Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by smoojalooge, Aug 15, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Is this more left wing drivel from the channel 4
or a just arguement
The man is clearly after some free money.
It is in the past and it should remain there; he has tried to draw parallels between slavery and the Nazi use of slave labour.
The former was, at the time, legal; the latter was prohibited under domestic and international law.
People cannot be held responsible for the crimes of the past; the VJ Day news coverage demonstrates this; several of the old and the bold have been interviewed and stated that they despise the older generation of Japanese, that are culpable for the war crimes committed in the name of Japan; however these men have stated that they feel no animosity towards the younger generations.
This fool on the television would only create another racial divide if his argument held any water.
He has not addressed the fact that the UK was one of the first nations to ban slavery; he has not mentioned the fact that the USA continued with slavery for considerably longer; he has not addressed the fact that the slave trade would not have been possible without the complicity of other Africans; he has not addressed the fact that slavery still exists in North Africa.
Put simply this is a programme that is based on a very weak argument and seems designed purely to rile and irritate most viewers that don't live in Islington.
He is a silly mong.
Yours in abolition
Drivel. So far as I've bothered to understand the cretinous premise of this C4 propagandist cack, the general idea is that we evil Brits should compensate anyone descended from a slave bought or sold by a Brit.
As it was the Royal Navy that pretty much single-handedly decimated the slave trade anywhere a bit of map was painted pink in the 19th Century (and that's a lot of map), I think a better idea would be for any descendant of a slave freed by the British should contribute toward HMG's Defence budget... Any better ideas?
well i've found his e-mail address lets ask him shall we
Go on then...
I find it interesting that he's trying to connect high street banks to Slave trading by virtue of the fact that they swallowed up smaller banks in mergers in the 20th century...I mean, is Barclays really connected to the slave trade because they took over a bank in 1969!!! that had some history.
I wonder why none of the Banks were interested in his 'claims'
If any country in the worlds actions went some way to redressing the Slave Trade then it's Britains and more specifically the Royal Navys actions in policing everyone else.
Anyone know who is actually presenting the program?...all I can see is a massive Chip.
message sent lets see what he comes back with
Surely, if I as a tax payer, am required to pay for something I never did, have not benefitted from and have no intention of doing in the future, then this individual should be held liable for the riots in Brixton in the early 1980's and subsequent riots caused by the same ethnic groupings!
The argument was intresting as a history lesson .I could see an argument for the 20 million that was handed over as compensation
to slave owners being used to some sort of education fund ,but, the trillions argument is barking mad and ruling out africa in a heart beat
There was a very interesting and frankly horrifying programme about German genocide in Namibia on after Newsnight that showed up C4s effort for the dross it was.
I couldn't quite figure out who we were supposed to be compensating though. Black people living in Britain? How do we sort who is here as a result of slavery from those who immigrated some other way - say by joining the Royal or Merchant Navies. But then how much is the right to live in Britain worth compared to living in Africa given the difference in standards of living? Perhaps West Indians should be compensated and waht about black Africans? Do they deserve compensation bearing in mind that many of them are descended from those that sold other Africans in the first place?
What would have happened to those who were enslaved by Britain had the British not been there to buy them? I bet a large number of them would have ended up in a big pit dug by whatever other tribe captured them or would have beeen sold east and the Arabs tended to make sure that their slaves didn't have children.
It is a little known fact that slaves were going east from northern Europe at the end of the first millenium - Prague was a majure castration centre - should we be due compensation from the Arabs?
How many folk where sold into slavery by their own tribal chieftens ?
How many black and white folk where sold into slavery by off white persons ?
Talk to Arabs read their press around the time of Rahmadan, buy absolution by freeing a slave and thats in this day and age.
The slave trade was is wrong. Thats is why Britian was one of the first major cuntries to abolish it.
Compensation yes asked the deccendants of the African leaders who sold their folk until recently and still do if the press can be beleived.
Oh the UK PC crew can cough since they seem to think their ancstors did sumthing wrong, mine did sumthing right.
here is Dr Beckfords reply to my e-mail
Smoojalooge I made a programme in 1999 which explored the abolitionist's work. Unfortunately, in TV land, you don't get a great deal of time and so, some arguments and themes get lost along the way. However, its important to note that in Caribbean history, they write about the slaves who made slavery economically impossible through insurrection. They helped to make abolition possible.
I think compensation should be offered to anyone with antecendents of an African variety wanting it for perceived or actual wrongs past on the proviso that it is in the form of a voucher to be cashed at Thiefrow airport for a one way ticket to the dark continent. Can't be fairer than that.
A bit of a history lesson.
Where does the word "Slave" come from?
The (Islamic) Almohad empire stretched from North Africa across to Southern Spain in the early Medieval period. They, like many other cultures throughout history, used slaves. Many of the most able, for a variety of reasons, came via the Black Sea slaving routes and were of Slavic descent. Many of these men would become important civil servants and administrators for the Almohads and thus the word "Slav" became b*stardised into "Slave."
My main bones of contention with Dr. Beckford's argument, therefore, is twofold; firstly slavery was practiced by many races and cultures for thousands of years (do we now try to secure reparations from the Italians for the post-Roman occupation upheaval in Britain?), including by Africans during the period in question (something which many conveniently seem to "forget"). Secondly, where does the "vicarious liability of history" end? As a Briton presumably my tax pound is now fair game for every error in British foreign policy in perpetuity.
We are right to be proud of the Abolitionist movement in Britain and our role in eradicating the slave trade as we did.
Dr. Beckford's (grossly revisionist) argument is valuable as perhaps an ethical debating point; as a serious policy proposal it is simply ludicrous and bound to cause more ill-will between the various communities within the UK.
I can't say I paid the programme much attention, once the sums talked about starting getting so ridiculous (sure I spied some dodgy maths going on) and once the argument was fatally undermined by the fact that Barclays pointed out that their own history was in fact Quaker and firmly abolitionist! The idea that they should attract some sort of liability from their 1960s acquisition of Martins was just too ludicrous.
Do you think the guy was seriosu though or that it was just intended as an interesting exercise to show the wealth gained at the time and the effects of compounding this?
Separate names with a comma.