Kings against abolition
No less than two important kings of West-Africa protested against unilateral abolition. In the 1720’s, Whydah became Dahomey’s major port of trade. Records show that by the 1750’s, it alone was exporting more slaves than all the trading stations of the Gold Coast put together. The King of Dahomey remarked to Governor Abson of the African Company’s fort at Whydah: ‘‘What hurts me most is that some of your people have maliciously represented us in books that never die, alleging that we sell our wives and children for the sake of a few kegs of brandy. No. We are shamefully belied. We do indeed sell to the white men a part of our prisoners and we have a right to do so. Are not all prisoners at the disposal of their captors? And are we to blame if we send delinquents to a far country? I have been told you do the same!’’ (A. Dalzel, The History of Dahomey. London. 1793, p. 219)
In another dialogue with Joseph Dupuis, British Consul at Kumasi, the asantehene Osei Bonsu stated: ‘‘The white men do not understand my country or they would not say the slave trade was bad. But if they think it bad now, why did they think it good before? Is not your law an old law, the same as the Crammo (Moslem) law? Crammos say the law is good because the great God made the book, so they buy slaves. You must put down in my master’s book all I shall say and then he will look to it now he is my friend. And when he sees what is true, he will surely restore that trade. I cannot make war to catch slaves in the bush, like a thief. My ancestors never did so. But if I fight a king and kill him when he is insolent, then certainly I must have his gold and his slaves and the people are mine too. Do not the white kings act like this?’’ (J. Dupuis, Journal of a residence in Ashantee. London 1824).
Lawyers can’t solve anything. That’s why we have judges!
Hey, God is a judge. Let’s ask Him! I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess the whole Chosen People thing might help decide the case.
Of course, He might have to recuse Himself based on the whole appearance of impropriety and all. But if God could act improper, wouldn’t that prove the failability of the Lord and thus doom the entire universe?
This case opens up a great deal of legal questions.
with a heritage of German, American Indian, and Irish.
I’m a Trekker.
You know, the more I think about it, the more people I’ve got to sue. All the oppresion, bad weather, and canon bashing my people have suffered.
Unless you actually know which ship brought your ancestors to the New World, I’d say you’d be more accurate in suing the Dutch and the Portuguese, who pretty much controlled the slave transportations. I’m sure the Spaniards did their share, too, mind. Good luck with whomever you sue!
Not that I’m claiming no discrimination of Jews ever took place here, but I feel I must point out that the Netherlands was a bit of a “safe haven” for Jews long before their presence in Europe was accepted throughout the continent. It dates back to the Sefardic Jews fleeing Inquisition-led Spain (and Portugal), and seeking refuge in the Netherlands in the late 15th/early 16th century. Now, it should be stressed that they were not accepted as equal citizens straightaway: the Netherlands was largely Protestant at the time (certainly, the political centers were), and Jews were restricted in the professions they could persue. This injustice was corrected about 200 years ago, and Jews have been relatively free of discrimination here ever since. Which is not to day discrimination doesn’t occure here, of course: it does. The ugly side of that surfaced in WWII, when lots of seemingly nice Dutchmen and -women turned in their Jewish neighbours, often people with whom they had a normal relationship before.
On the whole, though, I’d have to say that as far as institutionalised discrimination against Jews goes, the Netherlands has actually been a rather tolerant exception in Europe throughout the centuries. The same applies to Belgium, although the parts of Belgium to which this applies (mainly the Antwerp region) were of course Dutch at the time.
What??? I typed out half the history of my nation because of YOUR stupid mistake?
I’m gonna sue your Yankee ass.
Well, the loss of Nieuw Amsterdam… I don’t know. We sort of swapped it with the Brits, and got Suriname in return.
Stop laughing.
No, stop it.
There’s lots of bauxite in Suriname, you know. And, uh, forrests.
Stop it.
Oh, all right. New rules. A nation can’t sue any other nation if the economic loss happened because of sheer stupidity. Which means the US can’t sue half the Middle East, because you can’t blame someone for fighting if you arm them first.
As batty as these claims are, are they any worse than the ones made by those Israelis who push for eretz Israel? Indeed, the two claims seem intertwined. Maybe there’ll be a counterclaim.
Or perhaps everyone ought to call it even and do justice to the present. The past is old enough to take care of itself.
Rather than get into the questions of plunder / extortion vs. 400 years of back wages (plus interest and penalties), I think the Jews should exercise a prior claim against all of Egypt for saving their (the Egyptians’) butts from extinction by starvation, along with large portions of the western Levant. (Gen. 41 and following.)
