We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
MOPE dope hope? Nope. Cope. The BBC reports,
UN votes to recognise enslavement of Africans as ‘gravest crime against humanity’
The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognise the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”, a move advocates hope will pave the way for healing and justice.
They’ll never get reparations. But this move might end up paving the way for healing and justice – by being annoying enough to finally kill off the MOPE Olympics and the self-destructive mindset that mopery promotes.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
And will the enslavement of Africans by other Africans, over thousands of years, also be declared “the gravest crime against humanity”?
How about the Islamic slave trade of Africans over more than a thousand years – with its mass death, castration of most male slaves, and the killing of babies fathered by the rape of African women? Will this be declared “the gravest crime against humanity”?
No – neither of these things will be done by the United Nations, because the United Nations does not care about slavery, murder or rape – it, like all other institutions, only cares about attacking the West.
The United Nations should never have been created – and should be abolished.
Paul Marks, as you correctly point out Islamic slavery was much worse and stretched further back in time and is more long lasting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
And it’s still going on.
Will African states compensate the British Navy for its attacking slave ships? In 2034, 200 years will have passed since the British Parliament outlawed Slavery in the British Empire. Will African states remember this?
They must never have any reparations. History could be pretty shitty. Too bad. Get over it, grow the fuck up and stand on your own two feet like the rest of us had to.
Isn’t the correct reaction “who cares”? I mean what difference does it make what these morons say? I mean when both China and the DRC are on your human rights council no serious person takes anything you say seriously.
The UN is useful for the security council, it isn’t much use for anything else.
There is plenty of blame to share.The demand for the transatlantic slave trade was fueled by European powers but the suppliers of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were Africans and Arabs.
Fraser:
It matters if you have a prime minister who is a human rights lawyer and who believes he must do everything “international law” tells him to do, such as give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, and pay them £100 million a year to lease our own base.
@JohnK
Seems your problem is with your prime minister, not those toothless morons.
@willful knowledge
There is plenty of blame to share.The demand for the transatlantic slave trade was fueled by European powers but the suppliers of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were Africans and Arabs.
I mean that is true, but it is only a small part of it, slavery has been endemic throughout human history. Almost every nation in history has been both a slave holder and an enslaved people. For example, in our American history classes we learn about the terrible injustice done to the Cherokee nation in their removal to Oklahoma, in the “Trail of Tears”. What they forget to tell you is that the Cherokee’s burden was somewhat alleviated by the fact they brought their slaves along with them.
And what they aren’t telling you is that there is almost certainly MORE slavery ongoing right now today than at any time in human history. Right now, today, there are open slave markets in Libya. There is huge slavery throughout northern Africa and virtual slavery in large parts of the middle east. In many parts of that world young women, teenage girls, are sold into marriages where they have no choice and no rights. I’m not sure how that is any different than slavery. And, FWIW, there are many people enslaved even in the United States directly as a result of the left wing immigration policies we have been subject to. Before Trump the Mexican border was not controlled by the US Government but by the Mexican cartels. They’d charge $10,000 to cross the border and how exactly did those poor farmers we are all told about come up with that money? All they have to offer is their indentiture, many of the women and many shockingly young girls paying off their debt on their backs, and many of the men in menial slave labor or in gangs. That is what is happening TODAY in the United States. Why doesn’t the UN seem to care about that?
Fraser:
Our problem is indeed our prime minister, trouble is he believes all this crap. He’ll do anything “international law” tells him to.
Hwnry,
“History” of slavery in the Islamoc World is somewhat of a misnomer in that it exists to this day so is as much nowstory as history.
Nichilas,
The West Arfrican Squadron rescued c. 150,000 slaves and a monument to them has been stetted. I mean FFS! The UK is the greatest de-cplonising power ever yet I am meant to feel guilt over… what exactly? I have never had a slave. As far as I know (and I know my family history quite well none of them owned slaves one was buggered by George Gordon, the Sixth Baron Byron – but that is something else).
My father was born in County Mayo (I have an Irish passport of post-Brexit convenience) but you know what? You’ll never hear me wittering on about the Black and Tans. You know why? I am English by birth and by inclination. I wore my red 1966 #6 shirt when the Lionesses won the Euros.
“Just because one is born in a stable doesn’t make one a horse” – Arthur Wellesley
Now do todays China.
So they haven’t got the courage to denounce the crime against humanity of the even larger trade in African slaves carried on by Muslim powers of the Near East? Figures.
Is it a crime against humanity if the vast majority of people at that time did not recognize it as a crime against humanity (or an equivalent level of crime for their day)?
For those who might not have seen it, just search for “brattle report pdf” to see the carefully researched “legal” justification for the $130 trillion or so they believe they are owed.
In an actual court, I’d be more than happy to be the “accused”. A pork pie could easily handle the defence.
Natalie Solent, why do you say ‘they’ll never get reparations’? I’d have thought Starmer and Hermer and the rest of the gang are wetting themselves at the prospect …
To repeat a quote from a waggish Ghanaian chum of mine many years ago:
“My family was deeply affected by the slave trade. But fortunately, they got out of slaves and into the gold trade before the Royal Navy collapsed the market.”
Frasor Orr “who cares what these morons say?
Most of the “mainstream”, indoctrinating, media – and most schools and most universities. That is who cares what these morons say.
Neither the United States or most other Western nations is a strong society – most nations have had their institutions, including the education system, utterly corrupted. And this is led to the corruption of much (most?) of the population – one can “fix the people” without reversing the leftist domination of the education system (the schools and universities) and the media, including the entertainment media and built in bias in social media – fixing the institutions has to come first.
And when, by some miracle, anti leftists (or supposed anti leftists) win an election – they do nothing to reverse this intellectual corruption, this indoctrination of the young (and the not so young) – and when asked why they are doing nothing, they cite “the Filibuster rule” and other excuses (the excuses differ in different countries – but they are always excuses).
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the West is doomed – that the death of the West will occur, indeed is already well underway.
Specifically in the United States…..
The words “work with the Democrats” assume that “the Democrats” want a limited government society based on the traditional family and other (uncorrupted) Civil Society institutions – this assumption has not been true for many years.
So if someone says “work with the Democrats” one is either dealing with a dishonest person – or a moron.
And nor is the United States, or other Western nations, a solid society now – it has been corrupted and unless radical roll-back of “Progressive reforms” occurs, society will fall.
“Standing pat” is not a valid option – only radically reactionary action has any possibility of saving society from total collapse. And this is most certainly not just true in the United States – it is true in most Western nations.
“Why doesn’t the UN care about that?
Because sorting it out and putting a stop to it would be incredibly difficult. Pressuring dim witted politicians to hand over stacks of other people’s money to a bunch of grifters is much easier.
Did I not read a story last year of a Ugandan High Court judge, who is also a ‘UN judge’ (whatever that is), living in the UK, who was tried in a UK court and found guilty of keeping an adolescent Ugandan girl in slavery as a house servant? Or did I imagine it? Seems to me that the UN might have more to worry about concerning slavery today than what stopped occurring in the West some 200 years ago or more.
llater,
llamas
Llamas:
Combatting modern day slavery does not get you a trillion dollar piece of grift from brain dead morons such as he British prime minister. Follow the money.
llamas, link.
Sure, but there’s some substantial differences.
The transatlantic slave trade was characterised by the idea of “chattel” slavery – ie. the concept of absolute ownership, including children, which (largely) does not have historical precedent.
It also has an ahistorical component in as much as “just being black” was grounds for being enslaved – this is vs previous grounds of being “a conquered nation”.
Obviously enough, all forms of slavery are utterly abhorrent, but come off it. We enslaved them because of their skin colour, not because of their actions against us (in the form of conquered nations)
I will also note:
It’s a matter of historical record that the UK only stopped supporting the Slave Trade when – and only when – it was economically unviable to do so.
This is not to say that people at the time did not recognise that it was a disgraceful thing – it obviously was, and people at the time noted that – but we only stopped when it was no longer profitable for us to support it, due to our conquests in India where we were able to largely recreate the same conditions, without “literally” enslaving a nation, and we were shitting ourselves about French influence and profits in the Caribbean.
We shouldn’t forget the influence of the genuine moral abolitionists; but we also shouldn’t forget that it only got traction when it threatened profits; we should celebrate the genuine abolishionists of course, but should be a bit cautious about the motives we ascribe to our governments (as of course we always should) – in this case, they were not fantastic, and it’s historically factual and easily verified that we only “led” the abolition of the slave trade for pretty poor reasons (none of which were to do with “liberty”)
@Paul Marks
The words “work with the Democrats” assume that “the Democrats” want a limited government society based on the traditional family and other (uncorrupted) Civil Society institutions
And Republicans do? I mean they are more pro traditional family, but since Trump took office he has, in one year, DOUBLED the already massively bloated military budget. Doge tried to nibble at the sides of the deluge of corruption in DC and got basically no support at all from the Republicans-in-total-control establishment. Budgets and deficits has skyrocketed. Where is all the cost cutting, the eliminating swathes of federal employees, the massive rolling back of regulation that we were promised? Instead the “President who never started a war” seems determined to go full on war everywhere in the world. This is not who I voted for. Americans don’t care about foreign policy, they care about fixing the broken economy. What the hell happened to that?
In Iran they sure as hell better end the war with IAEA inspectors producing a half dozen half finished nuclear weapons or else we have to conclude they duped us again, with exactly the same lie.
Fraser Orr, I can’t decide if you’re mostly mad at the Republican Congresspeople who give no support to Trump, forcing him to take what he can get through exec action instead of actual legislative change, or at Trump himself, for (I guess) not producing that Congressional support and having to go for wins that are attainable without it.
On 13 May, it will be 138 years too late for this.
That’s the day the last Western holdout – Brazil – abolished slavery.
To quote an American in a discussion of US slavery, replying to an African American activist:
“I never owned any slaves and you were never a slave.“
This is blatantly delusional.
Except for the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs.
And i am probably missing quite a few.
“We” enslaved Blacks because their fellow Africans (Blacks and Muslims) were willing and eager to sell them to “us”.
That these slaves were easily distinguishable from “us”, was an incidental advantage, which eventually led to anti-Black prejudice.
There is more than a bit of truth in this — but at the same time, if you think that abolishing slavery was self-interested, to be consistent you should also think that blockading the slave trade was not self-interested.
(I myself think that both of those were somewhat self-interested — but not completely.)
The vast majority of ordinary Britons, whose ancestors were farm labourers living in decrepit tied cottages at the squire’s pleasure, or ruining their lungs down mines, or slogging away in the ‘dark Satanic mills,’ or half-starved orphans still being stuffed up chimneys decades after black slaves were freed, owe these handout-chasers not one single f##king penny.
Leave it up to the guilt-ridden aristocrats to atone for the perceived sins of their ancestors with their own family fortunes, if they wish to play along with this farce, instead of effectively enslaving the beleaguered British taxpayer for all eternity*, for stuff done by people who have been dead for centuries to other people who have also been dead for centuries.
(*Seriously, when do you think they’d ever say ‘OK, you’ve done enough. We’re satisfied now and will never mention it again’?)
neonsnake:
False. Slavery was hereditary in ancient Greece and Rome, in Nordic Europe in the Dark Ages, and in the Islamic Middle East. As for “chattel” slavery, in all these areas slaves were bought and sold, exported and imported, like any other type of property.
@bobby b
Fraser Orr, I can’t decide if you’re mostly mad at the Republican Congresspeople who give no support to Trump
But aren’t you then making my point that it doesn’t matter if we get democrats or republicans? They are both reptilian and loathsome. I think the Republicans are slightly better than the democrats in the sense of “they make things worse slightly slower than the democrats”, but Paul is putting forward this idea that getting the Republicans fully in charge will fix things. It won’t. It’ll make them worse. For example, Republicans without the filibuster would be worse than Republicans with the filibuster, in fact, worse than Democrats with the filibuster.
As to who I am more disappointed in, Trump or the R congress? I mean I’m disappointed in them both. But perhaps more Trump because I expected little less from the general Congresscritter. Trump had my hopes up that he might make a meaningful difference. Now he did some good things but his utter profligacy, his insatiable appetite for foreign wars, and his utter neglect of domestic policy means that I was a believer and I had hope, and he has been such a disappointment, certainly compared to Trump 45. He has a few years left so perhaps he will turn things around, but his actions in 2026 seem to have turned a likelihood of a November disaster turn into an almost certainty of a November bloodbath. And he really has no-one to blame but himself.
His election offered hope of some real light in the very dark place of American politics, and he has just been a huge disappointment. To be clear, I am very willing to see him turn a corner and bring me back on board. But it is not looking good.
When someone serially disingenuous starts off with “it is a matter of historical record” then you know epic horseshit is incoming.
Britain spent tens of thousands of lives and the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars in its fight against the slave trade, which produced not one penny in direct benefits to the nation, it was entire a moral crusade. If only we’d had Neonsnake around to tell the slavers aginst whom Britain fought that their trade was already economically univiable.
Fraser Orr – I fear you are, in a sense, correct, and that talk of the “tradition of the Filibuster” by “Leader Thune” and others is just an EXCUSE for them not to control government spending, or clean up elections, or do anything – because they really do not want to.
If these people really wanted to act – they would drop the “Filibuster” and the other excuses.
The claim that the slave trade was dropped because it was “economically unviable” – is false.
And the claim that “chattel slavery” was something new – is false. It was common, very common, including in Africa.
But it must not be supposed that NeonSnake has made up these false claims himself – on the contrary these false claims, and the other false claims he comes out with, are common on the left. Indeed they are foundational – they are among the key false claims upon which the left builds its position.
Other key false claims include the Labour Theory of Value, the Ricardian theory of LAND, and the “under consumption” (pro credit money) doctrine of Hobson, Keynes and others.
Far from “white” people inventing the (highly profitable – not “economically unviable”) slave trade, or inventing “chattel slavery” – it was “white” people who tried to abolish these ancient evils.
But to admit that would destroy the anti white narrative that the modern left push so hard – their campaign of hatred against white people really (at least in their own minds) being a campaign of hatred against “capitalism” with “white” being used as a code-word for “capitalist structures of oppression” – or “exploitation and oppression” (Labour Theory of Value – and other falsehoods).
Fair comment, I’ll take that one. I should have expanded a little.
In *most* (not all) of the prior slave-based systems, they were not characterised by chattel slavery. In many cases, one could hope to be freed (estimates vary, but something like 50%+ of Roman slaves were freed by age of 30 – some scholars think it’s more, some less) – I suspect the reasons were not all altruistic, but were offered as an incentive to work harder, and possibly not poison your master. In the US, it was often illegal to free a slave, and when it *was* legal, it was massively discouraged by (eg) laws that required you to immediately pay back a loan if you used one to purchase a slave and subsequently freed them.
While chattel slavery was one component of slavery, particularly in massive empires, the most common forms of slavery have generally been a form of “debt” slavery – you are freed after the “debt” has been paid off.
Similarly, people would become enslaved for a period as reparation for wrong-doing or crime against someone. I’m not 100% sure about all the empires you mention, but certainly in Rome “Nexum” was pretty common. I know that in Greece and the Middle-East, it was common as well, although I have less detailed knowledge of those. Exceptions obviously exist – I think Sparta probably counts – which is why I qualified my statement with “largely”, but my point is that generally most slavery in history wasn’t characterised by “chattel” slavery, it was a mix of debt, chattel and other forms.
Again, for clarity – in no way whatsoever am I “defending” one form of slavery vs another. I find all of it utterly abhorrent to the depths of my soul, no matter how or where it was practiced. And this isn’t an attack on the US, although I’ve mentioned them above; they were hardly the only country to benefit, even just limiting myself to the Americas (Brazil, for instance, has a horrific record with slavery) – just that the Transatlantic Trade has some unique and defining features that are – largely, again – not found elsewhere.
Re. the comments about “economic viability”
I was very, very clear in my initial comment that there was absolutely a moral component to the drive for abolition, in the UK. Wilberforce was, to my understanding, driven by nothing more than moral repugnation at the whole idea, and there was clearly huge moral sentiment against slavery, which he managed to mobilise.
But: the facts remain.
Abolition of the slave trade was proposed and rejected for years before Wilberforce – Lord Frederick North, for example, rejected it in 1783 because the trade in humans was necessary for our economic interests.
So what changed between 1783 and 1807?
For starters, we’d “lost” the US, but “gained” India; it was far better economically to get sugar from India than from slave colonies (turns out “free trade” was a good thing, who knew?)
Secondly, and most importantly, the French colony of San Domingo was showing utterly enormous growth, which threatened our interests massively. But they didn’t have the slaves to keep up with the growth, and also did not have the capacity to ship them themselves. We in the UK were providing something like 50% of the slaves to France, thereby increasing France’s market share of the European market for sugar – massively against our own interests. When William Pitt the Younger realised this, and the effect it would have on the UK, he encouraged and backed Wilberforce (a man of very good reputation) in his efforts for abolishing the trade of slaves.
The calculus wasn’t the amount that we would spend on abolition, it was the amount we would lose to France if we didn’t do it. I’ve no idea of whether that worked out, in the end (and frankly I don’t care, inasmuch as abolition was a great thing in and of itself), but that was the economic argument at the time.
Again, for clarity – under no circumstances am I saying that there was no moral beliefs at the time that it was wrong. There very, very obviously were. I’m simply saying that those moral beliefs only intersected with political will to actually do it when it seemed economically beneficial to us in the UK to act on it.
No, I was making the point that there is this useless little neutral area between winning a majority in both chambers, and winning the supermajority that the filibuster rule requires for action in the Senate.
I LIKE this dead space, usually. I favor inaction by gov, and the filibuster is the main driver of inaction.
But it is disingenuous to expect Trump, or any prez, to be able to LEGISLATE when he’s stuck in this dead space. All he can do in this case is ORDER. Orders only last until the next order, from the next prez, and so we see little accomplished that will last.
Trump’s fault? Hardly. Voters’ choice, I think. We get the gov we deserve.
@bobby b
I LIKE this dead space, usually. I favor inaction by gov, and the filibuster is the main driver of inaction.
Me too. There is this idea that if you Republicans get full charge of both chambers they will vote in the changes we need. I guarantee you that that is not true. In fact they will vote in lots of stuff we don’t want. Republicans with 50-59 seats and the filibuster is better than Republicans with 50+ seats an no filibuster. Republicans, in general, are not your friend. After all we have Thomas Massie and Rand Paul on one side and Lisa Murkowski and the utterly loathsome, reptilian Lindsay Graham on the other side. All Republicans. The former two? I wouldn’t trust them with twenty quid to go down the local shop and buy me a case of beer.
But it is disingenuous to expect Trump, or any prez, to be able to LEGISLATE when he’s stuck in this dead space. All he can do in this case is ORDER. Orders only last until the next order, from the next prez, and so we see little accomplished that will last.
But two things. First he said he would. As a leader he has responsibility to bring them round and he didn’t. Perhaps that is too much to expect, even though it is what he promised. Second, what we can do is judge him on what he has done in his independent executive actions and to say it is a mixed bag is an understatement. For sure he has done well on immigration, though his handling of the chaos in Minnesota was not good, and now immigration seems to have lost all focus. But the economy is still not at all good, and a lot of that is on him. Medical care in particular is in crisis, and he has done nothing. My medical insurance company is going out of business because they are squeezed between the cost of government regulation and the impossibility of providing adequate care. Kicking out a lot of illegal immigrants will help here, but it is not nearly enough. Again he has DOUBLED the already massively bloated military budget. What happened to all the cutting back on bloated government we were promised? And of course he seems to be entirely focused on foreign policy. I hope the thing in Iran works out, but like I say, it had better end with a public display of a half dozen half finished nuclear weapons, otherwise it is just the same lie over and over again. Now he is rattling the sword at Cuba. Americans do not care about foreign policy, they care about the economy and immigration. So why is all the oxygen consumed by foreign policy?
And why or why does he seem to be relying on Lindsay Graham as his spokesman? I mean is there actually a more loathsome man than he? He is even worse that that dreadful Schumer. The guy never saw a dark skinned foreigner he didn’t want to blow up.
Again, if Trump revives the policies on which I supported him and voted for him he will absolutely have my support again. But I cannot support this horrible version of Trump. When can we have a President Vance?
No neonsnake – neither the abolition of the slave trade, or of slavery itself, was to do with an economic calculus
As for the filibuster – if the Republican leadership in the Senate do not get rid of it, then they are not interested in doing anything else that is useful – and it is clear that they are NOT interested in doing anything useful, NOT interested in trying to stop the decline and fall of American society.
So Republicans will not bother to vote in November – what is the point in voting if the Republican leadership will not do anything to stop the decline and fall of the nation?
But the Democrats will vote – in very great numbers (as they have been in little elections around the country for a quite some time now – look at the voting numbers, who is not voting, and who is voting – often by mail-in ballots).
Then people like neonsnake (the American versions of) will take power – and they WILL take action – very evil action, and very fast, and no “rules of the Senate” will stop them.
And then the living will envy the dead.
Creation of the United Nations was actually a graver crime against humanity.
Fred Z – I respectfully disagree. The slave trade, whether by the Romans, the Islamic powers (SOME of which were intensely racist – citing what Muhammed had said about black people, as a justification for the castration of males and the killing of the babies of raped African women), or the “Africa Company” created by the Stuart monarchs, or anyone else, was, in my opinion, vastly worse than the United Nations.
It is true that the modern aim of the United Nations is to enslave everyone – under a world-government tyranny, but it has NOT done that (at least not yet).
Most of the time the United Nations is just a demented farce – although, yes, the people who control it have vicious intentions.