expect people with a history of being repressed to lash out at others".
web
So very true. We were never there so we do not know. All we know i what is told to us. Those who truly knew what happened are sadly gone and with them the truth.
deathtokoalas
well, i'm obviously drawing from sources. i'm not consulting my crystal ball. this information was recorded. it does exist. and, not just in historical documents, either. the video suggests dickens, and he is certainly widely regarded as a valuable source of information on the topic in england - to the point that i read dickens in high school. there's the famous text by engels, of course. and modern scholarship (zinn, for example) is ensuring that the class basis of slavery is not forgotten.
i mean, even a cursory history of greece will point to the helots. as oscar wilde pointed out not that long ago, slavery and civilization are intrinsically related. this isn't likely to be forgotten, even if it's kept a little obscured.