Spanish v. English Conquest

Thank you for a wonderful and elightening article on European imperialism in the New World.

I am curious though regarding your allusion to Spanish patterns of conquest versus the English model. The subject of your article is concerned with the UK's pattern of domination in the Americas, although you do say:

"In contrast to the Spaniards who frequently intermarried with the native populations of Mexico, Central America and South America, the English followed a pattern of driving away the peoples they defeated."

 I would like to hear more of your thoughts on the consequences of Spanish intermarriage. It's posed as almost a moderating influence on the historical judgement to be rendered upon Spanish conquest versus British conquest.

 However, Spain did not officially end slavery until 1886, while the English abolished slavery in 1834, fully a half century before Spain, with some notable exceptions such as India and South Africa.

Spanish intermarriage was closely related to Spanish national identity which, of course, was based on militant Catholicism and blood ancestry. However, it does not follow that racism was not very real in Spanish America (in contrast with English America). To the contrary, racism and classism in Spanish America was not diffused due to intermarriage; in fact, it was more nuanced and complicated, but all-too-present nevertheless.

 Can you expand on your comments? What is your views on racism and Spanish America?

by Constance Lavender (89 articles, 0 quicklinks, 84 diaries, 214 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 11:20:25 AM
 

US Puritanism

Thank you for a great article. I think it would be more accurate to call those who hold private property sacrosanct "capitalists", because that is what they are. They are the ones who destroyed the monarchies of Europe and went forth to do commerce in the "land of opportunity". The Puritans were nominally motivated by freedom of religion, but what they really sought was trade. I have put together a thumbnail history of the dark side of the US, which you might find interesting.
___________________________


The War of Independence. From the earliest days of the Republic, Revolutionary fighters were put in prison for debt. Congress suppressed uprisings by force. Slave states, like Missouri, remained. Explorations were made for conquest. Killing of Indians continued unabated. The colonization of Texas was part of the westward movement of empire. The idea of "Manifest Destiny" was used by American expansionists to justify U.S. annexation of Texas, Oregon, New Mexico and California, and later U.S. involvement in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The U.S. was also bent on acquiring Cuba, and drew up the manifesto saying that if Spain refused to sell Cuba, the United States would be justified in taking it by force. At the same time, massive anti-Irish, and antiimmigrant sentiment ocurred in the wake of Irish immigration into the country. William Walker, with a small army, invaded Nicaragua, legalizing slavery. The westward movement fueled the desire for land, leading to a long series of evictions of Plains Indians from their lands onto less desirable reservations. Mining rushes elsewhere in the years of the war resulted in the forcible takeover of the territories of Arizona (1863), Idaho (1863), and Montana (1864) and Wyoming.
The economy. Robber barons used deception, violence, kidnappings and extraordinary dishonesty to gain economic power and industrial supremacy. Their capitalist heart only beat when the market went up or down’ otherwise they were indifferent to human suffering. In the same way when capitalists spoke of discipline or “being responsible,” they meant coercion, which is lacking in moral content. The most rapacious of the money makers, who are prepared to indulge in any roguery, deception and crime, amassed enormous fortunes. At the same time there is a depression and numerous wage reductions. Lack of safety in the workplace was illustrated in the shirt factory fire when forty-seven young women, mostly immigrants, leaped to their deaths, while another 99 died in the flames. To keep working people under control, Jim Crow laws were introduced, leading to a segregated society. This inspired record lynchings of African Americans.
In Bisbee, Arizona, local officials rounded up over 1,000 striking miners, one-third of them Mexican Americans, and about 50 recent members of the Industrial Workers of the World, and shipped them into the desert of New Mexico without food or water. Sacco and Vanzetti were falsely accused of robbery in Braintree, Massachusetts. The trial lasted seven years and represented the culmination of widespread attacks on persons of foreign birth.
Expansion outside the U.S. 1898, the U.S.S. Maine was blown up by Hearst in Habana harbor, to create a strong feeling against Spain in the United States. In 1916 the U.S. began its occupation. U.S. military rule encouraged the dislodging of small landowners and favored the interests of large corporations. The CIA launched “Operation Success” to overthrow the Arbenz government in Guatemala. The U.S. Navy bombarded San Juan de Puerto Rico and invaded the island. U.S. troops entered Panama City to put down striking workers who were calling for lower rents. Numerous workers were killed in the incident. U.S. Marines are landed in Honduras. Somoza, under U.S. instructions ordered Sandino's execution. In the following weeks scores of Sandino's followers were rounded up and executed. The U.S. gained control of customs in El Salvador, in in the event of default on loans, and accelerated its emergence as the dominant investor. The U.S. Marines occupied Haiti seized $500,000 in gold coin from the National Bankand took over banks and customs houses and broke up small-scale peasant holdings to protect and expand U.S.-owned enterprises. U.S. administrators devastate traditional landholders. Hostilities in the Phillipines broke out, and for the next three years an American army of 60,000 fought guerrilla warfare, with all its attendant horrors.
The Stock Market Crash was the culmination of the boom market and unrestrained speculation of the Coolidge era. It ushered in a prolonged depression that gradually settled upon the country with increasing unemployment, bank failures, and business disasters. The Taft-Hartley Act was passed to weaken the trade unions, restrict political rights of unions, outlaw the closed shop, and empower the president to defer strikes indefinitely. Unemployment and underemployment became an increasingly serious problem and was aggravated by the shift from high-wage manufacturing to lower-paying jobs in various service industries.
Assassinations. President Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., Martin Luther King was killed by an assassin. American cities become the scene of pitched battles between Blacks aroused by government terrorism and police reinforced by army units. Malcolm X, former Black Muslim leader, in New York City was assassinated. Students were shot at Kent state. Black Panther leader Fred Hampton was mudered in a Chicago police raid.
Further foreign adventures. The invasion of Korea was described as a “police action,” The mercenary invasion of Cuba, coded “Operation Pluto”, was made up of 1,500 men who landed at the Bay of Pigs. From Nicaragua, 8 B-26 bombers attacked 3 Cuban airports. The U.S. announced that its troops would join South Vietnamese forces in an invasion of Cambodia to destroy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong bases near the border of South Vietnam. In Chile, President Allende is overthrown in a U.S.-backed military coup.
National deterioration. A serious accident occurred at the Three Mile Island reactor in 1979 in Pennsylvania. The U.S. experienced the painful transition from a creditor to a debtor nation, with the world's largest foreign debt and a rising foreign trade deficit that peaked at $171 billion in 1987. The The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization union (PATCO) struck to protest a two-tier pay system and overly stressful working conditions. Pres. Reagan fired the more than 10,000 striking members of PATCO, about three-quarters of the nation's air traffic controllers. Reagan's get-tough policy began an era of business anti-unionism. The Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which was at war with Iraq, hoping to gain Iran's cooperation in freeing American hostages. The first of several mines in Nicaraguan harbors, planted by U.S. agents, was detonated. The nation's “thrifts,” as the Savings &Loans are called, were deregulated in the early 1980s to allow them to invest in commercial real estate and business. However, the thrifts became unstable because many of their investments reflected the growth in the 1980s of high-risk “junk bonds,” which were speculative or fraudulent. In 1987, the instability of these investments became apparent as stock prices plummeted and with them the solvency of the thrifts. The losses were great. Close to 12.8 percent of all Americans, about 31.5 million people, were classified as poor by federal standards; that is, they sustained an income of $12,675 or less for a family of four. The Persian Gulf War was led by the United States. Black motorist Rodney King is arrested and brutally beaten by members of the Los Angeles Police Department. A civilian video of the arrest and beating led to criminal charges against the A U.S. Department of Defense report revealed that at least 117 naval officers could face disciplinary action growing out of sexual assaults on some 90 people at a 1991 Las Vegas convention of the Tailhook aviators group.More than 300 Republican candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives met outside the Capitol building in Washington, DC, and signed what they called a “Contract with America,” a 10-point plan of conservative reforms designed to reverse expenditures for social welfare, “get tough on crime,” and add a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, among other objectives. Pres. Clinton signed NAFTA into law, creating unemployment and hunger in Latin American countries. A huge car bomb exploded in Oklahoma City killing more than two hundred people, including approximately 24 children. The government began to disclose information about radiation experiments it conducted from the 1940s through the 70s on people who has no knowledge of them. The U.S. launched missile attacks on Iraqi military sites.A U.S. House ethics subcommittee found that Speaker Newt Gingrich violated House ethics rules by accepting tax-exempt donations and using the funds for political purposes.The tobacco industry reached an agreement with dozens of claimants in lawsuits against the industry. Production rose while purchases stagnated, a sure sign of overproduction.The IMF slashed living standards, strongly resisted by Brazilian workers. U.S. unemployment rose, compounded by the reduction of anti-poverty measures and elimination of affirmative action. The invasion of Iraq cost that country more than 120 billion in oil revenues, left a million Iraqi children malnourished and 700,000 dead. The objective was to force privatization of Iraq’s oil reserves to benefit American oil giants. The U.S. destroyed a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum falsely accused of making chemical weapons. A retaliatory strike for U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States forces played a key role in NATO bombing missions against the Serb government in Yugoslavia.The Kansas Board of Education removed Darwin's Theory of Evolution from the state's science curriculum. The U.S. Senate rejected ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would bar nuclear weapons testing in any form. Microsoft Corp. went on trial for two antitrust lawsuits. US.-bombed other countries like Iraq and Yugoslavia; tried to starve countries as in sanctioning Cuba and Iraq; aiding and abetting massacres in Timor and Turkey, and with increasing danger, Colombia; propelled IMF and World Bank income inequality and ecological devastation; advanced domestic police and prison violence that turned communities into occupied battle zones; imposed welfare havoc that further impoverished the already poor; facilitated generalized corporate rapaciousness that materially and socially diminished workers’ lives; legislated the collapse of health care that allowed people to drop dead instead of being cared for and restored; entrenched citizen and worker disempowerment from all sides of economic and political decision-making; abetted media madness that robed culture of content; enabled dis-education of the youth that they might fit awaiting social slots needing them to obey authority and endure boredom; partaking of the alienation of most sides of life by elevating profits over people; procuring weapons without limit; and battering and bashing the poor, the homeless, the gay, the female, the black or latino…with minimal outcry and reply. A whispering campaign of lies in the South Carolina Presidential Primary to destroy Republican John McCain.
The Bush regime saw the largest and most miserable failures of corporate accountability in modern history: Enron, Worldcom, and Fannie Mae. The 2004 budget set the record for the largest deficit in history: either $477 billion or $521 billion (CBO and OMB numbers, respectively). The value of the dollar collapsed 30% during his term. Bush fired anyone critical or objecting of his policies, while he rewarded those who spoke welcome lies. He held 660 prisoners in Guantanamo, Cuba for over two years without trial or formal charge. His prisoners, several of whom were between the ages of 13 and 16, were never formally charged. They were kept in steel cages, subjected to ongoing torture, and denied access to legal counsel in opposition to Supreme Court rulings (Rasul v. Bush). His Secretary of Defense was the first in US history to have acknowledged ordering an intentional violation of the Geneva Conventions, in which Abu Ghraib prisoners are held "off the books" and hidden from the Red Cross. The United States unilaterally delivered an ultimatum demanding that Saddam Hussein leave Iraq within 48 hours. Hans Blix compared the selling of the Iraq war to the selling of a refrigerator. The Bush administration falsely claimed that Iraq had ties to al Qaida, that it was building nuclear weapons. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law because it was not passed by the UN, giving rein to massive protests worldwide. US forces illegally used white phosphorous in Fallujah, burning women and children to death. Iraq rapidly hurtled to disintegration under the weight of Abu Ghraib torture and abuse, the Haditha muder of 24 women and children, the Ishaqi muder of civilians, the Hamadiyah incident, the kidnaping and murder of a civilian, the Malmudihay incident, the gang rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her parents and sister, and Mukaradeeb, the bombing and killing of 42 civilians.

by Guajolotl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 2:20:42 PM
 

Comparing Apples and Apples

I would, also, like to hear your views on the end results of English colonies as compared to those of the Spanish and where those peoples are today. Is it better to be a former English colony or a former Spanish colony? Why do think your answer is true?

You can throw in a comparison of the French colonies and where those areas are today, and do not forget the Portuguese and the German colonies. How about the Russian colonies also?

The most interesting would be to know what the peoples who were conquered or colonized by the Muslims since we are equating colonization with conquering.

You might like to compare the countries of North America with those of South America, the English colonies of India with the French Indo-China. Please do not forget the conquered countries and peoples of Africa.

How do the former colonies compare and contrast with each other for stability of governments, economical opportunity for citizens living in those former colonies and conquered territories, religious freedom, and democracy.

I know Canada, United States, India, New Zealand,  and Australia were former English colonies. I know those countries from Mexico to the southern tip of South America were Spanish colonies, with on one or two exceptions

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments) on Sunday, May 6, 2007 at 10:25:08 PM
 

Colonization by Muslims

In all  fairness the primary Moslem empires  of Iran and Turkey in 16th and 17th Centuries especially colonized, for instance the PreCaucasion districts of Georgia  and Armenia with brutal force and   forced conversion into Islam.  Shah Abbas, the current Iranian national hero  not only several times  invaded Georgia but killed hundreds of thousands, deported  the same amounts and forcefully converted those into Islam. Women, including nuns were sold to harems. Turks did the same on in the districts of Crimea and also at the shore districts of Georgia and especially cruel -in Armenian campaigns.  Whenever possible Islam was proclaimed the governing religion and there were times when the Georgian Tzars were Moslems. They had to do that to survive. In fact Turks were even more feared not only because of the oppression but also due to the slavery encouraged when  people sold members of their families to  harems and other places. Turkish soldiers, the enicheri were known for their ferocity and they never took prisoners. Rapes were very common.

In the last invasion of Georgia in the 18th Cemtury Aga - Mohammed, Shah of Iran totally destroyed the Georgian capital Tbilisi,  men were all killed and women up to 60 years old - all raped  and one of their eyes were plucked out.  That is when the last Georgian Tzar, Iraklii asked for the Russian help and allied himself with Russia.

Yep, Moslems were not angels. Far from it. The truth though is that not even  one simple Moslem  in Turkey or Iran benefited from it: the loot was taken by the big ones. Just like now we do that here.

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:49:41 AM
 

Russian History and Literature

Panurg,

Thank you for writing this answer to my inquiry.

One of my two "majors" in college was history, the other being literature. My MA emphasis was on Germany from 1914 to 1945, especially the Death Camps.

I must confess, too, my time in Literature touched little on easern European literature reading only "War and Peace" and "Ana Karenina."  I read with delight "Notes from the Underground" by Fydor Dostovsky. I enjoyed "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but the religious rigth wing here in the States has ruined him for me by using him to attack political and social liberalism, if you can imagine. I read Pasternak's "Dr Zhivago" only after I saw the movie and after my university days. One of my term papers was written on the Battle of Stalingrad which I saw as the turning point of WW II.

Other than these, again, I must confess I am pretty ignorant of Russian and Eastern European history and literature. Thank you for the history lesson.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments) on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 9:57:19 PM
 

On reading War and Peace

....that's an acccomplishment worthy of degree in itself....

by Constance Lavender (89 articles, 0 quicklinks, 84 diaries, 214 comments) on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 5:58:30 AM
 

I am delighted

to find out that  you had enjoyed those literary pieces although I have to say that  I was always puzzled why those  enormous novels were  chosen  for the western readers instead of , say  'Sevastopol stories' by Tolstoy, which are much easier to read. I have to say, though that  in the education I had the western literature in translations was in abundance and I read Washington Irving and Cooper and Hawthorne in translations when I was a teenager. Maybe we read so much because we had no TV:)  I wanted also to answer your question about Moslem colonization to  address the issue of my  alleged subjectivity and to prove that I in no way idealize the past of anyone.  One of my beloved authors Alexander Griboyedov was torn to pieces by the Moslem fanatics is Tehran in 1828 for allowing several people  an asylum from persecution. He was at that time an official Russian ambassador there and  to  plead for forgiveness the Iranian Shah offered the greatest diamond 'Shah' from his collection to the Russian Tzars.  Griboyedov was  very respected in Caucasus and his remains were honorably buried in Tbilisi in the sacred Mtazminda cemetery. And now, in the twisted irony the current Georgian rulers, the Christians want to exume his remains because he was a Russian! Go figure.

History  does not tell us justice, I suppose,  But we take from it not ashes but fire. Those are the words by Jean Joris, the French socialist, but I assume, you and me, we will understand that.

by Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments) on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 12:35:06 PM
 

English & Spanish Conquest

This is an edited version of the letter I sent to Constance Lavender. I felt it necessary to post it here in light of the questions that have been put forward.

I will attempt, in this writing to further elaborate upon the differences between the system of slavery under English and Spanish rule. However, if American colonial law is to be understood, then we must first look to English laws and customs. It was English law that ruled the American colonies in their infancy and it was English customs that determined the attitudes of the colonists towards the Native & African-American peoples (and it was England that the colonists fought to have independence from). It is also worthy of note that since the English newcomers identified themselves as being "Christian," they also sought to find some sort of religious and or spiritual justification for their actions and behavior.

So with that understanding, I believe we can receive greater insight into these slave institutions if we look at the North American & South American frameworks. Slavery, as it existed in British North America, contained interesting points of comparison and contrast with the slave system existing in Portuguese and Spanish South America. Although both institutions were geared to the needs of capitalistic agriculture, the rights and privileges of the South American planter were restricted and challenged at many points by the traditional powers the Crown and the Church. On one hand, capitalism, unimpeded by other powerful institutions, created a closed slave system which regimented the totality of the slave's life. On the other hand, through the clash of competing institutions, the slave as been left with a little opportunity in which he could develop as a person.

In the seventeenth century, while the British colonies were being established in North America and their slave system was being created, the English Crown underwent a series of severe shocks including two revolutions. Although it eventually emerged secure, the monarchy managed to survive only by making its peace with the emerging commercial and industrial forces. These same crises undermined the authority of the Church as a powerful institution in society. The nonconformist sects were the stronghold of the merchant class and spread rapidly in the American colonies. There, instead of being a check on the commercial spirit, the Church itself had become dominated by the middle class.

Equally important is the fact that in colonial America the level of religious life was very low. Most colonists, with the exception of the original founders who had fled religious persecution, did not come for religious freedom but for economic advancement. When some Virginians at the end of the seventeenth century, petitioned the government to build a college for the training of ministers, they were told to forget about the cure of souls and instead to cure tobacco. The result was that the planter class, unchallenged by any other powerful institutions, was free to shape a slave system to meet its labor needs. In any conflict which arose between personality rights and property rights the property rights of the master were always protected.

In contrast, the South American planter would not have such a free hand in shaping his own affairs. The Renaissance and Reformation had not made the same impact on Spain and Portugal as they did on the rest of Western Europe. Consequently, secularization and commercialization had not progressed as far in eroding the traditional power and prestige of the Crown and the Church.

Although both institutions readily compromised with capitalist interests and strove to develop a working alliance with them, neither the Crown nor the Church in Spain and Portugal had ever been taken over by the commercial interests.

Both Spain and Portugal had had continuous contact with slavery extending back into ancient times. Roman law as well as the Church fathers had concerned themselves with it, and these concepts had been incorporated into Spanish and Portuguese law. Also, slaves continued to exist in both countries down to modern times. Therefore, when Portugal began importing slaves from West Africa in the fifteenth century, the institution of slavery was already in existence. Before long, significant numbers of African slaves were to be found in both Portugal and Spain. When the South American planters began importing slaves, slavery already had a framework and a tradition within which the planter had to operate.

The Spanish Crown devoted a great deal of time and energy to the supervision of its overseas possessions. Instead of permitting considerable local autonomy as the British did, the Spanish Council of the Indies in Madrid assumed a stance of illiberal, paternal, bureaucratic control. From the point of view of the colonial capitalists, the cumbersome royal bureaucracy was always involved in troublesome meddling which impeded their progress. As part of the careful management of its colonies, the Crown strove to control the operation of the slave trade. Similarly, it was concerned with the treatment of the African slaves within the colonies. The Spanish Crown included the slaves as persons instead of relegating them solely to the status of property at the disposal of their owners.

The Church, as a powerful institution, jealously guarded its right to be the guardian and protector of social morality. Besides being concerned with influencing individual behavior, the Church insisted that it was a social institution with the right to interfere in matters relating to public morals. In fact, it was through this role that the Church was able to exercise its worldly powers. While condemning slavery as an evil and warning that it endangered those who participated in it, the Church found it expedient to accept slavery as a labor system. However, it insisted that the African slaves must be Christianized.

Missionaries were sent to the trading stations on the African coast where the captives were baptized and catechized. The Church feared that the purity of the faith might be undermined by the infusion of pagan influences. Then, when a slave ship reached the New World, a friar boarded the ship and examined the slaves to see that the requirements had been met. The Church also insisted that the slaves become regular communicants, and it liked to view itself as the champion of their human rights.

The degree to which the individual rights of the slave were either protected or totally suppressed provides a clearer insight to the differences between North American and South American slavery. The laws outlining the rights of slaves have been traditionally placed into four categories: term of servitude, marriage and the family, police and disciplinary powers, and, finally, property and other civil rights.

In both systems the term of servitude was for life, and the child's status was inherited from its mother. Children of slave mothers were slaves, and children of free mothers were free regardless of the status of the father. Inherited lifetime slavery was the norm.

Manumission--granting freedom--was infrequent in British North America. Occasionally, masters who had fathered slave children would later give them their freedom. A few other slaves were able to purchase their own freedom although, strictly speaking, this was a legal impossibility. The slave was not able to own property according to the law, and this meant that the money with which he purchased his freedom had always belonged to his master. Obviously, he could only do this with his master's fullest cooperation.

In South America, however, manumission was much more frequent. This practice received highly favorable social sanction, and masters often celebrated national holidays, anniversaries, birthdays, and other special events by manumitting one or more of their favorite slaves.

The law also defended the right of the slave to purchase his own freedom. He had the right to own property and could accumulate funds with which he might eventually achieve his dream. He also had the right to demand that his master or the courts set a fixed price for his purchase which he could then pay over a period of years. Sundays and holidays were for the slave to use as he saw fit, and, in some cases, he was also guaranteed a couple of hours every day for his own use. During this time he could sell his services and save the proceeds. The law also stated that parents of ten or more children were to be set free. Finally, slaves could be freed by the courts as the result of mistreatment by their masters.

While there was much sentiment in North America supporting marriages among slaves, and there was much animosity against masters who separated families through sale, the law was unambiguous on this point. Slaves were property, and therefore could not enter into contracts including contracts of marriage. Jurists also noted that to prevent the sale of separate members of a family would lower the sale price, and this was to tamper with a man's property. Therefore, property rights had to be placed above marriage rights. In contrast, in South America the Church insisted that slave unions be brought within the sacrament of marriage. The Church also strove to limit promiscuous relationships between slaves as well as between masters and slaves, and it encouraged marriage instead of informal mating. Also, the law forbade the separate sale of members of the family, husband, wife, and children under the age of ten.

The general thrust of the laws outlining police and disciplinary powers in North America was to entrust complete jurisdiction to the master. One judge had laid down the law that the master's power must be absolute in order to render slave obedience perfect, and, although the courts were empowered to discipline slaves in certain situations, the masters generally acted as judges, juries, and dispensers of punishments. In those rare cases where the law did protect the slave against extreme mistreatment, its protection was nullified by the universal proscription against any slave or Black person testifying in court against any white. The court also had assumed that it was irrational for a man to destroy his own property, and, therefore, it was impossible for a master to commit premeditated murder against one of his own slaves.

However, in South America the court exercised much more Jurisdiction over the slave. Crimes committed by a slave were prosecuted by the court, and, if a slave was murdered, this case was prosecuted by the court as if the victim had been a free man. The law also made a more concerted attempt to protect the slave against mistreatment by his master. A certain type of state lawyer was an official protector of the slaves; he received regular reports on slave conditions from priests as well as from special investigative officials who had been appointed by the state for this purpose. Mistreatment could lead both to the freedom of the slave and to the imprisoning of the master. The law had devised an ingenious system whereby the fine was divided equally between the judge, the informer, and the state treasury.

Finally, the slave in North America could not own property and had absolutely no civil rights. The law clearly stated that he could neither own, inherit, will property nor engage in buying and selling except at the pleasure of his master. In contrast, the slave in South America could own property, could engage in buying and selling, and was guaranteed Sundays, holidays, and other times which to work for his own advancement. In short, the law implied that while the master could own a man's labor, he could not own the man as a person.

Also to answer the argument that "Spain did not officially end slavery until 1886, while the English abolished slavery in 1834," I am happy you mentioned the "notable" exceptions of India and South Africa--- to quote MLK, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Let us also remember that after the American "emancipation," there existed a brutal system of legalized segregation (also called Jim Crow). Additionally, if the writings of Dickens' are to be believed, there existed within England a class system that wasn't much better than the system of slavery.

To answer the question of comparing apples to apples, I will only say this: the subjugation and annihilation of whole nations and tribes of people can not be justified or explained away by the oppressor's subsequent prosperity.

by Edward Rhymes PhD (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:46:19 AM
 

Thank you for your response.

by Constance Lavender (89 articles, 0 quicklinks, 84 diaries, 214 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:47:04 PM
 

Martin Bernal's Black Athena

For purposes of clarification, in the final analysis no one person or group "owns" a culture any more than one may "own" a slave. The history of slavery is also the story of resistance and liberation.

That said, philosophy is qualitatively a different project than history: where philosophy may speculate on the possibilities, history reflects on the realities.

Human moral agency requires us to reconcile the two: while they may be qualitatively different activities, they are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Do both the historical and philosophical enterprises operate by a dialectic? And at what point, or points, might they intersect (synthesis)?

Just some random thoughts....

by Constance Lavender (89 articles, 0 quicklinks, 84 diaries, 214 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:58:58 PM
 

400 Years And Counting

Thank you for your answers. I agree with everything you said.

I am afraid my question was simpler. I notice in the areas where the British had colonies, there seem to be a continuity and prosperity of those former colonies; whereas where France, Germany, Portugal and Spain had colonies, those people seem to still suffer from instability and poverty. I was simply asking, why do you think this is true?

There is not one real democratic or prosperous country south of the Rio Grande River, but the United States and Canada are both stable and prosperous, the same can be said of Australia, New Zealand and India.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments) on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 9:24:54 PM