Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Colston Four

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Colston Four

Old 18th May 2022, 05:12
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,490
The concept of race is still used to describe difference between humans, even though it is completely baseless.To just see it all as humans being trading other human beings and therefore without racial connotation and indeed legitimation, misses a lot megan
To my mind it was entirely economics at play, I don't see any racial connotation, Africa was the major source, but that was because the Africans themselves facilitated the trade. Why? Because it earned them wealth, certain tribes raided other tribes and sold those captured to traders for shipment to where wanted - America, India, Africa itself.

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the Western Sudan, including Ghana (750–1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275–1591), about a third of the population was enslaved. The earliest Akan state of Bonoman which had third of its population being enslaved in the 17th century. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of enslaved people. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Igbo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of enslaved people as well as Bono. The population of the Kanem was about one third enslaved. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1396–1893). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of enslaved people. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of Arab-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of Madagascar was enslaved.

Slavery in Ethiopia persisted until 1942. The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2,000,000 enslaved people in the early 1930s, out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million. It was finally abolished by order of emperor Haile Selassie on 26 August 1942.

When British rule was first imposed on the Sokoto Caliphate and the surrounding areas in northern Nigeria at the turn of the 20th century, approximately 2 million to 2.5 million people living there were enslaved. Slavery in northern Nigeria was finally outlawed in 1936.

Writing in 1998 about the extent of trade coming through and from Africa, the Congolese journalist Elikia M'bokolo wrote "The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean

The Romans had slaves aplenty, but they had no concept of race, skin tones did not carry any social implications and no social identity, either imposed or assumed, was associated with skin color. Though the color black was associated with ill-omen in the ancient Roman religion, "the ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism;... ancient society... for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man.

Romans and Greeks were generally ethnocentric, priding themselves on their autochthony and viewing themselves as somewhat privileged inhabitants of the optimal environment for human prosperity and advancement. Environmental determinism was the primary lens through which classical elites understood their perceived advantages vis-ŕ-vis the "other", and ubiquitous themes of eastern effeminacy as compared to northern hardiness were ascribed to the consequences of different climatic conditions.Classical authors have left no record of any social implications of dark or black skin colour, but multiple sources of group identity are recorded. Romans clearly perceived physical differences between individuals and populations across time and space, as evidenced by the frequent representation of diverse types in classical iconography But they never defined these differences in a comprehensive manner, employing a range of terms to describe human social and physical characteristics. For example, genos, ethnos, ethnę, and phulę may be approximately mapped onto 21st-century notions of race, ethnic grouping, political units, or other sociocultural concepts. A "Roman" identity did not suggest a given skin tone, rather it referred to an ever-shifting set of cultural traditions, growing more eclectic in later Roman history, to which inherited physical characteristics were of no relevance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_..._Roman_history
megan is online now  
Old 18th May 2022, 09:40
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,523
It's possible, but unlikely, that those complaining of the statue removal will differentiate between the 'philosophies ' represented by the various examples e.g. Aristotle v Colston.
One (Colston), represented the deliberate degradation of fellow human beings for personal gain and greed, the other, an attempt through non-intrusive, non-violent means, to improve humanity's thought processes. For those addicted to personal greed as a 'life skill', one metal or granite depiction will have no more significance than any other ... such 'thinking' is not, nor should it ever be, universal !
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 11:36
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 214
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer View Post
I now expect all the statues of Greeks and Romans, so beloved of the folk that run our museums to be torn down.

Both Greeks and Romans were very racist slave owners..
actually the Greeks and Romans were equal opportunities enslavers. They didn’t mind what race you were. White, African, Asian. All were equally enslaved.
back to Boeing is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 12:00
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,527
Originally Posted by B Fraser View Post
It's one thing to go on a rampage that was ultimately without consequences, quite another to bring attention to a modern day issue. What's next on their woke agenda, defacing a statue of Aristotle who embodied superiority and entitlement when it came to owning slaves ? A totally pointless and empty gesture.
Bit like posting on internet forums...
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 14:57
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by megan View Post
To my mind it was entirely economics at play, I don't see any racial connotation, Africa was the major source, but that was because the Africans themselves facilitated the trade. Why? Because it earned them wealth, certain tribes raided other tribes and sold those captured to traders for shipment to where wanted - America, India, Africa itself.

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the Western Sudan, including Ghana (750–1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275–1591), about a third of the population was enslaved. The earliest Akan state of Bonoman which had third of its population being enslaved in the 17th century. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of enslaved people. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Igbo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of enslaved people as well as Bono. The population of the Kanem was about one third enslaved. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1396–1893). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of enslaved people. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of Arab-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of Madagascar was enslaved.

Slavery in Ethiopia persisted until 1942. The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2,000,000 enslaved people in the early 1930s, out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million. It was finally abolished by order of emperor Haile Selassie on 26 August 1942.

When British rule was first imposed on the Sokoto Caliphate and the surrounding areas in northern Nigeria at the turn of the 20th century, approximately 2 million to 2.5 million people living there were enslaved. Slavery in northern Nigeria was finally outlawed in 1936.

Writing in 1998 about the extent of trade coming through and from Africa, the Congolese journalist Elikia M'bokolo wrote "The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean

The Romans had slaves aplenty, but they had no concept of race, skin tones did not carry any social implications and no social identity, either imposed or assumed, was associated with skin color. Though the color black was associated with ill-omen in the ancient Roman religion, "the ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism;... ancient society... for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man.

Romans and Greeks were generally ethnocentric, priding themselves on their autochthony and viewing themselves as somewhat privileged inhabitants of the optimal environment for human prosperity and advancement. Environmental determinism was the primary lens through which classical elites understood their perceived advantages vis-ŕ-vis the "other", and ubiquitous themes of eastern effeminacy as compared to northern hardiness were ascribed to the consequences of different climatic conditions.Classical authors have left no record of any social implications of dark or black skin colour, but multiple sources of group identity are recorded. Romans clearly perceived physical differences between individuals and populations across time and space, as evidenced by the frequent representation of diverse types in classical iconography But they never defined these differences in a comprehensive manner, employing a range of terms to describe human social and physical characteristics. For example, genos, ethnos, ethnę, and phulę may be approximately mapped onto 21st-century notions of race, ethnic grouping, political units, or other sociocultural concepts. A "Roman" identity did not suggest a given skin tone, rather it referred to an ever-shifting set of cultural traditions, growing more eclectic in later Roman history, to which inherited physical characteristics were of no relevance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_..._Roman_history

All of which may be true and informative. But none of it means that the slave trade in question was not racist. There are implicit assumptions in the information offered as a way of negating racism in the slave trade in question, which lead to false conclusions:

There has been slavery throughout history - true
Therefore slavery is just slavery and there are no differences - false
:- The slave trade in question was overlaid by a juistifying ideology, later worked into “science of man“ theories: These unduly influence our legacy attitudes towards the useless concept of race.

Slavery is largely to be understood as an economic activity - true
Therefore all slavery is just about economics and is not premised on other grounds - false
:- A large part of of the justification for abducting black Africans and treating them like animals was that were more akin to animals and not a fully developed species.

Africans were involved in enslaving other Africans - true
Therefore it can‘t be racist - false
:- Even if the motivations of the African slavers were not racist (which they might also have been), this does not preclude the racist premises of the buyers.

To argue that the slave trade in question was not racist even in its connotations is simply not credible megan: It was not only implicitly racist; it was explicitly so.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 15:51
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
All of which may be true and informative. But none of it means that the slave trade in question was not racist. There are implicit assumptions in the information offered as a way of negating racism in the slave trade in question, which lead to false conclusions:

There has been slavery throughout history - true
Therefore slavery is just slavery and there are no differences - false
:- The slave trade in question was overlaid by a juistifying ideology, later worked into “science of man“ theories: These unduly influence our legacy attitudes towards the useless concept of race.

Slavery is largely to be understood as an economic activity - true
Therefore all slavery is just about economics and is not premised on other grounds - false
:- A large part of of the justification for abducting black Africans and treating them like animals was that were more akin to animals and not a fully developed species.

Africans were involved in enslaving other Africans - true
Therefore it can‘t be racist - false
:- Even if the motivations of the African slavers were not racist (which they might also have been), this does not preclude the racist premises of the buyers.

To argue that the slave trade in question was not racist even in its connotations is simply not credible megan: It was not only implicitly racist; it was explicitly so.
Very valid points - but slavery throughout history has always been about subjugation and a belief in superiority over another group - therefore fitting the OED definition of racism and not unique to only Africa. Civilisations that have conquered another have historically used the labour of the vanquished as an explicit way of showing and enforcing their dominance. Racism is not always about colour, it can be about culture, religion and heritage. The white colonisation of the African continent was an invasion. So was the Roman occupation of England, to use two comparisons. The Romans routinely shipped British slaves back to Rome to do work that the citizens considered beneath them. Both racial groups were white but the Romans considered the British were uncivilised, savages, worshipped pagan gods, were intellectually inferior, had dubious social practises and whose lives were of far less value and therefore expendable. Exactly the same criteria and justification used by the slave traders of the 18/19th centuries and currently by the Chinese to the Uighurs

BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 16:10
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,677
Don't forget the Barbary pirates and, among other very successful areas of slave trade, their venture into British waters culminating in taking the entire population of Baltimore, Ireland back to their base in Lundy in the Severn Estuary for onward sale to the Middle East. Their market was non-Muslims so not technically "racist" but "religionist".
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 17:24
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,490
To argue that the slave trade in question was not racist even in its connotations is simply not credible megan: It was not only implicitly racist; it was explicitly so
The first Prime Minister (the Father of the Nation) of Trinidad and Tobago, The Hon Eric Eustace Williams, seems to differ in opinion.
Williams’s assertion that slavery had produced racism, not vice versa: “Slavery was not born of racism,”
https://www.thenation.com/article/so...talism-slavery
megan is online now  
Old 18th May 2022, 21:37
  #329 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 757
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
It's possible, but unlikely, that those complaining of the statue removal will differentiate between the 'philosophies ' represented by the various examples e.g. Aristotle v Colston
That's quite an assumption dear chap.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 18th May 2022, 22:01
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by megan View Post
The first Prime Minister (the Father of the Nation) of Trinidad and Tobago, The Hon Eric Eustace Williams, seems to differ in opinion.

https://www.thenation.com/article/so...talism-slavery
Does he? His thesis seems to embody exactly what has been said so far: That slavery pre-existed racism but it’s existence was the context In which the concept of racism as a rationalization for industrialized slavery developed.

BWSboy6

Point taken about various forms of overlayed justifications for slavery; my point was that in an era before the concept of race was invented, racism would be hard to articulate or demonstrate, even If implicit in some cases.

Low

ditto. And btw:you clearly called it best on Russia, Germany and gas.

Torquetalk is offline  
Old 24th May 2022, 12:56
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 65
Perhaps the Colston Four et al might like to redirect their energy and enthusiasm for human rights towards China and what is happening right now, rather than the easy option of throwing statues of long dead Victorians into Bristol Harbour?

Whilst they’re wringing their hands in anguish over events from 150 years ago, a large ethnic group are still being systematically abused, crushed and treated as an inferior race.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/85q...etention-camps
BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 24th May 2022, 13:54
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,932
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Perhaps the Colston Four et al might like to redirect their energy and enthusiasm for human rights towards China and what is happening right now, rather than the easy option of throwing statues of long dead Victorians into Bristol Harbour?
Why would you assume that they don't feel just as strongly as the rest of us about what is happening to the Uyghurs ? Is there a reason why holding both views isn't possible ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 24th May 2022, 15:12
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Why would you assume that they don't feel just as strongly as the rest of us about what is happening to the Uyghurs ? Is there a reason why holding both views isn't possible ?
Absolutely no reason at all. Both examples are equally as abhorrent as the other - except one happened over 300 years ago, one is taking place right now. I think we know which one should therefore be a priority. Maybe a few high profile protests outside the Chinese embassy and a lot of awkward questions to our leaders about why we continue to trade with modern day human right abusers rather than demanding apologies from the dead? But then it only takes simple brute force to demolish a relic from the past when the practice it represents was abolished nearly two centuries ago. Hardly impressive.
It requires tenacity and ongoing motivation to challenge and bring about change to continuing atrocities against humanity taking place right now - but seems like there is a deafening silence from those that were so outraged by the crimes committed by a man born in 1636.
BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 09:36
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,523
I think we know which one should therefore be a priority.

Apart from the instant irritation of someone assuming (incorrectly) my thought processes, that statement lacks both validity and supporting argument.
Effective protests produce results, or, at least, reactions. The Colston episode has achieved just that - even if it was just the hundreds of comments above !
I would suggest that a group gathering outside the Chinese Embassy, however well-intentioned, would excite public interest, and, therefore reaction, for a very limited period. Colston was just yet another British money-grubber, happy to inflict misery on those less fortunate than himself and to attempt to salve his limited conscience by 'charitable' works when approaching Judgement Day. That such was the accepted mores of that time, is no excuse for allowing it to pass un-remarked today.
The despicable actions of the Chinese towards the Uyghurs, and other minorities, while equally reprehensible in humanity terms, requires inter-Governmental action on a quite different scale from the Abolition of Slavery Act..
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 09:55
  #335 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 757
Don't you think that modern day slavery should be the priority ? Did I read your post correctly ?

Tearing down the statue of a man born 400 years ago has changed precisely nothing, other than vandalism being seen as acceptable if you can claim to be offended on behalf of someone you have never met.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 10:07
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by B Fraser View Post
Don't you think that modern day slavery should be the priority ? Did I read your post correctly ?
I would say that you read the post in question absolutely correctly and for someone to think that a statue of someone who died over 300 years ago is more important than atrocities that are currently occurring says more about that person than just about any other post written by them.
747 jock is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 10:36
  #337 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 757
I do hope that Mr Cornish will be along shortly to correct himself. A view that what went on hundreds of years ago takes precedence over suffering happening today is unconscionable. I can only hope that there was a mix up between brain and keyboard.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 11:16
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
The despicable actions of the Chinese towards the Uyghurs, and other minorities, while equally reprehensible in humanity terms, requires inter-Governmental action on a quite different scale from the Abolition of Slavery Act..
You appear to imply that the Abolition of Slavery Act was of less consequence and not a big deal compared the current Uyghur atrocities.

I don’t think the instant liberation of 800,000 people IS small scale. A movement that was started in the UK - by public pressure - but was signed up for and was also actioned by international governmental action. If those that opposed slavery at the time had taken the same defeatist and apathetic attitude many do today about the Uyghurs, the practice would have carried on for many years longer.

As others have said, a bronze statue in Bristol is a soft target.


annakm is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 11:31
  #339 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,178
" a bronze statue in Bristol is a soft target."

And a bronze statue (Ł300k) in Grantham is an even better target.

Given it was a criminal act in the first place to erect it, it wouldn't be a criminal act to see it toppled. Apparently, Westminster Council wisely declined to erect if for that very reason.

A silage pit would have been cheaper, definitive....and apt.

Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 11:35
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,932
Originally Posted by 747 jock View Post
and for someone to think that a statue of someone who died over 300 years ago is more important than atrocities that are currently occurring says more about that person than just about any other post written by them.
I must have missed the post where anyone suggested that - can you point me to it, please ?
DaveReidUK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.