Earlier this year we visited Porto de Galinhas (= "Port of Chickens") in Brazil - which was a major endpoint of the slave trade. Brazilian friends say that it was so named due to the use of poultry as deck cargo to disguise the slave ships. Even today, Brazilians talk of doing something (like superficial cleaning) "pra Ingles ver" - for the English to see. The origin of the phrase is almost lost...
Glad to see you got around to this one. Some points to consider:
Haiti was primed to explode, as you say. In Africa, the slaves were not such a large percentage of society - however, there was another reason.
Look at the dates of the unrest, and revolt. It is plain that new ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity let loose in France in 1789, had come to this French colony. You did point out that no civilization but the west ever thought of these things. So when they arrived in Haiti, unrest was created that had never existed in Africa. All rule depends on the ruled accepting certain ideas. The undermining of these ideas, combined with the much smaller percentage of the rulers compared to Africa (or anywhere else in the new world) led to something that would have been unimaginable to the African chiefs - a slave revolt.
Haiti also had several free blacks, some of who owned plantations, and slaves to work them. One, Toussaint Louverture, led the revolt, and freed his slaves. This could have only been inspired by the new ideas - and on the one point of emancipation, he surpassed even the great Washington of Virginia (tho some other Virginia planters did free their slaves at that time. It was in the air.).
To borrow a phrase from his Most Christian Majesty, Louis X, the West signifies freedom.
“Freeing the slaves” means what? That the slave owner is no longer responsible for their food, shelter, and clothing. In Haiti and in the USA, they have shown that they were incapable of taking care of themselves - thus the horrors of Haiti and the welfare state in the USA.
“There is sin, but no redemption. At least not for the West. This is one of the primary flaws with the progressive narrative of slavery.”
This is not a “flaw” in progressivism. It is its central pillar. It is their emotional horn of plenty, or alternatively, their club with which to pummel their political opponents. No matter the issue, their response is “But slavery…” The hypocrisy is abundant and manifest. The Left could not care less about slavery in Africa and Southwest Asia.
I have zero doubt that if a time machine could prevent European 1) participation in the slave trade and 2) colonization, and we could compare the welfare of all peoples worldwide under both scenarios, the Left would still call the West racist because they HADN’T exported inventions free of charge to the Third World.
“Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing”
My favorite part of “Amistad” is the second to last scene where British Navy Captain Fitzgerald, in the midst of a sustained cannonade on the slave fortress, says:
“Take a letter, Ensign.
"To His Honour, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Forsyth.
"My dear Mr. Forsyth, it is my great pleasure to inform you that you are, in fact, correct.
"The slave fortress in Sierra Leone does not exist."
Excellent. When there is talk of “ respirations,” I ask what about reparations for the 300000 white Northerners who died to free the slaves. When or where is thanks ever given to them?
For myself, my ancestors lived on the North Sea. They were regularly raided by Vikings in longboats, who burned their villages, plundered their wealth, and carried them off into slavery.
What I want to know is, when is the Norwegian government going to send me my reparations?
> The primary issue with how slavery is taught today is presentism, the practice of interpreting or judging the past through the lens of present-day values.
I think that having a sense of present-day values in this sort of discussion is important, but it needs to be done with the intention of discovering how we came to *hold* these values in the present day. It's also important to keep in mind that history will *continue*, and that it is entirely possible that people in a hundred years will be looking at *us* with the same horror as we look at the Founding Fathers who had very strong ideas about liberty, and nevertheless held slaves *anyway*.
Earlier this year we visited Porto de Galinhas (= "Port of Chickens") in Brazil - which was a major endpoint of the slave trade. Brazilian friends say that it was so named due to the use of poultry as deck cargo to disguise the slave ships. Even today, Brazilians talk of doing something (like superficial cleaning) "pra Ingles ver" - for the English to see. The origin of the phrase is almost lost...
https://unfashiontruthec.substack.com/p/the-empire-that-fought-to-end-slavery
Glad to see you got around to this one. Some points to consider:
Haiti was primed to explode, as you say. In Africa, the slaves were not such a large percentage of society - however, there was another reason.
Look at the dates of the unrest, and revolt. It is plain that new ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity let loose in France in 1789, had come to this French colony. You did point out that no civilization but the west ever thought of these things. So when they arrived in Haiti, unrest was created that had never existed in Africa. All rule depends on the ruled accepting certain ideas. The undermining of these ideas, combined with the much smaller percentage of the rulers compared to Africa (or anywhere else in the new world) led to something that would have been unimaginable to the African chiefs - a slave revolt.
Haiti also had several free blacks, some of who owned plantations, and slaves to work them. One, Toussaint Louverture, led the revolt, and freed his slaves. This could have only been inspired by the new ideas - and on the one point of emancipation, he surpassed even the great Washington of Virginia (tho some other Virginia planters did free their slaves at that time. It was in the air.).
To borrow a phrase from his Most Christian Majesty, Louis X, the West signifies freedom.
“Freeing the slaves” means what? That the slave owner is no longer responsible for their food, shelter, and clothing. In Haiti and in the USA, they have shown that they were incapable of taking care of themselves - thus the horrors of Haiti and the welfare state in the USA.
Matter of opinion - and the slave system has its own horrors, which are not.
These issues do not affect anyone’s right to be free, which is the issue here.
“There is sin, but no redemption. At least not for the West. This is one of the primary flaws with the progressive narrative of slavery.”
This is not a “flaw” in progressivism. It is its central pillar. It is their emotional horn of plenty, or alternatively, their club with which to pummel their political opponents. No matter the issue, their response is “But slavery…” The hypocrisy is abundant and manifest. The Left could not care less about slavery in Africa and Southwest Asia.
I have zero doubt that if a time machine could prevent European 1) participation in the slave trade and 2) colonization, and we could compare the welfare of all peoples worldwide under both scenarios, the Left would still call the West racist because they HADN’T exported inventions free of charge to the Third World.
“Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing”
My favorite part of “Amistad” is the second to last scene where British Navy Captain Fitzgerald, in the midst of a sustained cannonade on the slave fortress, says:
“Take a letter, Ensign.
"To His Honour, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Forsyth.
"My dear Mr. Forsyth, it is my great pleasure to inform you that you are, in fact, correct.
"The slave fortress in Sierra Leone does not exist."
Well done and spot on!!
Excellent. When there is talk of “ respirations,” I ask what about reparations for the 300000 white Northerners who died to free the slaves. When or where is thanks ever given to them?
For myself, my ancestors lived on the North Sea. They were regularly raided by Vikings in longboats, who burned their villages, plundered their wealth, and carried them off into slavery.
What I want to know is, when is the Norwegian government going to send me my reparations?
🫴💵🇳🇴
> The primary issue with how slavery is taught today is presentism, the practice of interpreting or judging the past through the lens of present-day values.
I think that having a sense of present-day values in this sort of discussion is important, but it needs to be done with the intention of discovering how we came to *hold* these values in the present day. It's also important to keep in mind that history will *continue*, and that it is entirely possible that people in a hundred years will be looking at *us* with the same horror as we look at the Founding Fathers who had very strong ideas about liberty, and nevertheless held slaves *anyway*.