Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Now you see what is taught in Berkeley. A country that didn't exist before 1871 apparently was the first to attempt to end the slave trade despite Britain starting the effort at least half a century earlier.
    Weren't you the one who said you didn't have much knowledge about history? I'll find you the evidence and you will rescind your comments. Hmmm I might do it later because I am going out soon, but I will find my evidence.

    Germany led the movement in Europe (not the UK). America was farrrrrrr behind.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    I disagree. If you study American slavery/history indepth for example, you'd realize that tearing slaves away from family members was a key tool in weakening their mentality. It's not simply because of "profit" that they sold members of each family separately.

    By using Christianity, loss of their families, brutal force, and other ways of demoralizing the slaves, the owners intended to keep a hold on not only their physical being but also their mental being, thus degrading them below human beings into mere objects.

    If you were to read some historical novels regarding this issue, you'd realize that a slave mother for example who had been able to be with her daughter for 18 years laments because her daughter was sold separately from her at 18.....she says something to the extent of "but they allowed me to keep her for 18 years." Slaves tried not to get attached to their family members, including their own children, but since they were humans, it was inevitable and thus another way that the owners could maliciously hurt them.
    If you study American slavery/history at Berkeley God knows what you'll find out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you realise that Carl realises that slavery is part of my history, you are trying to deny that it has any impact on black society at all. Do you even know Afro-carribeans or read much black history books?
    :confused: :confused:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    I disagree. If you study American slavery/history indepth for example, you'd realize that tearing slaves away from family members was a key tool in weakening their mentality. It's not simply because of "profit" that they sold members of each family separately.

    By using Christianity, loss of their families, brutal force, and other ways of demoralizing the slaves, the owners intended to keep a hold on not only their physical being but also their mental being, thus degrading them below human beings into mere objects.

    If you were to read some historical novels regarding this issue, you'd realize that a slave mother for example who had been able to be with her daughter for 18 years laments because her daughter was sold separately from her at 18.....she says something to the extent of "but they allowed me to keep her for 18 years." Slaves tried not to get attached to their family members, including their own children, but since they were humans, it was inevitable and thus another way that the owners could maliciously hurt them.
    Still, since our state renounced slavery 200 years ago, is there really need for the state to apologize now?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    I disagree. If you study American slavery/history indepth for example, you'd realize that tearing slaves away from family members was a key tool in weakening their mentality. It's not simply because of "profit" that they sold members of each family separately.

    By using Christianity, loss of their families, brutal force, and other ways of demoralizing the slaves, the owners intended to keep a hold on not only their physical being but also their mental being, thus degrading them below human beings into mere objects.

    If you were to read some historical novels regarding this issue, you'd realize that a slave mother for example who had been able to be with her daughter for 18 years laments because her daughter was sold separately from her at 18.....she says something to the extent of "but they allowed me to keep her for 18 years." Slaves tried not to get attached to their family members, including their own children, but since they were humans, it was inevitable and thus another way that the owners could maliciously hurt them.
    :ditto:
    I am so glad that you have sense. If I could add to your reputation I could..but I have given too much out today.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Britzan)
    I don't think you realise that Carl realises that slavery is part of my history, you are trying to deny that it has any impact on black society at all. Do you even know Afro-carribeans or read much black history books?
    :confused: :confused:
    Yes I know black people and they don't moan on about how slavery ruined their lives. I acknowledge that it might have the *tiniest* impact on your life ie your surname, but ffs-it was two hundred years ago!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    If you study American slavery/history at Berkeley God knows what you'll find out.
    You mean the truth? At least we have freedom of the press--meaning we actually can read books written about history that are too disturbing for other students. Meaning we know more truth than others.

    In all honesty, I find Berkeley's education to be very egalitarian, and frankly I am happy that we don't approach slavery with the "oh you are playing the victim" sentiment.

    You realize that the oppression of blacks is still a modern issue? That the Civil Rights movement didn't take effect until the 1970s?

    I don't understand how some of you can be so ignorant as to say "oh you are playing the victim" because fact is THEY ARE THE VICTIMS.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    Weren't you the one who said you didn't have much knowledge about history? I'll find you the evidence and you will rescind your comments. Hmmm I might do it later because I am going out soon, but I will find my evidence.

    Germany led the movement in Europe (not the UK). America was farrrrrrr behind.
    Well, Britain abolished slavery in/around 1830 (athough it's campaign towards it preceeded the Napoleonic wars) and Germany didn't exist until 1871. How therefore could Germany have lead to fight to end slavery when the British (the first European power to do so) ended slavery 40 years before Germany existed? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    You mean the truth? At least we have freedom of the press--meaning we actually can read books written about history that are too disturbing for other students. Meaning we know more truth than others.

    In all honesty, I find Berkeley's education to be very egalitarian, and frankly I am happy that we don't approach slavery with the "oh you are playing the victim" sentiment.

    You realize that the oppression of blacks is still a modern issue? That the Civil Rights movement didn't take effect until the 1970s?

    I don't understand how some of you can be so ignorant as to say "oh you are playing the victim" because fact is THEY ARE THE VICTIMS.

    Hallelujah!!!!!!!!! Somebody is speaking the truth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, Britain abolished slavery in/around 1830 (athough it's campaign towards it preceeded the Napoleonic wars) and Germany didn't exist until 1871. How therefore could Germany have lead to fight to end slavery when the British (the first European power to do so) ended slavery 40 years before Germany existed? :confused:

    Germanic states then. Just because it wasn't officially a country doesn't mean it does not exist.

    In all honesty, I would give away 5 dollars (and I'm cheap) if I'm wrong about this. But seriously, Germany was first in leading the way to abolitionism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    You mean the truth? At least we have freedom of the press--meaning we actually can read books written about history that are too disturbing for other students. Meaning we know more truth than others.

    In all honesty, I find Berkeley's education to be very egalitarian, and frankly I am happy that we don't approach slavery with the "oh you are playing the victim" sentiment.

    You realize that the oppression of blacks is still a modern issue? That the Civil Rights movement didn't take effect until the 1970s?

    I don't understand how some of you can be so ignorant as to say "oh you are playing the victim" because fact is THEY ARE THE VICTIMS.
    Berkeley is a well known cess pool of arrested intellectual thought frozen in sixties liberal dogmatics. Most of the teaching staff are petrified adolescents and I wouldn't give you tuppence for the place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shady lane)
    Although slavery as a concept has been around for ages, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was particularly brutal. An estimated 60 MILLION Africans were taken from their homes, either forced by Europeans, or sold out by local leaders who were willing to trade their enemies for a few guns.

    Many people just think of slavery as what happened at the destination, but the captives were held in dungeons in Africa for months, waiting for the next ship to the Americas to come in. They were placed in inhuman conditions, eating, sleeping, and urinating in the same small, cramped, poorly ventilated rooms (I have visited a few slave dungeons in Ghana so I've seen it myself).

    )

    The Atlantic slave trade was no more "brutal" than other instances of slavery. The Arabs treated their slaves badly. The ancient Greeks and Romans probably did too.

    Again, what is the difference between this and other instances of slavery?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    You realize that the oppression of blacks is still a modern issue? That the Civil Rights movement didn't take effect until the 1970s?
    Explain.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    If you were to read some historical novels regarding this issue, you'd realize that a slave mother for example who had been able to be with her daughter for 18 years laments because her daughter was sold separately from her at 18.....she says something to the extent of "but they allowed me to keep her for 18 years." Slaves tried not to get attached to their family members, including their own children, but since they were humans, it was inevitable and thus another way that the owners could maliciously hurt them.
    Either that or because girls couldn't be expected to be strong enough to do work until they were 18.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Explain.

    Referring to your earlier post, I'd rather go to a university that allows free speech and liberalism and union support than one who hushes their students, bathes in oppressive conservatism, and teaches half-truths. (And I'm not even a true Democrat; I'm a registered Republican who voted for Kerry.)

    You can insult my university all you please, but it is still a top-notch school internationally in all areas and I am pleased to know that I am part of an active, aware society that has passions, open debates, and truth.

    As for the Civil Rights Movement: Here's some regurgitated information. Also keep in mind that abolitionism did not mean equality at all. Jim Crow is something to mention....

    Civil rights campaigns in the U.S. have been dominated by racial politics. Although slavery was abolished and freed slaves were given the right to vote in 1865, southern states used laws and vigilantism to maintain black Americans as a non-voting lower class of citizen subject to repressive rules of conduct. The federal government, while aware of the situation, had limited jurisdiction over these matters and feared the political effects of provoking the South. A breakthrough came when president Harry S. Truman integrated the armed forces by executive order in 1948. This action prompted a broad movement throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s to secure and enforce the civil rights of all black Americans.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    Weren't you the one who said you didn't have much knowledge about history? I'll find you the evidence and you will rescind your comments. Hmmm I might do it later because I am going out soon, but I will find my evidence.

    Germany led the movement in Europe (not the UK). America was farrrrrrr behind.
    Tell me how Germany could have led the movement in Europe when slavery no longer existed in Europe when Germany was created.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Either that or because girls couldn't be expected to be strong enough to do work until they were 18.
    Are you kidding me? Slaveowners raped their 13 year old slaves, sold them once pregnant, or killed them. If the girl was white and the father was a slave, he could be killed and she would be sent away from shame. If the girl was a slave and the father white, then her child might be born into slavery and thus becomes the slave of his own father, or she was sold, or she was killed. It's all there historically. So don't spout random things.

    In all honesty, that was one historical example I was using to show that slaveowners tore apart family to ruin the slaves' morale.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree. If you study American slavery/history indepth for example, you'd realize that tearing slaves away from family members was a key tool in weakening their mentality. It's not simply because of "profit" that they sold members of each family separately.

    By using Christianity, loss of their families, brutal force, and other ways of demoralizing the slaves, the owners intended to keep a hold on not only their physical being but also their mental being, thus degrading them below human beings into mere objects.

    If you were to read some historical novels regarding this issue, you'd realize that a slave mother for example who had been able to be with her daughter for 18 years laments because her daughter was sold separately from her at 18.....she says something to the extent of "but they allowed me to keep her for 18 years." Slaves tried not to get attached to their family members, including their own children, but since they were humans, it was inevitable and thus another way that the owners could maliciously hurt them.
    Slavery was practiced everywhere, and the fact is that slaves in British North America and the US were amongst the best treated anytime or anwhere. They were the only slave population to successfully self-perpetuate, which means two things.
    A) These Slaves were incredibly well treated for their time, leading to increased survival rates.
    B) If US slavery was so terrible, why did the above mention slaves continue to have so many children. They clearly didn't care that they were bringing lives into a world of pain, suffering and bondage.

    Slavery was cruel and vicious, but I would not say by any chance that slaves in the British/US domains faced the brunt of it. By far the most savage instances of colonial slavery occured in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Even until the very modern era, slavery was rampant in Africa and still is. If these slaves were not transported, chances are that they would be still slaves, or only freed very recently. If we pay reparations, then every nation on earth should start payments to the decedants of all former slaves.

    At the same time that Britain and America had slavery, North Africans were enslaving Britons and Americans. All this PC needs to stop. Instead of paying reparations for the past, we should stop modern day slavery around the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Without slavery there would probably be less racial integration in the world, so it has a silver lining, but still quite a big cloud.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlyPie)
    Germanic states then. Just because it wasn't officially a country doesn't mean it does not exist.

    In all honesty, I would give away 5 dollars (and I'm cheap) if I'm wrong about this. But seriously, Germany was first in leading the way to abolitionism.
    Which German states? I know Prussian and Austrian history well enough to know that they didn't care about slavery and would certainly not sacrifice their geopolitical position for moral reasons. Then there's the fact that the largest German states all had absolute monarchies, which makes it rather unlikely that civil society could have pushed for abolitionisim.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.