h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

at least slaves were fed and wa watered and given some sort of medicalcare which is more than can an be said for todays poor

crazyhorse,

I think in many cases slaves were worked to death with no care at all for their well-being. After all, there were always plenty of other slaves to take their place.

az

lookook at the economically enslaved who die early deaths in factories

In the UK the only cause of death less prevalent among the poor than the rich is malignant melanoma (caused by too much sunbathing).

Many slaves in America were simply worked to death on the plantations. Things improved somewhat after the cessation of the slave trade itself, but slavery is still slavery.

As az says, it's important to understand the results of that, and the loss of cultural identity that came with transportation, and the exploited position that many are still in (as I pointed out, the situation of the poor in the US is currently getting worse, not better), not for purposes of revenge, but for the purpose of seeing how things can be made better.

Noggin

Blickybadger, pay attention! I'm not disputing that African-American life expectancies are lower than Caucasian ones. I've seen the stats you quote, and I've also seen better ones which are adjusted by income and education as well. All of them show that in most areas African-Americans have shorter life expectancies than their Caucasian counterparts, and none of them draw the conclusion that slavery is the cause. If the people you're quoting don't reach that conclusion, what additional information or insight do you have that leads you to that conclusion?

Mycroft, I'll repeat my question.

If you don't think that the consequences of slavery are a major contributing factor to the shorter life expectancy of Africanamericans, what do you think are the major causes?


riffraff:

>>>at least slaves were fed and wa watered and given some sort of medicalcare which is more than can an be said for todays poor<<<

Have you read any accounts of slavery in the US?

Because women were considered property they were also considered to be sexually usable i.e. they could be legitimately raped. There is no modern day equivalent of this, because workplace sexual assault is now illegal.

Children of slaves could be sold and so parents and children would often never see each other again.

As far as being fed and watered, slaves were also whipped and brutalised.

etc etc

I think trying to compare slavery with other forms of contemporary poverty is fraught with difficulties. I do agree that there are real problems for the poor today. Unfortunately many black americans today get to carry the slave legacy _and_ be poor.

>>I would like to ask the people who think that the history of slavery isn't a large factor in the different death rates, what do they think accounts for the disparity?<<

kea, perhaps you should say what evidence there is to support such a hypothesis first. I've seen nothing to support it, so I'm inclined to disbelieve it, but if you can substantiate it in any way, I'll be happy to listen. Thus far you've only reached a post hoc ergo prompter hoc conclusion. I could equally claim that womens' longer life expectancy is due to their historic oppression by men, but it would be no more or less true than your claim unless I substantiated it.

If you want to know why I think you could be wrong, how about genetic and cultural factors? I think it's been well demonstrated than when other things are factored out, ethnicity has an impact on life expectancy, as well as lifestyle factors such as diet.

Thanks Mycroft, I was genuinely interested in what someone might perceive the reasons to be it you took out the consequences of slavery factor.

>> I think it's been well demonstrated than when other things are factored out, ethnicity has an impact on life expectancy, as well as lifestyle factors such as diet.<<

On the face of it it seems a reasonable hypothesis that there might be genetic factors invovled. I don't know what I think about that yet though. Maybe one of us could hunt down some information on that?

I'm not sure about lifestyle factors though because you can't separate them out from the social factors including the slavery inheritance.

In fact I'm not sure that how you can factor certain things out anyway. In the sense that you can't prove a negative.

The reasons I personally believe that slavery will have had an impact is because it makes intuitive sense. In terms of the analogy I used earlier of PTSD, if one accepts that trauma can be transferred generationally then it's not hard to think that the consequences of slavery are still a factor.

The other more obvious thing is that descendants of slaves simply haven't had enough time and opportunity yet to get the same financial base (as a class), so factors that affect lifespan eg poverty, will be affecting african americans disproportionately.

I think both those reasons can be explained in terms of physiology too - emotional as well as physical stressors contribute to ill health and would decrease lifespan. All other factors aside, living with racism must have an affect physiologically. So I guess it depends on to what extent you see the institutional racism in the US as being a consequence of slavery.

I've also read more about the NZ situation and the impact of colonisation on Maori. There were some interesting statistics published in the NZ listerner recently including increasing lifespan - I'll see if I can post them tomorrow.

>>The other more obvious thing is that descendants of slaves simply haven't had enough time and opportunity yet to get the same financial base (as a class), so factors that affect lifespan eg poverty, will be affecting african americans disproportionately.<<

I don't think you can make a case for that either: the bulk of the US population arrived after the slaves did, and most of them showed up with nothing. I think racism is far and away the prime cause of contemporary African-Americans' disadvantages: African-Americans are relatively poorer because they personally are being screwed right now, not because their forefathers were, and it seems to me that anything that distracts from dealing with that can only be a bad thing, not least because racist attitudes are perpetuated by targeting Caucasians now for what their forefathers did then.

I think there's less disagreement here than appears at first reading.

It's true that slavery is not the *immediate* cause of present disadvantages in a "tight linkage" sort of sense. But the racism that we all, thankfully, see as a canker in society is bound up with the institution of slavery, being both its cause and its consequence (or part of them). And yes, other people arrived in the US as penniless immigrants too, but also as free people who often initially congregated in their own communities with others with the same cultural mores giving each other support in hard times and some sense of belonging.

But slaves did not arrive like that. They arrived as *slaves*. They came from many different cultures and places, with different languages and customs, which were then stripped from them for the benefit of their owners. As Francis Fukuyama has pointed out the social trust that underpins a flourishing society takes generations to build, but is the work of a much shorter time to destroy.

Reparation in a punitive sense is not the way forward, nor is the blaming of people alive today for the sins of the past. But acknowledgement of the enormity of what was done *is* required. And so too is the acknowledgement that . The problem in the US (and to a lesser extent in Europe) is that TPTB see it as in their own interest to destroy social trust in favour of paranoid scapegoating.

Noggin

I've read thru all of these posts, since blicky directed me this way, so bear with me (this might be a bit longish)

kea, you asked what, besides slavery, leads to a shorter life expectancy for AfricanAmericans (are we assuming here EuroAfricans as well?): here's some for a start...less access health care, inadequate education, and poor diet. Pretty much what kills anyone not of a certain income level. This goes hand in hand with the huge discrepancy in AIDS cases in non-white populations (bear with the obviously white-centric language, please...I'm trying more to be clear than to be PC). Then again, I've asked why those rates are higher for blacks and latinos, and guess what? there are cultural elements present that make condoms and monogamy (particularly among young men) taboo. Latinos call it machismo, but basically, it's a way of asserting one's manhood thru lots of sex, or at least the appearance thereof.

Perhaps that is tied to slavery, since asserting one's self becomes a self-destructive act without other outlets (political, etc)...

That said, you're all talking about racism as we know it as something that was inherent in the slave trade. It wasn't. One's status as a slave was based entirely on geography until very late in the 18th century. The King of Whydah was one of the largest suppliers of slaves to the French and the Dutch. Guess what? He was black, as were the slaves he sold to the Europeans. He was treated with respect because he had a commodity that people wanted. Do I think slavery was morally reprehensible? Of course I do. But don't think that the Lloyd's ships' crews thought for one second that they were enslaving someone because of their skin color. They had justifications that went beyond that. If you are interested in the subject enough to read a decent book on the subject, I would suggest Robert Harms' _The Diligent_.

To me, reparation lawsuits serve one purpose, to open a dialogue. blicky, as much as I agree with you that social injustice exists, racism is not an exclusively white phenomenon. It is multidirectional. Here in southern California, its glaringly bad. Latinos badmouth the blacks, the blacks badmouth the asians, the asians hate everyone, and the white people stand around trying to assuage our guilt by going out of our way to be nice to everyone. Here's my thing...I don't care what color your skin is (although I'll notice it...I'm not blind!), it's what's inside. I had a Navajo woman tell me I hated her because she was an Indian. I told her I didn't hate her, but I hated working with her because she sat on her butt all the time and I did twice the work. She could have been green, or purple with chartreuse stripes...actions are always louder than words.

Damn, I knew I'd forget something. American slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule (thus Spike Lee's production company name) upon their freedom. I remember a while back there was a guy at Emory Uni who went looking to see how many actually got it, and the numbers were very small.

10'S OF THOUSANDS OF CHINESE died building the railroads i think all chinese americans have a good case against union pacific and CSX,many were held in concentration camps in the belief they were japanese in ww2 all their pr property was siezed but germans were free to infiltrate the government....all blue eyed caucasions like the president

Montana,

Apparently I am eligible to be a full-blood treaty Aboriginal Canadian (to use that term I dislike). Basically, I am eligible to be considered a treaty Indian with lots of rights attached to that because my mother was half-Cree Indian and my grandmother was full-Cree.

Apparently I would be eligible for free university and special tax breaks and even cheaper petrol. If I lived in Canada. Well, I don't live in Canada. So, too bad for me, I guess.

I do understand the Canadian government trying to make ammends and I do agree that offering free University education is a fine thing. But I also wonder - why do *I* get to be an Indian?

I realize that they have made laws to make things as fair as possible but I am about as Indian as any of you are. I mean, really.

I could think (well, often I do think) that my mother suffered under a lot of racial prejudice for being part-Indian at a time when in Winnipeg there was a lot of prejudice happening. She suffered. In turn, her children suffered. Not a pretty story.

I guess it would never occur to me to ask the government to help me out with my life because of that. Nor would I look for someone to sue. Why? Well, I look around and see so many other people having hard times for things that were beyond their control and they don't have this option.

As I said before, I don't want to come across as insensitive to the plight of anybody who feels they have suffered because of what their ancestors went through. But I have had that experience, and frankly, I think it is my own business to live the life I have and not look for a hand-out because my particular background was something that no doubt added to my present day problems.

I feel it is much more positive to work towards public schemes that help *all* people who are having difficulties. Not to make some groups more special than others. I know for a fact that recent immigrants to Spain from Morocco or Asia have a hell of a lot more problems than I have had, in terms of getting residency and work papers. You see, here it is a bonus being Canadian and it doesn't matter how 'Indian' I am. Which is also not fair.

Am I making any sense?

az

You are making sense, az...a lot of it. The fact that we're all sitting here in a virtual space says something, as well. All of us here, regardless of "race," have a certain amount of privilege. We live in places with indoor plumbing and electricity...and internet service.

I think part of the problem with looking for someone to sue is that you're also looking for someone to blame. It goes sort of like the people who go to Al-Anon and whine about how their life sucks because dad got drunk and forgot my ninth birthday...boo hoo.(and I'm not saying it's not a bad thing, but there are those people who are addicted to being the adult child of an alcoholic, believe me) Here's my thing...yeah, okay, my dad's a drunk, and certain behaviors I have are predicated on that. However, if I don't take responsibility for my own life and my own ACTIONS, I am still a victim of his drinking problem, and thus, he still controls my life.

I know that one too, Montana.

Both my parents were alcoholics. Both were abusive parents. Didn't matter to me that my mom was part Indian and my dad was Irish-Newfie. It hurt just the same.

And I went through my stage in my twenties of grieving for my lost childhood and all that. Even had some therapy.

But in the end - it's my life! I can't blame anyone for who I am. Well, I could maybe. But what would be the point?

So I can't really get up in arms about my native heritage and how my native ancestors were robbed and therefore I should be given extra whatever because my native ancestors suffered a lot. Maybe my mother would have turned out differently if she hadn't been sent to one of the horrible residential schools for Indian kids back then. But that doesn't explain my father. In his case I'd have to sue the Vatican. Bl**dy Catholics! You see - I think sometimes people look too hard for a place, a point in time, to say THIS is where it came from. But I think humans are too complicated for that.

az

A very good question crazyhorse, I have wondered myself.

I don't think you can make a case for that either: the bulk of the US population arrived after the slaves did, and most of them showed up with nothing. I think racism is far and away the prime cause of contemporary African-Americans' disadvantages: African-Americans are relatively poorer because they personally are being screwed right now, not because their forefathers were, and it seems to me that anything that distracts from dealing with that can only be a bad thing, not least because racist attitudes are perpetuated by targeting Caucasians now for what their forefathers did then.

Mycroft, I get the distinct impression that you are not someone who would want to see people get a rough deal based upon there race, infact that you might not want to see *anyone* get an unfair disadvantage. What you dont seem to see though is that there *is* a very widespread and many faceted legacy of slavery.

Descedants stripped of a language and culture of any depth by being directly denied their own languages and mixed with other tribes so that their own language was useless anyway have instanly had any access to oral heritage and learning severly restricted. It was not until the '60s, within living memory, that black descedants of slaves were given equal rights to education. What would the UK be like if the Speaking of English was banned and the next ten generations were stopped from going to school. Would the 11th generation simply be able to pull its socks up and carry on as is nothing had happened. Where would cultural identity and pride in acheievment come from if British history was only presented as a minor and obscure part of French history thereafter. If at school speaking with French with an British accent was regarded as insolance. Would British kids from unschooled families do aswell as kids from an educated French society they were sat next to?

I strongly doubt it. How many generations under such conditions do you think it would take to catch up?

As Monty has pointed out communities that have to live differently develope different cultures. Cultures do not disappear entirely over a few generations without a concious effort to change them. Understandably black people are resistant to having their culture destroyed again. The culture that has developed as harmful as some aspects of it may be is seen has something that preserved them as a people. Without political and other legal rights denied them some black men saw their only way of making a mark as spreading their seed and stories of their sexual prowess far and wide. Lack of opportunity led to a lot of men travelling to find work. Relative sexual promiscuity within black culture is as much a product of transience and split families as lack of other outlest for ambition. There is still a prediliction amongst blacks for sport and entertaining simply because there were few areas where blacks were allowed to partake and fewer where they were allowed to excell.

What of today then. Well we see homosexuals with higher than average infections of HIV, they are another group denied (although through different mechanisms) the stability of a normal family life. Do you really think that after a couple years of civil unions and the equal right to have or adopt children we will see equalisation of infection rates? If not will it mean that homosexuals are more promiscuous than straight people or that cultures do not disappear overnight?

Diet is affected in much the same way in poor and particularly black communities.

The way what black people are disadvantaged today may well be distinct from the mechanisms of traditional slavery, but the legacy of it is still there and the mechanisms although morphed are still alive. Though they may not be as obvious or ferocious in their effects they are still causing harm. Take a look at league football in the UK. How many black players? How many black managers? Its not a cultural thing many of the black players are English born and bred and club boards seem quite willing to accept Italian, Dutch, Scottish and French managers. I'd say that is a classic example of a glass ceiling.

Things have moved on to some extent but there is still a culture in business that says no matter how reprehensible the action as long as it makes a profit and the board or better still the company as a whole can be distanced from it is OK. Thats why Globally we need this lawsuit against Llyods and similar ones against other companies. We have no records of kings or caliphs trading slaves that can be linked to bodies today but if we did I would say they too should be pursued through the courts. Just as we should pursue those who today traffick people to work for exploitative or no wages. Law suits of the kind that many on this thread decry would send out a very strong message about how we want the world to be today and in the future.

Id like to see these cases even if they fail, lawyers will find a way to get rich anyway but this message needs to be heard loud and clear: It is never right to subvert another humans rights and get rich by exploiting another humans lack of power.

Even a close call for Lloyds will make others sit up and think. I hope.

one love

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503630/

The above adds another slant to this argument. This is something that I was unaware of until recently - the white slave trade was not some mythical occurence, in fact it is thought that far more european white slaves were taken by muslim slavers while the trade was at its peak than Africans by the black slave trade that we are discussing. The trade was rife between 1500 and 1800 and it is thought that millions may have been taken. The main difference historically is that those responsible for the slavery coming from West Africa kept records of who they took and what they did with them. Many European slaves were held for ransom and indeed, most countries afected had pools of money to pay the ransoms if those taken were lucky, however for those that weren't so lucky a life of slavery was their lot. There are no records by their captors of those taken from all areas of the Mediterranean, south coast of Ireland, England etc. but local records do exist of raiding parties etc.

Did you know Cornwall was frequently raided for example? Any ideas who the Cornish should be suing? After all, was their suffering, and that of their families any the less because they were english?

My point is this. Yes, today we accept that all slavery is wrong and that no human being is superior to another due to race, creed or colour, however, suing Lloyds for what was considered legal (albeit morally corrupt) at the time seems ridiculous. The poor life expectancy and living conditions etc of African-Americans cannot be blamed purely because a proportion of people were once slaves - surely it is because of a disparity in treatment of them now and since the days of slavery by their own government?