Jamaica ponders compensation claim for slavery

by bobby Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:24 pm

KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) - Jamaica has revived a reparations commission to research slavery's social and economic impact and examine whether the predominantly black Caribbean island should seek compensation or a formal apology from Britain to heal old wounds.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:32 pm

Possibly the complainants should be offered free passage back to the land of their ancestors.

by bobby Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:35 pm

Possibly the complainants should be offered free passage back to the land of their ancestors.

Or we should claim from those wicked Romans

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:52 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Possibly the complainants should be offered free passage back to the land of their ancestors.

The complainants’ ancestors certainly received “free passage” from “the land of their ancestors. Great shipboard accommodations, too.

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Middle Passage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Middle Passage was the stage of the triangular trade in which millions of people from Africa^[1] were shipped to the New World, as part of the Atlantic slave trade. Ships departed Europe for African markets with manufactured goods, which were traded for purchased or kidnapped Africans, who were transported across the Atlantic as slaves; the slaves were then sold or traded for raw materials,^[2] which would be transported back to Europe to complete the voyage. Voyages on the Middle Passage were a large financial undertaking, and they were generally organized by companies or groups of investors rather than individuals.^[3]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Triangular_trade.svg

Commercial goods from Europe were shipped to Africa for sale and traded for enslaved Africans. Africans were in turn brought to the regions depicted in blue, in what became known as the "Middle Passage". African slaves were thereafter traded for raw materials, which were returned to Europe to complete the "Triangular Trade".

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Typical slave ships contained several hundred slaves with about thirty crew members. The male captives were normally chained together in pairs to save space; right leg to the next man's left leg — while the women and children may have had somewhat more room. The captives were fed beans, corn, yams, rice, and palm oil. Slaves were fed one meal a day with water, but if food was scarce, slaveholders would get priority over the slaves. Sometimes captives were allowed to move around during the day, but many ships kept the shackles on throughout the arduous journey.

Most contemporary historians estimate that between 9.4 and 12 million Africans arrived in the New World.^[9][10] Disease and starvation due to the length of the passage were the main contributors to the death toll with amoebic dysentery and scurvy causing the majority of deaths. Additionally, outbreaks of smallpox, syphilis, measles, and other diseases spread rapidly in the close-quarter compartments. The rate of death increased with the length of the voyage, since the incidence of dysentery and of scurvy increased with longer stints at sea as the quality and amount of food and water diminished. In addition to physical sickness, many slaves became too depressed to eat or function efficiently due to loss of freedom, family, security, and their own humanity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Slave_ship_diagram.png/333px-Slave_ship_diagram.png

Diagram of a slave ship from the Atlantic slave trade. (From an Abstract of Evidence delivered before a select committee of the House of Commons in 1790 and 1791.)

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Notes

1. McKissack, Patricia C., and McKissack, Frederick. The Royal Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay. 1995, page 109.
2. Walker, Theodore. Mothership Connections. 2004, page 10.
3. Thomas, Hugh. "The Slave Trade: the story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440–1870". 1999, page 293.
9. Eltis, David and Richardson, David. The Numbers Game. In: Northrup, David: The Atlantic Slave Trade, second edition, Houghton Mifflin Co., 2002.
10. P. 95. Basil Davidson. The African Slave Trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

● Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
● Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
● Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

● Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
● Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
● Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
● No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
● Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

● You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
● No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

Forty Acres And a Mule -Oscar Brown Jr.
https://www.youtube.com/v/8gzbxPypaoo

1:33-1:36, “… ain’t nobody paid for slavery yet…”

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:03 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/antislavery_01.shtml

by Guest Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:56 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Re: West Indies Compensation for Slavery.
by oftenwrong on Fri 2 Nov 2012 - 10:03

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/antislavery_01.shtml

From the BBC History article at the provided Internet address (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/antislavery_01.shtml):

British Anti-slavery
By Dr John Oldfield
Last updated 2011-02-17

In the space of just 46 years, the British government outlawed the slave trade that Britain had created and went on to abolish the practice of slavery throughout the colonies. John Oldfield shows how this national campaign became one of the most successful reform movements of the 19th century.

Introduction

British anti-slavery was one of the most important reform movements of the 19th century. But its history is not without ironies. During the course of the 18th century the British perfected the Atlantic slave system. Indeed, it has been estimated that between 1700 and 1810 British merchants transported almost three million Africans across the Atlantic. That the British benefited from the Atlantic slave system is indisputable. Yet, paradoxically, it was also the British who led the struggle to bring this system to an end.

The first of these [British anti-slavery phases] stretched from 1787 to 1807 and was directed against the slave trade. It was the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, organised in May 1787, which set the movement on its modern course, evolving a structure and organisation that made it possible to mobilise thousands of Britons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/antislavery_01.shtml

You’re a tad bit tardy. Perhaps you might have exhibited your demonstrated ability to locate and post scholarship seven months, seven days, two hours, and thirty-nine minutes ago, on this thread in response to this post, quoted in part below, with current Wikipedia Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed attached.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?
by RockOnBrother on Mon 26 Mar 2012 - 7:24
__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Food for thought:

Slave Trade Act 1807
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Slave Trade Act (citation 47 Geo III Sess. 1 c. 36) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807, with the long title "An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade". The act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but not slavery itself; slavery on English soil was unsupported in English law and that position was confirmed in Somersett's Case in 1772, but it remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

Britain used its international strength to put pressure on other nations to end their own slave trade. The United States acted to abolish its Atlantic slave trade the same year… In 1805 a British Order-in-Council had restricted the importation of slaves into colonies that had been captured from France and the Netherlands. Britain continued to press other nations to end their trade with a series of treaties: the 1810 Anglo-Portuguese treaty whereby Portugal agreed to restrict its trade… the 1813 Anglo-Swedish treaty whereby Sweden outlawed its slave trade; the… Treaty of Paris 1814 whereby France agreed with Britain that the slave trade was "repugnant to the principles of natural justice" and agreed to abolish the slave trade in five years; the 1814 Anglo-Dutch treaty whereby the Netherlands outlawed its slave trade; and the 1817 Anglo-Spanish treaty whereby Spain agreed to suppress its trade by 1820.

The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world's seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. The Royal Navy declared that ships transporting slaves were the same as pirates. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.

In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807#Other_nations

Act Against Slavery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Act Against Slavery was an anti-slavery law passed on July 9, 1793, in the first legislative session of Upper Canada, the colonial division of British North America that would eventually become Ontario.

John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant Governor of the colony, had been a supporter of abolition before coming to Upper Canada; as a British Member of Parliament, he had described slavery as an offence against Christianity. At the time, Upper Canada had about three hundred slaves.

At the inaugural meeting of the Executive Council of Upper Canada in March 1793, Simcoe heard from a witness the story of Chloe Cooley, a female slave who had been violently removed from Canada for sale in the United States. Simcoe's desire to abolish slavery in Upper Canada was resisted by members of the Legislative Assembly who owned slaves, and therefore the resulting act was a compromise. Of the sixteen members of the assembly, at least six owned slaves.

The law, titled An Act to Prevent the further Introduction of Slaves and to limit the Term of Contracts for Servitude within this Province, stated that while all slaves in the province would remain enslaved until death, no new slaves could be brought into Upper Canada, and children born to female slaves after passage of the act would be freed at age 25.

This law made Upper Canada "the first British colony to abolish slavery." The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery

Slavery Abolition Act 1833
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (citation 3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) was an 1833 Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena", which were later repealed). The Act was repealed in 1998 as part of a wider rationalisation of English statute law, but later anti-slavery legislation remains in force.

In 1772, Lord Mansfield's judgment in the Somersett's Case emancipated a slave in England, which helped launch the movement to abolish slavery… slavery was unsupported by law in England and Scotland and no authority could be exercised on slaves entering English or Scottish soil…

… In 1785, English poet William Cowper wrote: “We have no slaves at home - Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free. They touch our country, and their shackles fall. That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud. And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, And let it circulate through every vein.”

By 1807, Britain had outlawed the slave trade with the Slave Trade Act, with penalties of £100 per slave levied on British captains found importing slaves (treaties signed with other nations expanded the scope of the trading ban). Small trading nations that did not have a great deal to give up, such as Sweden, quickly followed suit, as did the Netherlands, also by then a minor player; however, the British Empire on its own constituted a substantial fraction of the world's population. The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron (or Preventive Squadron) at substantial expense in 1808 after Parliament passed the Act. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave trade, but did not stop it entirely… Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.

During the Christmas holiday of 1831, a large-scale slave revolt in Jamaica known as the Baptist War broke out. It was organised originally as a peaceful strike by Baptist minister Samuel Sharpe. The rebellion was suppressed by the militia of the Jamaican plantocracy and the British garrison ten days later in early 1832. Because of the loss of property and life in the 1831 rebellion, the British Parliament held two inquiries. The results of these inquiries contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

A successor organisation to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed in London in 1839, which worked to outlaw slavery in other countries. Its official name was the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. The world's oldest international human rights organisation, it continues today as Anti-Slavery International.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

● Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
● Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
● Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

● Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
● Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
● Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
● No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
● Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

● You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
● No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

It is puzzling to me that cultural descendants of, and heirs to, noble citizens of the island of “bitter weeds” that dedicated their lives and means to eradicating the evil institution, including William Wilberforce, perhaps the 18th and 19th Centuries’ greatest hero, can, on Thursday 1 November 2012, so casually and disdainfully address slavery (“Possibly the complainants should be offered free passage back to the land of their ancestors.”).

“ain’t nobody paid for slavery yet”, Forty Acres and a Mule, 1:33-1:36, Oscar Brown Jr.
https://www.youtube.com/v/8gzbxPypaoo

by tlttf Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:40 am

So you believe that we should pay now for something that happened 200+ years ago Rock?

If so should we pay direct to the people that were enslaved or to somebody that knows nothing about it other than what's been written?

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:56 am

British merchants never received compensation for that "tea" that was dumped into Boston harbour.

by astra Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:24 pm

It is puzzling to me that cultural descendants of, and heirs to, noble citizens of the island of “bitter weeds” that dedicated their lives and means to eradicating the evil institution, including William Wilberforce, perhaps the 18th and 19th Centuries’

Rock, it's the way things was back then! The rich then, just as now(?) had everything their own way.

Look at the luxurious conveyance to Botany Bay. Then the way orphans were shipped to Australia mainly by the catholic church

AND never forget the cruel way that the Highland Clearances were expedited! These Scots WERE protestants - same religion and colour of skin as the parliament 800 miles South in London.

IF an administration can be so cruel to it's own, it will have no trouble at all, in being cruel to everyone else!

by bobby Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:19 pm

Roc, Black Africans didn't invent slavery and weren’t the only ones to suffer it. Almost every race on the planet has been enslaved by someone else at one time or another, so how far should we go back in order to play our own Slavery card. Should I look into claiming from the Romans, should the Israelis stick a claim in to Egypt, the list of enslaved people is endless, so in your opinion, when should the cut off date be so that we can all get our claims in.
As I said once before, you present day Blacks should be thankful for the suffering of those who where sold by other blacks into slavery, had it not have been for those poor sods, you and yours (if in deed you had been born) would now probably be in some small African Village drinking filthy water competing with Lions etc for your food and permanently looking over your shoulder to find your neighbouring tribesmen trying to nick your goat.

Instead directly as a result of their suffering you now live in a reasonably safe Country, enjoy the trappings of 21^st century technology (none of which was invented or produced in Africa) and driving around in your flash cars. Instead you all still blame the evil white people who simply bought a commodity your own ancestors where selling, and now the Jamaicans want Compensation, well so do I. So who should I be addressing for my 2000 year old grievance.

If I where to offer repatriation to any Black whether they be British or American, I wonder just how many would take me up on that Offer, or do you find life life far too comfortable living in the Counties your enslaved ancestore earned the right for you to now enjoy.

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:43 pm

The monetary compensation issue is a big cannard. It'll never happen. I doubt even an apology would happen, though it is certainly deserved. I remember hearing about slavery compensation for black Americans, and they wanted to claim more money than there was on the entire planet. Somehow I doubt that idea would work out very well.

I don't like the idea because it's difficult to tell who deserves the money and who deserves to pay. For instance, in the American version of this compensation scheme, MOST Americans are immigrants, and the majority of them arrived here in the 20th Century -- long after slavery was abolished. Why should the Asian-American population bear the burden of this compensation when Asians had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery? I'm a first generation American in my family, so why should I pay an extra tax to fund compensation? Nope. It's completely unfair for the majority of Americans who came here after slavery was kicked to the curb.

In Jamaica, it may be different and easier to figure out who is who. But if they get compensation, then every other person with a slave anscestor will be drooling at the government coffers, as well, and we simply cannot have that.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:25 pm

Nov 27 2006
Blair 'sorrow' over slave trade

Slavery had been 'profoundly shameful', Mr Blair said.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he feels "deep sorrow" for Britain's role in the slave trade.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6185176.stm

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:43 pm

Astra,

You are an honorable man with appropriate emotions. You feel for and with those who are stepped on by those who are selfish and those that choose to ignore other humans’ plights. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the information and photos that you sent when you educated me about the forgotten victims of Lockerbie. I have not, and I remain grateful to you for calling me to task.

Thank you for being you.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:00 pm

Anticipating the objections of those that no doubt cause noble British abolitionist to rest hard in their graves, the response to the most common such objections have resided within my mind for decades.

Slave owners profited by the work of slaves. John Locke, an Englishman, devoted Chapter 5 of his Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690 to property. Locke rightly asserted that one’s work is one’s property; thus, each slave owned part of the product generated by their own work.

When people die, their assets go into their estates, ownership of which passes down generation to generation to their descendants. Property and tax records in Britain go back centuries. Descendants of slaves should receive payment for their ancestors work, stolen from them by slave owners, from slave owners’ estates. It’s an accounting task, perhaps tedious, but in fact simple. As Oscar Brown Jr. said circa 1964, “ain’t nobody paid for slavery yet.”
https://www.youtube.com/v/8gzbxPypaoo

by bobby Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:24 pm

Roc, The simple point I am trying to make and of which you dont seem to or dont want to grasp is slavery has been on this planet since time immemorial. Your African ancestors where not the first or the last to be enslaved by others, so where does one start with this compensation. As Shirina so eloquently pointed out, why should someone of Asian origins who are possibly 2^nd or 3^rd generation British have to pay for what the Africans themselves where up to their necks in, and how would you assess how much the Africans who originally sold the slaves would have to pay and exactly who would pay it. Perhaps you feel that a lack of good record keeping by those tribal chiefs excludes them from blame, or is it a simple matter that they are also Black.
What I notice more than anything else in your quite pathetic argument is that you don’t mention the Jews, French, Italians, Poles, Russians, Rumanians, Czechs amongst many who where enslaved by the Nazi Regime who kept better records than anyone else regarding their part in mass slavery, or those which included some Americans who where used as slaves by Imperial Japan working for example on the Burma Railway. All you ever want to discuss when the word slavery is concerned are your black African ancestors. Rock I am beginning to think you are somewhat of a Racist, or why else do you not mention those who many thousands where treated worse than you ancestors ever where. Your Ancestors where treated as a Commodity therefore had a certain value to the owner, and that value meant they where worth more alive, fit and able to work, remember they where purchased off the original Black African slavers as a workforce. As for what the Nazis and the Japs did was something else again, they never saw or put a value on their slave population and simply worked them till they either died or where killed because they couldn‘t work anymore.

You can put pictures of as many slave ships you want or as much script and it doesn’t alter the actual facts regarding world and historic slavery. The Black African was only a part of it, so as I said before, when is the cut off date for all of us to put in our claims for compensation.

by Guest Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:10 am

The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690
John Locke (1632-1704)

CHAP. V: Of Property (excerpt)

Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to…

Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

by bobby Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:27 am

OK Roc, still as allways failing to answer a question, all you want to do is to fill page upon page of others thoughts, probably because you dont have an orriginal thought of your own.

Just haw can you justify calling yourself "Security Manager" or ocupy any other office on these boards. I don't know?, perhaps you may find a few pages someone else has written on the subject.

by bobby Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:07 am

RockOnBrother. Where are you. Do you not want to answer my queries, or are you doing exactly what you did over the photo you displayed of a Hanging Black Woman a while back. And anything else you find yourself out of your depth over. If you do not want to be challenged then may I suggest you start by stopping your racist posts, and looking for the truth.

Also I think you should give up your post as “security Officer” as quite frankly you are not fit for purpose. What gives you the right to tell anyone else what do or not do, when you can not even answer a simple question, but run away and hide, but then that maybe the way security works in the US “ If you can‘t see me, you can‘t get me“ , but then Roc I have got used to that, because its what you always do. You post reams and reams of words yet say very little, and when caught out you skulk off and hide.

by **Ivan** Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:47 am

Our security manager doesn't tell anyone what to do, but he does do a good job behind the scenes, endeavouring to keep this forum safe from trolls and malcontents, such as those who twice hacked into our old forum and then proceeded to attack it from a distance.

One of our posting rules forbids personal attacks on other members, and nobody is obliged to reply to any post:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules

by keenobserver1 Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:56 am

bobby wrote:KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) - Jamaica has revived a reparations commission to research slavery's social and economic impact and examine whether the predominantly black Caribbean island should seek compensation or a formal apology from Britain to heal old wounds.

Cui Bono? Cui Bono?

As Bobby points out in further posts on this thread, throughout history there have been many atrocities committed by as many different parties in the interest of economic and industrial progress, retrospectively they are horrific and nobody looks at them with pride. But we can't change it, and no amount of money or humble heartfelt apologies will change it either.

Perhaps recognition of those who stood up and made the arguments for change which eventually brought about the abolition of the trade - Lord Mansfield, Lord Kames, William Wilberforce etc... and learn from their ideals and make change in our lifetime, and perhaps in 300 years when our ancestors look back on our legacy they will view us as good people who stood up for our fellow man.

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:47 am

First define Slavery.

Conditions for workers in some Victorian factories were terrible. Dangerous machinery, polluted air, a 12-hour day six days a week, no sick pay, and exposure to diseases caused by the products being processed.

Man's inhumanity to Man is well chronicled.

by keenobserver1 Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:22 pm

oftenwrong wrote:First define Slavery.

Conditions for workers in some Victorian factories were terrible. Dangerous machinery, polluted air, a 12-hour day six days a week, no sick pay, and exposure to diseases caused by the products being processed.

Man's inhumanity to Man is well chronicled.

That sounds a bit like my current job!

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:39 pm

Excuse me, I was talking about myself, keenobserver! I have the copyright on feeling hard-done-by ©2012. Anyway in our Coalition New World anyone with a job is becoming an enviable rarity. Someone has a great future ahead of them if they start a training-course for child chimney-sweeps.

On the thread topic of slavery it is total arrogance to think that we can somehow erase the actions of our ancestors.

by keenobserver1 Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:30 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
On the thread topic of slavery it is total arrogance to think that we can somehow erase the actions of our ancestors.

Who do you refer to OW?

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:34 pm

The never-ending story ....

Guilty of 'slave trading': Family of travellers lived in luxury while beating and starving homeless men into 'state of servitude'
Family of five kept private army of labourers in cramped, squalid caravans

The Connors paid the vulnerable drifters as little as £5 a day and beat them

The victims were attacked with brooms and rakes to keep them obedient
Slaves were made to strip and one had hosepipe forced down his throat
Many were addicts who were supplied with cannabis to keep them docile
William Connors, 51, lived a life of luxury while his workforce suffered

By Emma Reynolds

PUBLISHED:14:09, 14 December 2012| UPDATED:18:10, 14 December 2012

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248125/Family-travellers-guilty-keeping-homeless-men-modern-day-slaves-beating-starving-submission.html#ixzz2F4IkJV6p
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by Guest Thu May 23, 2013 3:56 am

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge. Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses. Full texts of Terms of Use available below.]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Zong massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Zong[/i] massacre was the killing of approximately 142 enslaved Africans by the crew of the slave ship Zong in the days following 29 November 1781.^{[note 1]} The Zong was owned by a Liverpool slave-trading syndicate that had taken out insurance on the lives of the slaves. When the ship ran low on water following navigational mistakes, the crew drowned some of the slaves in the sea. The owners of the Zong subsequently made a claim to their insurers for the loss of the slaves. When the insurers refused to pay, the resulting court cases held that in some circumstances the deliberate killing of slaves was legal, and that insurers could be required to pay for the slaves' deaths.

The hearings brought the massacre to the attention of the anti-slavery campaigner Granville Sharp, who tried unsuccessfully to have the ship's crew prosecuted for murder. Reports of the massacre stimulated the nascent abolitionist movement and became a powerful symbol of the horrors of the Middle Passage of slaves to the New World. The massacre has also inspired several works of art and literature and was commemorated in 2007, the bicentenary of Britain's abolition of the slave trade.

The Zong had taken on more slaves than it could safely transport when it sailed from Accra with 442 slaves on 18 August 1781.^[9] In the 1780s, British-built ships typically carried 1.75 slaves per ton of the ship's capacity; on the Zong, the ratio was four per ton.^[21] A British slave ship of the period would carry around 193 slaves, and it was extremely unusual for a ship of the Zong's relatively small size to carry so many.^[20]

After taking on drinking water at São Tomé, the Zong began its voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to Jamaica on 6 September. On 18 or 19 November the ship neared Tobago in the Caribbean, but failed to stop there to replenish its water supplies.^[22]

It is unclear who, if anyone, was in charge of the ship at this point.^[23] The captain, Luke Collingwood, had been gravely ill for some time.^[24] The man who would normally have replaced him, first mate James Kelsall, had been suspended from duty following an argument on 14 November.^[24] Robert Stubbs had captained a slave ship several decades earlier, and he temporarily commanded the Zong in Collingwood's absence, despite not being a member of the vessel's crew.^[25] According to James Walvin, the breakdown of the command structure on the ship might explain why subsequent navigational errors were committed, and why checks on supplies of drinking water were not made.^[26] The Zong had taken on more slaves than it could safely transport when it sailed from Accra with 442 slaves on 18 August 1781.^[9] In the 1780s, British-built ships typically carried 1.75 slaves per ton of the ship's capacity; on the Zong, the ratio was four per ton.^[21] A British slave ship of the period would carry around 193 slaves, and it was extremely unusual for a ship of the Zong's relatively small size to carry so many.^[20]

After taking on drinking water at São Tomé, the Zong began its voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to Jamaica on 6 September. On 18 or 19 November the ship neared Tobago in the Caribbean, but failed to stop there to replenish its water supplies.^[22]

It is unclear who, if anyone, was in charge of the ship at this point.^[23] The captain, Luke Collingwood, had been gravely ill for some time.^[24] The man who would normally have replaced him, first mate James Kelsall, had been suspended from duty following an argument on 14 November.^[24] Robert Stubbs had captained a slave ship several decades earlier, and he temporarily commanded the Zong in Collingwood's absence, despite not being a member of the vessel's crew.^[25] According to James Walvin, the breakdown of the command structure on the ship might explain why subsequent navigational errors were committed, and why checks on supplies of drinking water were not made.^[26]

On 27 or 28 November, Jamaica was sighted at a distance of 27 nautical miles (50 km; 31 mi), but was misidentified as the French colony of Saint-Domingue on the island of Hispaniola.^[27][28] The Zong continued on its westward course, leaving Jamaica behind. This mistake was only recognised when the ship was 300 miles (480 km) leeward of the island.^[27]

Overcrowding, malnutrition, accidents and disease had already killed several mariners and approximately 62 enslaved Africans.^[29] James Kelsall later claimed that there was only four days' water remaining on the ship when the navigational error was discovered, with Jamaica still 10–13 days away.^[30]

If the slaves died onshore, the Liverpool ship-owners would have no redress from their insurers. Similarly, if the slaves died a "natural death" (as the contemporary term put it) at sea, then insurance could not be claimed. But if some slaves were jettisoned in order to save the rest of the "cargo" or the ship itself, then a claim could be made under the notion of "general average".^[31] The ship's insurance covered the loss of slaves at £30 a head.^[32]

On 29 November, the crew assembled to consider the proposal that some of the slaves should be thrown overboard.^[33] James Kelsall later claimed that he had disagreed with the plan at first, but it was soon unanimously agreed.^[32][33] On 29 November, 54 women and children were thrown through cabin windows into the sea.^[34] On 1 December, 42 male slaves were thrown overboard; 36 slaves followed in the next few days.^[34] Another ten, in a display of defiance at the inhumanity of the slavers, threw themselves overboard.^[34] Having heard the shrieks of the victims as they were thrown into the water, one slave requested that the remaining Africans be denied all food and drink rather than be thrown into the sea. This request was ignored by the crew.^[35] The account of the King's Bench trial reports that one slave managed to climb back onto the ship.^[36]

It was subsequently claimed that the slaves had been jettisoned because the ship did not have enough water to keep all the slaves alive for the rest of the voyage. This claim was later disputed, as the ship had 420 imperial gallons (1,900 l) of water left when it arrived in Jamaica on 22 December.^[32] In an affidavit made by Kelsall it was reported that on 1 December, when 42 slaves were killed, it rained heavily for more than a day, allowing six casks of water (sufficient for eleven days) to be collected.^[32][37]

Plan of the slave ship Brookes, carrying 454 slaves. Before the 1788 Slave Trade Act, the Brookes had transported 609 slaves and was 267 tons burden, making 2.3 slaves per ton. The Zong carried 442 slaves and was 110 tons burden—4.0 slaves per ton.^[20]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

You are free to:

● Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
● Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

by boatlady Thu May 23, 2013 8:08 am

Haven't we seen this before?

by oftenwrong Thu May 23, 2013 11:37 am

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is one of Aesop's Fables, numbered 210 in the Perry Index. From it is derived the English idiom "to cry wolf".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

by Guest Thu May 23, 2013 1:56 pm

boatlady wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41033

Haven't we seen this before?

No.

by Guest Thu May 23, 2013 3:19 pm

Zong massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further reading

Account of Gregson v. Gilbert in Henry Roscoe, ed. (1831). Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench 3. London. pp. 232–235Account of Gregson v. Gilbert in Henry Roscoe, ed. (1831). Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench 3. London. pp. 232–235

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre

Account of Gregson v. Gilbert in Henry Roscoe, ed. (1831). Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench 3. London. pp. 232–235Account of Gregson v. Gilbert in Henry Roscoe, ed. (1831). Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench 3. London. pp. 232–235

Gregson v. Gilbert (a).

This was an action on a policy of insurance, to recover the value of certain slaves thrown overboard for want of water. The declaration stated, that by peril of the seas, and contrary currents and other misfortunes, the ship was rendered foul and leaky, and was retarded in her voyage; and, by reason thereof, so much of the water on board the said ship, for her said voyage, was spent on board the said ship: that before her arrival at Jamaica-to wit, on, &c. a sufficient quantity of water did not remain on board the said ship for preserving the lives of the master and mariners belonging to the said ship, and of the negro slaves on board, for the residue of the said voyage; by reason whereof, during the said voyage, and before the arrival of the said ship at Jamaica-to wit, on, &c. and on divers days between that day and the arrival of the said ship at Jamaica-sixty negroes died for want of water for sustenance, and through thirst and frenzy occasioned thereby, threw themselves into the sea and were drowned; and the master and the mariners, for the preservation of their own lives, and the lives of the rest of the negroes, which for want of water they could not otherwise preserve, were obligated to throw overboard 150 other negroes.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-2kDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA232&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

by oftenwrong Thu May 23, 2013 5:10 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

by Guest Thu May 23, 2013 8:38 pm

The Zong Massacre – a summary

On 29 November 1781, Captain Luke Collingwood of the British ship, Zong, ordered one-third of his cargo to be thrown overboard. That cargo was human – 133 African slaves bound for Jamaica. His motive – to collect the insurance. The case was brought to court – not for murder, but against the insurers who refused to pay up. This is the cruel story of the Zong Massacre.

… the Zong… was cruelly overcrowded, carrying 442 Africans, destined to become slaves, accompanied by 17 crew. The human cargo was manacled and packed so tightly, to have no room to move. But for the captain, Luke Collingwood, the more Africans he could squeeze in, the greater the margin of profit for both the ship’s owners and himself.

Planning to retire, [Collingwood] hoped for a generous bounty to help him in his retirement. The greater the number of fit slaves he delivered to Jamaica, the greater his share.

… the delivery of dead slaves would earn the shipowners nothing. If, however, the Africans were somehow lost at sea, then the shipowners’ insurance would cover the loss at £30 per head.

Thus, on 29 November, 54 sick slaves, mainly women and children, were dragged from below deck, unshackled (after all, why waste good manacles?) and heaved from the ship into the ocean. The following day, more were murdered. In the end, Collingwood had thrown 133 slaves to their deaths. Many struggled and the crew had to tie iron balls to their ankles. Another ten slaves threw themselves overboard and in what Collingwood described as an act of defiance.

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/11/29/the-zong-massacre-a-summary/

by oftenwrong Thu May 23, 2013 10:21 pm

Not unlike the Friday night train from King's Cross to Edinburgh when the buffet car runs out of Tennent's.

by Guest Fri May 24, 2013 5:43 am

The Zong Massacre (1781)

… Collingwood decided to “jettison” some of the cargo in order to save the ship and provide the ship owners the opportunity to claim for the loss on their insurance.

Upon the Zong’s arrival in Jamaica, James Gregson, the ship’s owner, filed an insurance claim for their loss. Gregson argued that the Zong did not have enough water to sustain both crew and the human commodities. The insurance underwriter, Thomas Gilbert, disputed the claim citing that the Zong had 420 gallons of water aboard when she was inventoried in Jamaica. A London court found in favour of the insurers…

[Abolitionist Granville] Sharp attempted to have criminal charges brought against the Captain, crew, and the owners but was unsuccessful. Great Britain's The Solicitor General, Justice John Lee, however, refused to take up the criminal charges claiming “What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honourable men of murder… The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard.”

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=gah/zong-massacre-1781

by Guest Mon May 27, 2013 4:06 am

It is clear from recent material posted on this thread that, in 1781, the slave trade to Jamaica, and slavery in Jamaica, were recognized and supported by His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain. Great Britain’s The Solicitor General, Justice John Lee, said, “What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honourable men of murder… The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard”, indicating that His Majesty’s Government recognized and supported placing monetary value on slaves’ bodies and labor.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685p30-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41062
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=gah/zong-massacre-1781

These slaves’ bodies and labor were stolen from their rightful owners, the enslaved human beings, by various persons and entities that profited therefrom, a fact verified that slaves were insurable as property, with value placed thereon by underwriters based upon expected profits to the body-and-labor stealers. Existence of original records from slavery times, verified by material posted hereon, means that it is possible to go (1) calculate and project reasonable estimated values of Jamaican slaves, (b) identify descendants of Jamaican slaves that are alive today, and (c) provide just monetary recompense to identified descendants of slaves for estimated 21st Century monetary value of the bodies and labor stolen from their ancestors.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41044
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-2kDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA232&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Her Majesty’s Government, due to its historical verified recognition and support of this heinous thievery of bodies and labor, has a moral duty to oversee this long overdue action.

by bobby Mon May 27, 2013 3:39 pm

rockonbrother, With regards to compensation for slavery, just where do you start and where do you finish, Slavery didn't start in Africa which seems to me is the only slavery that seems to bother you. Also how did the slaves get into the hands of the slave traders, it was I believe African selling/trading African, so why don't you sort your own compensation out before bothering to get yet more hand outs to the least achieving race on the planet.

by Guest Mon May 27, 2013 5:52 pm

bobby wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685p30-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41158

rockonbrother, With regards to compensation for slavery, just where do you start and where do you finish…

With regards to Jamaican slaves whose bodies and labor were stolen under the authority and protection of His Majesty’s Government, compensation to 21st Century descendants of these innocent men, women, and children begins with Her Majesty’s Government and ends with full and just recompense to these descendants.

bobby wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685p30-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41158

… Slavery didn't start in Africa…

Enslavement of African men, women, and children sold as chattel in Jamaica under the authority and protection of His Majesty’s Government started in Africa.

bobby wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685p30-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41158

… which seems to me is the only slavery that seems to bother you.

I do not care what “seems to” you.

bobby wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t685p30-jamaica-ponders-compensation-claim-for-slavery#41158

Also how did the slaves get into the hands of the slave traders…

Why did His Majesty’s Government authorize and protect slave traders?

by bobby Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:15 pm

Why did His Majesty’s Government authorize and protect slave traders?

Evidence?

by boatlady Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:05 pm

Bobby, I think lots of Brits were slave traders back in the day.
I had a boyfriend from Bristol who told me most of the civic buildings etc were financed by the slave trade, which I think we in Britain only stopped in the 19th Century. (Sorry I'm a bit vague, and I know my boyfriend from Bristol is hardly an unimpeachable source)
Having said that - slave trading, as you've pointed out before, is an antique practice and was probably being practised in Africa already when the first slave traders from Europe and America arrived - all they did was to enable the practice to be carried out on a much larger scale.
I guess Rock's point about the inhumane practices involved with the wholesale export of slaves, and the fact that the men and women enslaved in this way were regarded as animals rather than human beings, has a lot of validity in terms of his and his forbears' life experiences and it would be natural to still feel angry about the abuses that took place in the past and the racism that still pervades society today.
Payment of compensation would be more or less impossible in my view, and anyway what's really needed is to confront and eliminate racism within our societies.
My grandfather went down the pit and died of mining associated lung disease - I don't want compensation - I want people to have safer working lives, because that's what makes sense in terms of moving on.

Basketball

by Sponsored content