>(Edit: I had a much longer response typed out and went to post >it and an error message came up, hence I lost it all. I >retyped what I remembered so hopefully it is coherent)
>I consider all those to be 'the crime' but I thought those >were always thought of as such.
well..In France a 2001 law considers the Transatlantic Trade and the Slavery a crime against Humanity.
That is legally a big deal (though the media brilliantly ignored it).
Now The Transatlantic Slave trade (and the years of slavery following it) are not the only time slavery existed on earth.. What makes it a crime against humanity ? - The fact that people were indeed sold, bought and traded ? that would mean the whole world was probably criminal. i mean people started thinking THAT aspect of slavery was morally wrong quite recently.. And many still don't think it's THAT wrong. - The fact that a MASS of people were DEPORTED to a foreign land as slaves ? That's probably more unique althought there are other cases (Arabian slave trade, indian "voluntary" immigration to Mauricius) - the conditions they lived under ? hmmm.. the fact that they were considered as non-humans (legally) ?
>Like, if I had to percentage it, I'd say Americans and >Europeans are responsible for 90% of the whole slave trade and >subsquent slavery beause they continued to opress people from >the moment the ships left various African ports until when >slavery ended.
>I mean, I just know that people sometimes say that African >slavery wasn't as bad as American and European slavery and >that is SO TRUE, so I'm not trying to debate that.
I would. There is mucho revisionism in those studies. Of course there are many cases in which it was immenselly different and not as bad but can we generalize ?
> I just wonder how that argumnet holds up if someone were to say, >"Yes, but did the Africans think that the Europeans were just >going to treat the slaves like the Africans did?" If they did, >then does that absolve them of their crime?
if you think that selling and buying and trading human beings is a crime then no it doesn't.
>If not, then what?
good question too.
>I mean if that's the case, does it matter? Isn't the act of >selling them any bad enough?
that would bother me.. Not because I want to make up apologies for my people or anything. but because considering that selling and buying and trading human being is criminal enough would put intra-european slavery (Russia ?) or any other slavery in history at the same level as the transatlantic slave trade. And that would mean disrespecting the Victims of the Transatlantic slave trade, IMHO.
>Then one could rightfully wonder if perhaps the Europeans lied >to the Africans and said that they would be treated humanely. >I mean, is that how they got them to sell?
could anybody prove that though ?
>If that's the case then that would open an interesting box....
there are many boxes many things could open. the criminal thing for instance ? that's a huge box.
>So going back to the percentage thing, then I would say that >Africans are like 10% responsible for what happened and even >though that is a small number, and the Middle Passage, the >selling of slaves that went on for years in the States and the >conditions that were so deplorable for 400 years totally >outweighed, you could say, however bad it was that the >Africans *just* sold them, I still wonder if one could hold >them responsible for their part of the deal.
probably. but then you'll probably hold *them* responsible for the slave trade that has been going on INSIDE the continent for century, if not milleniums.