[/quote]
Brazil and the Ottoman Empire, for two.
Possibly Spain and Portugal.
I know for a fact that Britain and France didn’t. But that’s about it.
I fail to see how admitting ones past errors could do anything but show a nation in a good light.
I believe Spain did not allow it in the metropolis but it was allowed in Cuba and Puerto Rico, last Spanish possesions in America. Spain had already lost all of their American possesions and could only keep Cuba by allowing slavery. In the mid 19th century Spain was bankrupt and had little military power and Cuban economy was already largely in the hands of USA citizens from the south who replicated the slave economy they had in their own states. Spain knew that abolishing slavery meant the American sugar mill owners would revolt and Cuba would be lost. After the US civil war slavery in Cuba lasted for a while but was phased out gradually (and Spain lost Cuba to the USA anyway). Source: Cuba or the pursuit of freedom by Hugh Thomas, an excellent book on the history of Cuba.
This is a shameful for Spain which, contrary to what many people may think, had a very good record in what today we would call “human rights” 400 years earlier. As Spain lost the empire and was weakened, it also lost any will to fight for what is right and in the case of Cuba it just did whatever it took to hold on to it which is shameful. It would have been more honorable to lose Cuba decades earlier and not compromise on the issue of slavery.
You know this is the first I’ve heard of this, and I had been thinking of such a memorial since learning more of the history of the construction of DC. Anyway…
This Op-Ed is typical of the thinking of Black Conservatives that so frustrates me. I’ve been trying to find a term that fits it, but let me state it this way: There are in some quarters people who are so intensely caught up in the idea of a colorblind society, that even simple acknowledgement of disparities/predudice past or present makes them uncomfortable. Further they generally couch their objections/concerns by demonizing those who disagree with them as race-baiters. While true that there are those who seem to make their living playing the race card. I think it’s unacceptable not to make efforts like these out of fear that they may be misused.
Incidentally Sowell is regulary picked up by my local rag, and their are times I find myself in agreement with him (I consider myself moderate). On this issue I think he’s plainly wrong.
The National Slavery Museum is going in my hometown, Fredericksburg, VA. You can read all about it righ here:
To my knowledge, pretty much all the nations south of the U.S. abolished slavery after we did. Its still going on over section of Africa and Asia. Europeans banned it beforehand largely because of changing economic conditions rather than any moral outrage. Basically, the only real reason it continued in the U.S. was because we made money at it (albeit barely in some areas).
In any event, a difference of a few years either way is a drop in the bucket considering that slavery had previously existed in some form or another in nearly every society since the dawn of time, everywhere.
The editorial in the OP stated that “the West” lead the charge to abollich slavery, with the implication that the US is part of “the West”. My comment was to rebut that claim as the US, as a whole, was in no way in the forefront of that movement. The US was lagging in this one. It’s not about timing. It’s about who was leading and who was following.
This Sowell chap is a very interesting writer, and I find myself agreeing with him more or less completely.
Here is the second part of that article, which follows the first but is inexplicably not linked to it.
My own feeling is that unless you believe in racial (inherited) guilt, which is as stupid and as dangerous a doctrine as can be conceived of, there is no justification to your creating such a monument today.
For surely if we’re honest with ourselves and trust to our knowledge of our fellow man, the monument would be very divisive indeed. What would the modern white American be supposed to make of it, if not “Here’s something awful which you had no control over, which was ended hundreds of years before you were born, but we want you to be ashamed of it anyway”.
Don’t think I’m advocating denial, far from it, but my understanding is that the history of slavery is pretty well taught in US schools already. What value is this monument going to add? What problem does it solve?
Several posters, and Sowell, seem to assume the monument is to be put there to shame the white community.
What about honouring the memories of the dead and enslaved?
I agree that the motivations of some peripheral agitators and bandwagon-jumpers may be suspect, but shouldn’t this part of US history be acknowledged and given some symbol by which people who feel themselves connected to the tragedies can honour those who suffered and died?
Please address how any of the existing monuments fit your criteria.
We’re not debating any of the other monuments. As an ignorant Brit, I’d hesitate to even identify them! 
But I will say that I like to see public monuments dedicated to a nation’s achievements, and to it’s exceptional citizens. Something that the random Joe walking past it can look at and feel good about. This might sound as if I am excluding war memorials, but I am not. I personally find them an inspiring testament to the nations’ strength and courage.
What good is there to be felt about a monument to slavery?
A monument to slavery would acknowledge the more than 200 years of laboring under the whip that tens of millions of Americans did. It is an ugly part of American history, but it is still a part of this country’s history and it deserves to be told and memorialized.
Of course, if memorials have to be dedicated to a nation’s achievements, I suggest that we contact Egypt immediately and get those damn pyraminds torn down at once.
Remembrance of our history. So we’re not, y’know, condemned to repeat it and all that. Although along those lines, I’m fully in agreement with minty et al. that a museum would be much better. And no offense meant to the good people of Fredericksburg, but that museum should be in Washington.
Amen. Why celebrate evil done by Americans? [sarcasm]Should we also have a museum of American traitors and Communists? How about a museum of murderers and rapists?[/sarcasm]
Maybe we need a museum of black intellectuals, rather than a slavery museum. Every American knows about slavery, but even so learned a poster as Collounsbury is unaware of the work of Thomas Sowell.
Note that slavery wasn’t ended in the 19th century nor in the 20th. It exists right now in Sudan. There’s something off-putting about celebrating a long-past memory of slavery, but ignoring the real thing.
This leads to the Holocost Museum. which Gadarene and RickJay mentioned. This museum has been failure at its stated goal of encouraging us to be more active in preventing future genocide. Americans had little interest in the Communist genocide in Cambodia or the genocide going on right now in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe. We may visit the Holocost Museum filled with self-congratulations, but we turn our backs on today’s urgent needs.
Would a Slavery Museum encourage America to more forcefully oppose slavery in the Sudan? I don’t think so.
What the hell would be “divisive” about such a memorial? Would it pit the antislavery people against the pro-slavery people? Or the mall clutterers agains the mall minimalists? Please, please explain what would be divisive.
In that particular case I’d argue that the pyramids are the achievement.
Does the Vietnam Memorial celebrate our losses in Vietnam? How about the WWII memorial? Or do they acknowledge the losses of life, and tell something of our history?
Do the War Memorials I mentioned cause America to forcefully oppose wars? I don’t think so?
There is no reason why it couldn’t be designed to do so. In fact, if it does come about, it should be designed to address the fact that slavery continues to exist to this day.