Article

2006-02-09 Britain

Church of England votes to apologize for its role in the global slave trade

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-02-09 11:18|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Slavery was in every major culture and society from the start of recorded history till the 19th century when Western cultures decided to campaign to end it, largely lead by Anglo-American anti-slavery societies. The West[tm] has nothing to apologize for. It was the source for the modern revulsion to the practice. Sorry, we don't buy your guilt complex anymore. That's your problem.

Posted by Omavinter Sholutle4349 2006-02-09 11:38|| 2006-02-09 11:38|| Front Page Top

#2 I submit that the invention and development of the internal combustion engine and the petroleum that fuels them have done more to end slavery than any other source.

The work of humanity (farming, building, traveling) has to get done somehow, and the ICE (plus harnessing electricity) is far more efficient than having to feed clothe house and manage vast armies of human and animal slaves.

If petroleum becomes unavailable (through political or natural means), look for slavery to come back in a huge way.

Insh'allah.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-02-09 11:49|| 2006-02-09 11:49|| Front Page Top

#3 What was its role in the slave trade?
Being the church both groups went to?

Posted by 3dc 2006-02-09 11:50|| 2006-02-09 11:50|| Front Page Top

#4 I am waiting for the Church of England to apologize to the Pope for Henry VIII and give back all the land that he took from the Catholic Church. Seems reasonable given their current policy of apologizing for everything short of breathing.

Posted by RWV 2006-02-09 11:50|| 2006-02-09 11:50|| Front Page Top

#5 It's true that slavery existing in the vast majority of cultures throughout history, and still does in a few today (take a bow, Saudi Arabia). But the global slave trade that started in the 16th and 17th centuries, largely to provide a source of labor for New World colonies, was a bit different. Historically, slavery hadn't been racially based (slaves came largely from the ranks of debtors or conquered enemies) and there wasn't an expectation that slaves and their descendants would remain in slavery in perpetuity.

The apology seems bogus - I'm not sure what particular role the Anglican church played in that system other than being the church of the British Empire subjects who participated (along with African Muslims and animists, European Catholics, etc.)- but the particular form of slavery they seem to be talking about was uniquely noxious in important ways.

Posted by Glotch Huperegum2165 2006-02-09 13:57|| 2006-02-09 13:57|| Front Page Top

#6 GH - long before the New World was 'discovered' by the Europeans, there was a thriving slave trade between sub-Saharan Africa and Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus. The Europeans began their slaving in the New World with the locals, who couldn't stand up to the work. They employed other Europeans, but found the available stock short on supply. They then turned to the African source. They didn't conduct massive raids into the country side to gather new property. They simply replaced the Arab traders who were buying them from other Africans. The Africans selling other Africans were doing nothing different than the Romans did to conquered people.

Posted by Jump Cheanter5815 2006-02-09 14:15|| 2006-02-09 14:15|| Front Page Top

#7 The evidence of US participation all those years ago is very evident in our society today. The amount of African slaves taken to Arabia is claimed (depending on the sources) to be 20-100x those brought to the Americas. Do you notice any walking around in Arabia today?

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-02-09 15:18|| 2006-02-09 15:18|| Front Page Top

#8 SOP35: Never been to Arabia, but I'm told you can find a few darker citizens. I remember hearing that eunuchs were popular, which might have a little bearing on populations. And if I recall Lewis' book correctly some of the slaves went to mining areas.
But the US was something of an oddity in the Americas (together with Haiti): most places had to keep importing slaves, but here they lived long enough to reproduce. (See Roll, Jordan, Roll for a history of slavery in the US.)

Posted by James">James 2006-02-09 16:31|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2006-02-09 16:31|| Front Page Top

00:00 2b
23:57 Frank G
23:48 2b
23:47 2b
23:39 2b
23:38 Bomb-a-rama
23:37 Frank G
23:37 2b
23:33 2b
23:31 Sock Puppet O´ Doom
23:30 Damn_Proud_American
23:27 Robert Crawford
23:23 Charles
23:19 phil_b
23:16 2b
23:16 Frank G
23:12 2b
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:07 Jules
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:04 FOTSGreg
23:00 tipper
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola