Like you can't go for a day without mentioning my name. I ain't that way so back off.

This coming from someone who has been a butt boy all his life for the Russians. What do you think they are? Green?

Sponging off the benefits of living in the USA while preaching communism for the masses. Why don't you go live in Russia instead and see much those Skinheads would love you. Bloody hypocrite. 

When did I preach communism for the masses here.  I have always been an admirer of Progressive America and some of its greatest leaders such as FDR, Truman and LBJ.  There is nothing wrong with wanting a country to have a strong social system to take care of its vulnerable. 

As a Jaganite, you were always an Communist PPP butt boy for the Russians who just happen to be white. You can't deny it after running around in Guyana preaching that Communism is great and doing the same here over and over again. You ain't Pro-American nothing so gwan suh with your lying self.

And I have read books about the slave trade written by both Africans and African Americans, the point of these books was to debunk the myth that the African kings were simpletons who were hoodwinked by the Europeans.

In West Africa those who bought slaves and those who sold slaves operated as EQUALS.  The Europeans didn't get anything that the Africans weren't willing to offer.  The Africans who had empires with millions of people were not weaklings who cowered when a slave shipped with a few score DRUNK and SICK white men arrived.

It is YOU who reduce the African to the level of the primitive by suggesting that a boat with drunk and sick white men could over run large Yoruba cities and snatch slaves.  The Kingdoms of Oyo and Benin were powerful and their skill in metallurgy was RESPECTED by the Europeans. 

As with the Europeans, so with the Africans, nations had their ambitions to expand.  Both sought to economically weaken their enemies as they sought to gain their own wealth.  BOTH benefitted from the African slave trade.

The African nation states who used this to gain wealth through the sale of slaves from less powerful groups, or from their enemies, or from internal dissidents and criminals.  Not only did the Africans derive wealth from the sale of slaves, but they also were able to expand their empires by dominating weaker groups.

The West Africans were NOT simple people manipulated by the Europeans.

DO YOU KNOW THAT EUROPEANS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE CAPITALS OF THE YORUBA KINGDOMS, the DAHOMEY EMPIRE OR THE ASHANTI KINGDOM INLESS THEY HAD PERMISSION!

No because you prefer to see the African is a primitive with a bone in his nose offered a glass mirror and beads by a European and willing to sell people from his OWN village in exchange.

The Europeans because of any economic system of exploitation in the Americas where oppressed labor from Africa, from the Native Americans, and yes even at times Europeans (especially the Irish) was used to build wealth out of agriculture and mining.

It is a known fact that there was heavy mortality of the enslaved people at three stages.  The first when people were captured and transported to the coast, this controlled by Africans.  Then deaths in the infamous Middle Passage. And of course death on the plantations and in the mines.  These latter two stages being controlled by the Europeans.

West Africans were powerful players in the slave trade, unlike their counterparts in Central and East Africa.  There were a sophisticated and politically savvy people, and were NOT going to be fooled or manipulated by ANYBODY!

Please explain why powerful kingdoms like the Ashanti, Dahomey, and Yoruba (only conquered in the late 19th century) were so weak that a captain arriving on a ship with no more than 20 men could fool them, or intimidate them.

Obviously you got a "C" because you missed the point!

How weak were these Africans when the Ashanti had armies of up to 500,000 PEOPLE?

Do you know that the Ashanti bought Congo slaves from the Portuguese before they themselves became a major sellers of people from groups which they subjugated?

Indeed the central thesis of Rodney was that these Africans were not primitive people.  They had large and sophisticated empires and were more militarily powerful.

The limitation that they had was that the controlled only one aspect of the slave trade/plantation triangle, and that was procuring and selling slaves.  They supplied slaves that were demanded by the plantation system, and when Europeans decided to end slavery there was little that they can do about it. 

In addition some might argue that there was a short sightedness in their approach.  BY weakening each other with wars to procure slaves, and by replacing their own industrial base by using cheaper European technology eventually led to their demise.

BUT THAT WAS A CHOICE MADE BY THE AFRICAN ELITES.  Having already traded with the Arabs, they switched to the Europeans once that market become more lucrative.  The Europeans were able to procure slaves directly from the Africans themselves, than via the Arabs.

The point is that two different elites, one European, and one African, made certain choices and those choices were entered via free will.  There was massive exploitation under those systems, and also inevitable consequences.

Understand something.  Whereas the Arabs controlled coastal East Africa, and the Portuguese large segments of Angola, the British and the French only began to conquer coastal regions of West Africa AFTER THE SLAVE TRADE ENDED. Why, if the slave trade was so profitable and so vital to the economic interests of the European?

These are very strong points that you are making here Carib.  It is very obvious that you know your stuff.  These were indeed sophisticated empires. Looking at the overall picture.  The European powers were masters of divide and rule/divide and trade politics.  Also many times they took full advantage of geographical and environmental conditions to their benefit.    We must not deemphasise these aspects in the slave trade.

I pity the fool. History does not lie.

Who is de fool again?

People must learn how to judge people within the context of their times. Slavery was an institution that EVERY human civilization engaged in. Using today's standards slavery is abhorrent (THOUGH IT STILL EXISTS).  But within the context of the times it wasnt until around the 18th c when anti abolition movements arose in the European dominated societies.  To what degree this might have also occurred among the Arabs, Africans or other groups is unknown, so I will not comment.

Where the TransAtlantic and the Trans Sahara/Indian Ocean slavery differed from other forms of slavery, was that enslaved were treated as an inferior group, not just because they were slaves, but because of their race.

In other societies slavery was a status tied to the person enslaved.  If that person won their freedom, or had children that these free people were absorbed into the communities as equals.  Indeed one of the most powerful emperors of one of those Sahel region empires was captured as a slave, but won his freedom, excelled as a soldier and became a leader.

So the disgraceful aspects of slavery involving the Europeans and Arabs was that the enslaved Africans were treated as an inferior race and this treatment continued long after slavery in those societies ended. And even today there are remaining traces of such treatment of black people, whether they are descended from slavery or not. We all know about the discrimination against blacks which occurs throughout the Americas and in Europe.  Similar treatment also is visible in the Middle East and in India.

And indeed the myths of the slave trade are because the Europeans couldnt believe that the West African empires were every bit as sophisticated as they were.  So here came the myth of naked cannibals with spears who sold off their fellow villagers in exchange for a mirror or glass beads.  This isn't to say that some corrupt and stupid village chief didn't do this, but it wasn't the norm.

Wally the divide and rule occurred in the Americas.  Africans didnt have a concept of "Africa" or of being "black".  They defined themselves based on the ethnic, or clan identities, and saw themself relative to others, friend or foe. 

They would have seen the Europeans as beinhg weird and would have noted their "strange" skin, hair and eye color.  But to them the Europeans would have merely been a different set of nations and/or clans.  After all many would have already encountered Arabs by the time that the Europeans arrived, so the notion of difference based on appearance, would not have been unknown.

On the plantations,

1.  SLAVES from different ethnic groups were encouraged to hate each  other.  And creole slaves were enecouraged to feel superior to each other.  In fact it wouldnt surprise me if slave owners deliberately placed people who came from African nations with inbuilt enmity towards each other to minimize the probability of all the slave rebelling.  In fact the failure of the 1763 rebellion in Guyana was due in part to conflicts between the Akan (Ghana) and Congo slaves.  The Akans saw themselves as superior to the Congos, who resented that.

2.  A preferential system of facial features, skin color, and hair texture was developed to divide the lighter from the darker.

The various African empires fought each other just as the various European empires fought each other.  The European no more attempted to divide the Africans and encourage war than the Africans attempted to do the same to the Europeans.

The main trading places on the Bight of Benin (controlled by the Yoruba and Dahomey empires) saw trading activity by the British, Dutch, and French.  The Africans traded with whom they pleased and would have definitely sought to increase the prices of the slaves sold by playing off each nation against the other.  Just as the Europeans happily sold guns knowing full well that they would be used in capturing slaves.

The fact is that elites of BOTH Europe and West Africa engaged in the slave trade for reasons of greed and empire building.  Each sought to get the best deal out of the other. 

While the notion of European manipulation was certainly true of the Angola/Congo regions it wasn't true of the area stretching from today's Senegal to the Cameroon.

Most of the blacks in the Caribbean and North America are descended from West Africans.

Wally this is why when you tell Afro Guyanese to worship an "African" religion.  Which one.  I am Ewe, Akan (Fane most likely), Igbo, likely also Mandingo.  The Igbos probably didnt even know that the Mandingos existed.

"African" culture doesnt exist.  The cultures of various ethnic/linguistic groups in West and Central Africa does.  This is why when blacks from the Americas "play African" we look ridiculous because we don't understand all of this. 

Indeed when I went to Gambia the locals told us that they knew we were Caribbean people because we didnt pretend to be "African" like so many black Americans who visit.  They respected us and laughed at them.

People evolve over time, and this is especially true in the Americas which ias basically the rest of the world encountering each other in a new space.  Early Asians (Amerindians), Europeans, Africans, later Asians (Middle Easterners, Indians and Chinese).  Not one of us are culturally "pure". 

Indeed Asian Indians laugh at those Indo Caribbean people who try so hard to be "Indian".  I was in a room when Indians and Pakistanis found such attempts by Guyanese and TRinidadians to be hilarious.  To them caribbean Indians are way to westernized and "Caribbean" to ever be "Indian".

Where the TransAtlantic and the Trans Sahara/Indian Ocean slavery differed from other forms of slavery, was that enslaved were treated as an inferior group, not just because they were slaves, but because of their race

A very important point.

This is why I insist that the issue shouldnt be reparations from slavery but the naked exploitation of the Caribbean and brutalization of blacks in the USA in the Jim Crow era and beyond that should have been the focus.

Of course a focus on the colonial exploitation of the Caribbean will also remove the tensions from Indians feeling that their oppression was ignored, that being a very valid point, as we know that indenture and its aftermath, while not as extreme as slavery, weren't easy either. 

Indeed Indians lag behind the other "indentures" (Chinese and Portuguese) and there are very specific reasons for that.  This due to being trapped on the plantation for a longer period, ironically because they were better plantation workers.

Carib these European countries benefited from about 400 years of profit from slave labor and indentureship.  There is no free lunch in this world.  They have to pay some type of reparations.  I don't think it should be a one time payment of money but rather a sustainable financial fund should be established that provides for free post secondary tuition for the descendents of persons that were held as slaves. 

The same thing for Indentured servitude.  There should be some type of reparations for that also. 

Many moons ago I learned in my social work courses about stressors that travel from generation to generation in families.  These stressors are caused by major negative events like slavery or indentureship or being placed into residential schools to exterminate your culture.  These stressors have enormous negative impact on families generation after generation.  They cause negative psychological problems that lead to alcholism, drug addiction etc.

Reparations must be given for these problems that have caused and are still causing stressors that negatively affect the desendants of slaves and indenture servants.  If reparations are given by these European countries then it must benefit not just this present generation but the generations to come for persons who had ancestors that were slaves or indenture servants.

Do you know that as we speak slavery still exists in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, and the Sudan?  NO ONE speaks of this.  I am not talking about illegal trafficking of people who are fooled into bogus contracts.  I am talking about people who are OWNED by other people as their chattel and are OPENLY considered to be their slaves.   NO ONE talks of this scandal!

Europeans benefitted from the slave trade as did the West African elites.  The people who suffered were the enslaved themselves as well as those who died.  There are real pathologies that have emerged out of slavery, but it does no good for those in that condition to waste time demanding reparations, which they will not get, instead of developing ways to over come their situation.  And in the scheme of things not every black person is a victim, so the notion that reparations is the only cure is nonsense.

Indentures enrolled on their own free will so there is no basis for demanding reparations.  If they were fooled it was by those who fraudulently enrolled them in India. 

What will make interesting study is a comparison of the Chinese, also Indentures, and also Asian, who have done much better than Indians.  Why?  Unlike African descendants, Indians were allowed to retain their culture and modified it ON THEIR OWN TERMS, not having to "hide" it as did Africans, both during and after slavery.

People can scream all they want about reparations but it isn't going to happen.  What ever the English owe the Caribbean they will owe Ireland and India far more so they aren't going to open that up.  

In addition where does it stop.  Do the Romans owe reparations to the descendants of those who they enslaved in other parts of Europe?  What about the Arabs? They enslaved the most Africans.  So shouldn't they also pay?  Lucky for the African kingdoms that they no longer exist as nation states or they would also be liable.  What about the low castes in India who were ill treated by Indian elites?

This is why I am saying that basing compensation on slavery makes no sense, given that at some point every group was a slave, or enslaved others.

So people can argue the morality of reparations all they want and they can prove that they have a moral case.  Sweden, which had two colonies in the Caribbean, and only for a short time, St Croix and St Barth's, is the only one who will entertain discussion.  The British, French and Dutch have no intentions in discussing it. They control the international institutions and will block this item from being discussed.

And in any case they argue that the Caribbean has benefitted mightily from financial aid, technical assistance and non reciprocal preferential access for its globally uncompetitive products.  If one were to total the sugar and bananas entering the EU, plus all the aid that we got it might amount to what people are demanding for reparations. 

When the Dominican Rep gained their independence they had to stand on their own feet.  The British colonies received massive help to the point where we have become an entitled and mendicant people, always begging countries for money or preferential trade access. Look at Jagdeo who spent all of his time roaming the world begging for alms instead of crafting a development strategy that would have allowed Guyana to become self reliant.

The British, French and Dutch have no intentions in discussing it. They control the international institutions and will block this item from being discussed.

You may be right.

I am right.  If they pay their former Caribbean colonies reparations then even the USA might demand compensation. Ireland and India definitely would, as would Africa for the depredation of the colonial era.

The only country which might get some money is Haiti.  The French were collecting compensation from them for the loss of slaves well after the French abolished slavery, and I believe that the last payments were made well into the 20th C. 

As the injured party (gov't of Haiti) and the guilty party (gov't of France) still exist, unlike the slaves and slave masters who are long gone, there might well be a case for this.  Of course Haiti has probably received millions of dollars of assistance from France since then, which will definitely be taken into account, if any payment is made.

I think Haiti may have also paid, over the years, some international banks and private international investment businesses  for the loss of slaves and for Independence when they paid France the billions of dollars worth in gold.   The last payment to France by Haiti for the freeing of the slaves and also the Independence war I think was made in 1946 with a payment of gold. I have to do some research on this issue when I get some time. If this is true then maybe there is a possibility of these business interests  that got payments from the gold payed by Haiti to France may be persuaded to give some money back as a matter of ethics.  I do not think France will ever pay Haiti back that money because it may be around 14 billion dollars (US) in today's money.  

Haiti was forced to pay because it was powerless.  Would the United States be forced by a company like Hugo Boss to pay money because it ended Hugo Boss's slave labor camps during the second world war.  I do not think so

[QUOTE:]

The French government acknowledges the payment of 90,000,000F. The story of the first payment - 24,000,000 gold francs – being transported across Paris, from the vaults of Ternaux Grandolphe et Cie to the coffers of the French Treasury was recorded in detail. Historians have traced loan documents from the time of the 1825 Ordinance, through the various refinancing efforts, to the final remittance to National City Bank in 1947.

[UNQUOTE:]

External debt of Haiti

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti

The issue at hand was that a newly freed Haiti was boycotted by the then slave owning nations as they feared the example that it would set...and indeed there was an upsurge of rebellions throughout the Caribbean and in the USA. 

Haiti had to export its product and so was forced to capitulate by compensating France for the loss of French "property", mainly slaves, but also real property and equipment, most connected to the plantation system.

It is not the France needed the money, because France was at the time the second richest nation on earth behind the UK.  The intent was to cripple Haiti to ensure that it wouldn't become a successful society, thereby providing a role model for slaves (and freed blacks) living elsewhere in the Americas.  The Spanish also wanted Haiti punished because of the very significant assistance that they provided Simon Bolivar.

Haiti had no money so was forced to incur debt, and to put in place ruinous taxes which impoverished its rural population. 

What Haiti has in its favor in making this claim is that even after slavery was abolished by France in 1848, Haiti was still forced to make these payments.  And yes the last payment was made in the 20th C.

In addition the gov'ts of Haiti and France still exist as entities and therefore the gov't of France can be held liable for abusive contracts that it enforced over the gov't of Haiti.  If it thinks that this was based on racism and naked power oppression then it should do the right thing and make the funds able via the World Bank, the IDB and the IMF where they will be treated as grants to support projects beneficial to Haiti.

Sadly Haiti is a corrupt nation with extremely poor governance so cannot be entrusted with these funds paid directly to them.

Carib I think you should consider writing to the Caribbean Community Reparations Commission; particularly, Hilary Beckles and outline these points on Haiti.

How can anyone forget the PNC rule of terror against Indians from 1964 to 1992. At  least with the PPP there are an abundance of food and freedom to speak your mind.  Freedom to worship. and other goodies....

lol

Sometimes the truth hurts....

Only when you sober up.

Once a jackass always a jackass...

Keep on braying. You sound hoarse.