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

Az,

I can't comment on your situation but I know that for many indigenous peoples the break in cultural lineage happens when the interventions of the ruling class become too much. For instance in NZ the first 50 - 100 years or so of colonisation left many Maori figuring their kids would be better off trying to be white. They told their kids to speak english and behave as pakeha. There were also deliberate government policies whose intention was to integrate Maori out of existence.

One can talk about personal responsibility (and I will shortly) but it is _much_ harder to learn one's native language and culture as an adult than as a child. It is also much harder to be white when your skin is brown and the people who make the rules don't want there to be any brwon people.


>> 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!<<

I think there is a very clear link between policies that separated children from parents and tribe, and problems later on. Also the Irish suffered hugely as well, from the English.

I'd say it's hard to find a people on the planet that haven't had a hard time. The issue is about who has the power, and the way things are in the West it's still white people.

I accept Az that for you the loss of your blood culture isn't so much of an issue. I also know that for alot of people for whom culture is important, being separated from their blood culture is detrimental, and rejoining it is healing. This goes for white people also btw.

Thanks Mrs, that is an interesting link.

I have a couple of cautions about it though:


>>Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis...
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.<<

I think it is misrepresenting the case to say "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." (emphasis added).

I found the article quite interesting. I'd like to see what the author's academic peers say about his methodology before I accept his theory though.


I'm also not sure the comparison with the black slave trade is quite accurate in the context of this conversation. If the white slaves now lived in a muslim country as a subclass that were kept oppressed and had the resultant appalling health, crime, mortality etc etc statistics then we might be able to compare the situations.

I'd be interested to read more about what has happened to the descendants of those white slaves.

kea,

Sorry, I was not being very clear yesterday. Perhaps because I wasn't exactly sure what I was trying to say. I didn't in fact lose my 'blood culture', though I think my mother suffered a lot from being in the residential home.

<>

Is that the issue? I do agree that it is hard to find a people on the planet who haven't had hard times and I *think* that was what I meant to say yesterday.

az

Well why arent we talking about suing the Barbery coast pirates? Or pirates of other waters? What about Rome they held slaves from atleast three continents? The Greeks were at it to as were the Babylonians and Egyptians why dont we get oout the records and see who profitted from the trade?

We dont because we cant.

However we can trace companies who profitted from the slavery of peoples ancestors. We not only know who these descendants are but we can see how these descedants are still suffering as a consequence.

To do nothing in this situation invites people to do the same again.

one love

Hi Montanta, nice to have you in the thread.

The reason I asked Mycroft what s/he thought the reasons for the discrepancy in statistics were was because s/he doesn't accept that the consequences of slavery is a major contributing factor. I'm aware of what alot of the other factors are, and was interested in how people who saw slavery as not figuring perceive those other causes.

I was interested in your list though. Do you think that the (perceived?) high promiscuity of latinos and blacks is greater than for white men? I'd be interested to know if this is a general belief in the States especially regarding HIV infection rates. Also if there is research on this.


>>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.<<

If slavery wasn't based on racism then why did the English and white Americans not have white slaves in the 1700s?


>>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.
<<

I certainly don't believe that racism is inherently incompatible with self serving pragmatism. The kind of racism I am mainly talking about in this thread is institutional racism. Treating an individual with respect because they have a wanted commodity
doesn't preclude institutional racism.

In fact I'm not sure if it even precludes personal racism - "I'll trade with this black person because I want what he has, but I won't respect most other black people because ... (add reason of choice)."

I know someone like this today - who thinks that Maori are greedy bludgers who should stop whining and let themselves be assimilated into white culture because they have nothing to offer the world as a culture themselves. This person I know doesn't consider themselves racist and certainly would never say some of the things I have heard in front of their Maori friends. They'd probably do business with certain Maori if it suited them, but they would see this as an individual thing.

Thanks for clarifying about your family az

>>>

<>

Is that the issue? I do agree that it is hard to find a people on the planet who haven't had hard times and I *think* that was what I meant to say yesterday.

<<<


Yeah I think this is the issue. That's why I never really understand the 'it's all in the past' argument. I cut my political teeth learning about gender oppression. One way of understanding the world is to use the concept of the patriarchy. This is not well understood in popular culture because people get anxious that it is about blaming men. But it's not because feminist analysis of the human world says that _all_ people are oppressed by the patriarchal system (and alot of feminists would now extend that to include all of life not just humans).

Likewise, in terms of race I would say that _all_ people are oppressed by the systems that enable racism.

So for me it becomes about in whats way am I oppressed? And in what ways do I benefit from the oppressing system? And when I do that it is fairly obvious that I suffer less oppression because I am white.

It all comes down to who has the power. Not just personal power, but institutional power.

It's very puzzling to me to hear people say that they can't see how white people have more power than everyone else because to me it is so obvous. However I do wonder if it is because people think about it solely in individual terms, whereas I'm talking about the individual in the context of the classes they belong to.

I strongly believe in the personal responsibility ethic. I agree that giving people money if they don't have the skills or willingness to be self responsible is probably not a good idea. But I think that most oppressed peoples agree with that and that it's a media distortion to say that as a people they just want handouts and to sit on their butts.

I also think that the personal responsibilty theory has limits - I don't think you can expect someone who is traumatised to have the same set of skills as someone who isn't. Nor can you expect someone with no money to compete with someone who is wealthy.


And I go back to my earlier statement that I doubt that Africanamericans as a group have had enough time/opportunity yet to recover from slavery. Mycroft seemed to think they would have recovered when slavery ended, but I think things like getting the vote and being able to access education would be hugely determining factors. These are fairly recent events in the US, yeah?

So if I am not allowed to go to university for instance because I am black, all the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to change that.

That's why the political and the personal for me are always so inextricably intertwined.

ok one more post and I'm off to bed. Some background reading because I've been feeling the original BBC article was a little short on detail.

I typed 'slaves', 'lawsuit' and Lloyds' into Teoma and got the following. Interestingly there was a famous slave owning family called Lloyds, so lots of links came up with that. Don;t know if there is a connection.

The original lawsuit seems to be from 2002, but I can't find any current links yet.

http://members.blackplanet.com/Fingerfootfive/

http://www.recomnetwork.org/articles/01/09/04/0329237.shtml

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/10/21/BA22929.DTL - the son's of a slave are part of the lawsuit - and they're still alive! Also check the full list of companies being sued and see if the arguments for not suing Lloyds apply to them.

"Well why arent we talking about suing the Barbery coast pirates? Or pirates of other waters? What about Rome they held slaves from atleast three continents? The Greeks were at it to as were the Babylonians and Egyptians why dont we get oout the records and see who profitted from the trade?"

Actually...

Rome and Greece have profited as nations. Their cultural values - the primary one still around today being that women should be treated as being less capable than men - inform the cultural values of many Western nations. Perhaps the governments of Italy and Greece should be asked to make some statement on the effects their nations have had on Western society?

There is now some doubt about whether Egypt kept slaves or whether it hired migrant workers, since it has been demonstrated that the work teams who built the monumental structures like the Pyramids lived rather well.

Babylon is now modern Iraq. I think they're reaping the whirlwind for having promoted civilisation in the first place, so IMHO they've suffered enough.

Kea - of course I want an answer. Why would I have asked the question if I didn't?

kea, you said: I was interested in your list though. Do you think that the (perceived?) high promiscuity of latinos and blacks is greater than for white men? I'd be interested to know if this is a general belief in the States especially regarding HIV infection rates. Also if there is research on this.

The incidence of HIV among black and latino heterosexual populations is actually growing, unlike the rates for gay men and IV drug users. Here's just the facts:

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0015.html

As for whether or not promiscuity is perceived or actual, I'm not entirely sure. But if you notice the rates of infection for latino women, particularly, you will see that a large percentage come from heterosexual contact. I think for a long time it was politically incorrect to notice it...here's a few things I could find...

http://www.thebody.com/aac/woc/chapter3.html

http://www.jsri.msu.edu/RandS/research/wps/wp36.html

there was also a really good editorial in the LA Times yesterday, but apparently, it isn't in the online archives.

Montana,

based on the popular culture I see around me, there is a certain amount of Machismo in Black and Latino attitudes towards women: that sleeping around is OK when you're a guy and that women are status symbols. The more you have, or have had, the more of a man you are. I see less of this in the white part of the population. Could the message be getting through, or is it just better hidden?

And there appears to be the age old problem in regard to men using condoms...

That said, there's more to it than just machismo which may or may not be an issue. For example, the Latino community out here is primarily Roman Catholic. Is that also a factor when it comes to choosing methods of birth control which might also prevent the spread of STDs?

Is there also a moral double standard? There is an almost exclusively latino community nearby (a town called Guadalupe) which is protesting the recent construction of a lapdancing bar nearby; they have chosen to make their stand, as a community, on the basis that women deserve respect and should not be objects of gratification.

Speaking as someone who's heritage straddles both white and black communities, lives in a multicultural area and works with people in the same area. I have noticed (and this is only a personal observation) but communities with less involvement in the political process and a lowly perception of their own power tends to have men who see sexual promiscuity as a sign of sucess. Young people who feel less hopeful for their futures are more likely to take risks not only with sex, but violent crime, drug taking and car crime too. Lack of money, drug abuse and imprisonment all destabilise the family unit. To the point where monogamy is a rare thing.

Whereas the major cause of destabilisation of gay relatioships, public condemnation and lack of legal acceptance are waining. Drug abuse, poverty and imprisonment all culminating in a lack of hope for the future show no real signs of abiting in disadvantaged/black communities.

As black people are disproportionately represented in the less advantaged groups of people in the west it is no surprise that sexual infection rates are affected accordingly.

one love

Hmmm.

Makes sense. I've seen that amongst 'White Trash' too, here and in the UK.

Strangely, I don't hear a lot about that from the Native American population. Could that be because they still have a strong cultural identity and ties to their history? Or is it just not being reported Off Reservation?

My homestate has seven reservations, and mostly what gets reported is that unemployment is sky high (one has 65% unemployed) and a high incidence of alcoholism. Those sorts of numbers are intimately tied to racism. What isn't reported, of course, is that the Salish-Kootenai tribe's reservation is thriving. Again, racial bias.

I think part of the problem is that the pervasive racism that blacks saw in the 1950s has been transfered to native americans, at least in states like Montana and the Dakotas.

I have to run, but will try to see what I can find later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A2408889