And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
Sure there were. Who do you think the Barbary pirates were taking off to Africa?
And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
Sure there were. Who do you think the Barbary pirates were taking off to Africa?
Ho Ho Ho.
She has been suspended. That anti-Jewish prejudice? Bit like laughing at gingers.
Of course, Abbott and those like her consider that blacks are the only ‘real’ people.
The first Portuguese transatlantic slave cargos were white, albeit probably swarthy white: Moroccans and Canary Islanders.
“at the height of slavery”: I wonder what the fat fool thinks she means by that? She’s expert on seven thousand years of history, is she?
At the height of slavery, there were no black people manacled to the oars, only white ones.
The Romans and their European puppet kings were trading shiploads of wine for shiploads of slaves.
@dearime – that was my first thought. She neither knows nor cares about slavery except when it happened to people who looked like her. Actually, bearing in mind that both modern and traditional slavery has been rampant in Africa in her lifetime, she doesn’t even care about that. She is a racist and is only interested in slavery perpetrated by the race she hates.
My Scottish ancestor was sent to America as a slave after the Battle of Dunbar.
MC: She neither knows nor cares about slavery except when it happened to people who looked like her.
The size of that niche segment of the market for slaves who looked like Dianne Abbott would have been in inverse proportion to the size of the individual slave.
Africans posting their L’s online
Has she never seen Ben Hur?
Has she never read Moonfleet ?
Has she never read?
Has she ever read?
I have to say I think capitalists play a big part in most of her misfortunes. Mainly the capitalists who sell strong liquor.
@ Sam Vara
The capitalists who sell cakes and sweets or burgers and chips
God forbid people should know actual history and facts, facts are just white supremacy racist propaganda dog whistles
St Patrick was originally a slave in Ireland, don’t see Biden and Clinton mentioning this in the recent visits
Sigh. She seems to have seen “Roots” at some point and that is the extent of her knowledge of slavery.
Apparently she sent it by accident and has now disassociated herself from what she wrote.
What she really meant to say was “if we just enslaved gingers, the world would be a happier place.”
“My Scottish ancestor was sent to America as a slave after the Battle of Dunbar.”
No he fucking wasn’t. Why must people cheapen the horrors of real slavery with this sort of rubbish? Convicts are not slaves. Conscript soldiers are not slaves. Indentured servants were not slaves. West European Serfs were not slaves.
Hmm, I’m with St Milton on this, conscripts are slaves.
Dianne Abbott is stupid enough to have a very successful career in the USA… Either as a Democrat politician or a talking head on MSNBC.
That being said, I’d prefer she remain where she is.
Dianne Abbott is stupid enough to have a very successful career in the USA.
Nah. They’ve already got Stacey Abrams.
yea gods! Miguel de Cervantes! The entire Roman Empire! Ancient Egypt!
Go, thoughts, on golden wings;
Go, settle upon the slopes and hills,
where warm and soft and fragrant are
the breezes of our sweet native land!
That’s it. I know what I’ll be doning next time I’m in London, carrying a boom-box around Parliament Square giving a free performance of Nabucco.
St Milton was talking out of his arse, then.
12-14 million white slaves were sold out of Eastern Europe. Most went to the Mediterranean. The Italians had slave trading colonies in Crimea to handle the volume. 15% of the urban population of Renaissance Italy was Slavic slaves. The plantations of Sicily, Mallorca and other Mediterranean places that were the model for American slavery were stocked with white slaves for centuries.
Interesting Tim. So you’d argue that the convicts used to settle Oz, or Siberia, or that were shipped to America, were slaves.
Looking at Wiki, I’d say that my definition of slavery is where someone owns someone else as property. This’d exclude indentured labour. And I suppose I’d have doubts about ‘debt slavery’ as well.
But of course emotionally charged words are usually extended to describe anything that someone hates.
No, I carefully said conscripts, not convicts.
Again interesting Tim. This would imply that all states where conscription is possible are slave states. And would of course include Oz, which instituted conscription for the Vietnam war.
And since conscription is possible in all states, one would have to argue that the entire world is irredeemably ruled by slavers.
Convicts as slaves
Yes and no.
Shipped to Autralia = largely left to get on with it.
Shipped to “the Barbadoes” = hard labour for no pay = slavery. (You might also count domestic hard labour convicts there and PoWs made to work )
Indentured workers = voluntary slavery
Conscription – I agree that it is a form, young men compelled against their will to fight etc. See especially “impressment” in the Royal Navy and Army of the 18th and early 19th C.
The “eastern” empires of Byzantium and the Ottomans depended upon slavery right up to their dissolution. The “elite” slaves ( Janissaries, bureaucrats ) were usually Southern Slavs.
https://www.google.com/search?q=slave+etymology
Does Diane Abbott think all Slavs are black then?
Widmerpool said:
“15% of the urban population of Renaissance Italy was Slavic slaves.”
I hadn’t realised it was so large so late in Western Europe. Interesting, thank you.
‘Shipped to Australia = largely left to get on with it.’
Well, largely Otto. This one started off with Philip, the first governor. He instituted the Ticket of Leave; in other words, if someone could support themselves off government stores, they were given what amounted to a local parole.
Of course what the local toffs would have preferred was something like Barbados, the convicts assigned to someone with an in to the local governor, and their work enforced by the New South Wales Corp. By and large this didn’t happen, so the local upper crust tended to oppose having convicts shipped to their colony and request self-government from the UK.
Thus new convict settlements tended to appear in such places as Tasmania and Norfolk Island. There was also Western Australia, where the local settlers pushed for convicts, as this would mean a market for their produce and a big subsidy to the colony.
Since convicts cost the British taxpayer about twice as much in Oz as they did kept on the hulks, I’m not too sure what you Brits thought about it all. Though Fortescue claims that the discovery of gold stopped a proposal that the UK abandon the place.
The UK actually did us an enormous favour by finally claiming sovereignty over the whole of Australia. I suspect this was because they were pissed off by the continual claims of the US for parts of Canada, and the fuss with the French over places like India and Egypt. That way they didn’t have bother with the foul foreigners pestilential claims. They just needed to send a ship occasionally to see if the place still existed.
Looking at Wiki, I’d say that my definition of slavery is where someone owns someone else as property.
That’s pretty much the dictionary definition, but the Romans had state owned slaves as well as private property. So it’s more complex. The primary purpose of slavery isn’t to own people*, it is to direct and own the fruits of their labour without recompense.
My own view is that slavery, as in some section of society being forced to work without pay, is probably a necessary ingredient of civilisation. We’ve replaced a certain number of full time slaves with a higher number of part time slaves – i.e. most of us working people. If we’re taxed 30% – 50% (or more) of our income, then we’ve been forced to do that work without pay. Unlike conscripts we have some choice in the type of work we do, but we still do a lot of it for nothing.
If it’s for the common good (national defence, blah, blah) then it’s just about palatable, but when we’re made to work for nothing to pay for masses of scrounging foreign invaders to be kept in four star hotels – we are pretty much those people’s slaves. See also wanky state non-jobs.
.
*Certain types of sex slavery pretty much constitute people ownership.
“The primary purpose of slavery isn’t to own people*, it is to direct and own the fruits of their labour without recompense. ”
Careful now. “Without recompense” is important, but there is a clear distinction to be made ( historically and sociologically speaking )
Serfdom is owning a person’s labour, who is allowed to keep some produce back for subsistence and is granted land upon which to live and work.
Slavery is the actual ownership of the person’s body. Cattle or horses effectively where the master provides futter and accomodation in return for work.
So convicts ( and to an extent conscripts ) are slaves of the state rather than a private person or company.
Slavery is the actual ownership of the person’s body.
Yes, I acknowledged the dictionary definition (and like all ownership, it is social / legal, not actual). But (with the exception mentioned above) people don’t own people in the same way as they own a Fabergé egg. They own them because they want to direct their labour and profit from it without having to pay them.
If the left are allowed to change definitions (“modern slavery!”) then so can we all. If Guardianistas can force me to work to accommodate foreigners in luxury, then I am their slave.