PDA

View Full Version : Bush Sets Record Straight About Slavery


Nie Trink Wasser
9th July 2003, 07:42 AM
"President Bush spoke about slavery in Africa and set the record the straight. Unlike Clinton who apologized for American slavery in Uganda -- a country from which not a single slave was transported to the United States -- Bush set the right tone and drew the right historical conclusions:

"Human beings were delivered, sorted, weighed, branded with marks of commercial enterprises and loaded as cargo on a voyage without return.One of the largest migrations in history was also one of the greatest crimes of history."

This is true. There were about 25 million black African slaves shipped to other lands. About 700,000 of these were shipped to Britains' North American colonies_and a small fraction of those to the actual United States. Yes, the United States accounted for less than 3% of the world slave trade.

Moreover, as the President said, Americans "clearly saw this sin and called it by its name..." The President did not say, but it is true, that along with the British, Americans were unique in this moral recognition of slavery's evil. Slavery had existed in Africa for a thousand years before a white man ever set foot on that continent. And it still exists in Africa today.

The Presient continued, "The spirit of Africans in America did not break, yet the spirit of their captors was corrupted." And he praised the descendants of these slaves, saying, "The stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America." It will be interesting to see what acknowledgement comes from the leaders of the reparations movement who claim to have an interest in "healing" these wounds, for the President's eloquent tribute. "

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/blog/index.asp

Tmy
9th July 2003, 07:51 AM
Quit trying to minimalize the US's history of slavery.

Nie Trink Wasser
9th July 2003, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Tmy
Quit trying to minimalize the US's history of slavery.


quit trying to smear me.


this was posted today and I felt it was certainly relevant.


I feel that Im contributing to a much needed discussion on a factually ignored topic.

once again, this is a discussion forum and if you arent willing to discuss whats happening in the world right now (or history), then you should go join the bbs of your favorite political wagon and make yourself feel more secure.

Im trying to educate myself and maybe others in the process. I dont see how this is detrimental.

Tmy
9th July 2003, 08:05 AM
Ok Bush is in Liberia. Got it. So what else was the point of cut n pasting whozits blog that:

1) Takes a cheap shot at Bill Clinton.
2) Tries to minimlize the US's role in slavery as if we only had 3% of them so it wasnt so bad.

Nie Trink Wasser
9th July 2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Tmy
Ok Bush is in Liberia. Got it. So what else was the point of cut n pasting whozits blog that:

1) Takes a cheap shot at Bill Clinton.
2) Tries to minimlize the US's role in slavery as if we only had 3% of them so it wasnt so bad.


it doesnt "minimalize" the US's role.

it acknowledges that slavery is a disgrace committed by much more than just the US and in most cases, countries continue to do so.

Slavery and racism is a political weapon in this country and many people want to keep their finger in the wound in order to benefit their agendas.

This helps to demonstrate that contrary to popular belief, the US is not the sole focus of guilt for slavery. It's actually a minor factor in a worldwide disease.

the US stopped slavery in it's borders and Bush's address to Africa that they too should stop is a very important step in acknowledging the root of the problem.

yet people like you want to keep spanking US history for something we have obviously learned from, YET still is perpetrated in other countries. Why can't you focus on these things instead of US white guilt ?

Brown
9th July 2003, 08:15 AM
I found it interesting that Bush referred to slavery as a "sin," a term with strong religious (and particulary, Christian) overtones.

The Bible nowhere says that slavery is a "sin."

On the contrary, the Bible condones slavery in several passages, and even includes a set of regulations pertaining to maintenance of slavery (some of which are shockingly barbaric and inhumane).

It is a credit to many devout Christians, that they basically rejected the Biblical view of slavery and said, "I don't care what the Bible says, slavery is evil!"

Nie Trink Wasser
9th July 2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Brown
I found it interesting that Bush referred to slavery as a "sin," a term with strong religious (and particulary, Christian) overtones.

The Bible nowhere says that slavery is a "sin."

On the contrary, the Bible condones slavery in several passages, and even includes a set of regulations pertaining to maintenance of slavery (some of which are shockingly barbaric and inhumane).

It is a credit to many devout Christians, that they basically rejected the Biblical view of slavery and said, "I don't care what the Bible says, slavery is evil!"


calling something a sin doesnt necessarily mean it's praising the bible. it can simply be a term to express evil in individuals.

Tmy
9th July 2003, 08:20 AM
Read tween the lines Nie! This guy is a pro-Bushite conservative whos holding Bush out as this empathetic white guy (score some black votes) then talks about US's limited role in slavery (appease the racist republican sect and relieve some white guilt) and then of course the traditional Clinton slam tossed in.

He doesnt give a crap about Liberia or slavery.

Dancing David
9th July 2003, 08:26 AM
There are always some great contradictions in the history of slavery,
-who sold the slaves to the white folks?
-why did the US go from 'nice' slavery to 'mean' slaverey?
-why should it matter if someone is in nice ior mean slavery?
-indenture
-James Madison only wanted to ban the importation of slaves because Virginia produced a surplus of slaves.

-modern slavery still exists.

So whats the souce Nie?

Skeptical Greg
9th July 2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Tmy
Read tween the lines Nie! This guy is a pro-Bushite conservative whos holding Bush out as this empathetic white guy (score some black votes) then talks about US's limited role in slavery (appease the racist republican sect and relieve some white guilt) and then of course the traditional Clinton slam tossed in.

He doesnt give a crap about Liberia or slavery.

Just curious.. Who is ' This guy...' ?


And yes, politicians have never seemed to care what color their votes are...

ceo_esq
9th July 2003, 08:48 AM
Here's the full text of Bush's speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030708-1.html

Not a bad bit of speechwriting, frankly. I'm sure Michael Gerson relished the occasion to add all those evangelical flourishes.

Tmy
9th July 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes


Just curious.. Who is ' This guy...' ?


And yes, politicians have never seemed to care what color their votes are...

I guess the "guy" could be Bush. But I meant the guy (i forget his name) who wrote the text of the first post. Check the link. Its confusing cause Nie's 1st post is a mix of Bush's speech and "The Guy's" thoughts.

Skeptical Greg
9th July 2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Tmy


I guess the "guy" could be Bush. But I meant the guy (i forget his name) who wrote the text of the first post. Check the link. Its confusing cause Nie's 1st post is a mix of Bush's speech and "The Guy's" thoughts.

O.K... The guy is " David Horowitz "...
And I would agree, he seems to be a Bush supporter.. Along with a few million others, who voted for him.

Looks like his opponents need to beat their drums a little louder..

Thanks..

Tmy
9th July 2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes


O.K... The guy is " David Horowitz "...
And I would agree, he seems to be a Bush supporter.. Along with a few million others, who voted for him.

Looks like his opponents need to beat their drums a little louder..

Thanks..

BOOM BOOM BOOOM!!

I miss Billy Clinton.

Number Six
9th July 2003, 09:13 AM
Slaves were brought over because they could take the heat better. Or so says Dusty Baker. I guess that means that means that if the climate was cooler in the US slavery would never have existed in the US.

livius drusus
9th July 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes
O.K... The guy is " David Horowitz "...
And I would agree, he seems to be a Bush supporter.. Along with a few million others, who voted for him.

Looks like his opponents need to beat their drums a little louder..

Thanks..

Horowitz is a little more than "a Bush supporter". For a marvelous glimpse into his right-wing convert zealotry, read the Tim Wise/David Horowitz Exchange on Racism (http://www.zmag.org/RaceWatch/wisehoro.htm) which began when Horowitz reacted to this essay (http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-08/29wise.htm) by emailing Wise the following:

You're a patronizing racist who thinks American blacks are inferior and can't live by the same standards as everyone else. What would you think of Jews who blamed every community and individual failing on 2,000 years of persecution by Christians? You would probably understand conservative arguments better if you took time to listen instead of knee-jerk name-calling.


I am particularly bemused by the accusation of knee-jerk name-calling in an email whose first sentence is the platonic form of knee-jerk name-calling.

Jon_in_london
9th July 2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Dancing David
There are always some great contradictions in the history of slavery,
-who sold the slaves to the white folks?
-why did the US go from 'nice' slavery to 'mean' slaverey?
-why should it matter if someone is in nice ior mean slavery?
-indenture
-James Madison only wanted to ban the importation of slaves because Virginia produced a surplus of slaves.

-modern slavery still exists.



Good points. Also worth noticing that few people ever get all breathless moaning and complaining and pointing fingers at Arabs for their role in slavery.

Where does this 3% come from though? sounds like he just pulled it out of his arse.

Nie Trink Wasser
9th July 2003, 09:53 AM
reading the exchange between a lot of you makes me happy (yet again) that I lean to the right.


when politics are more important than accurate history, something is falling apart.

aggle_rithm
9th July 2003, 10:41 AM
I saw a documentary a while back that spoke of the complicity of African governments/tribes in the slave trade. Contrary to popular belief, the white slavers did not (for the most part) go into the jungle and beat the bushes for potential slaves. They just walked into a town that sold slaves, and bought all they needed. The African locals made sure that there was a steady supply, and they profited greatly. (This does not excuse the white slave traders, of course. They created the demand in the first place. )

The documentary made the final conclusion that African culture was set back centuries by the slave trade. In the Middle Ages, African civilization was on par with European civilization. Not only did it rob the continent of its people, it created an unsustainable, one-dimensional economy. Thanks to the slave trade, Africa is now a hodge-podge of backward, "developing" countries.