Wreck found by reporter may be last American slave ship
al.com
al.com
> "These ships were the 18-wheelers of their day. They were designed to haul a huge amount of cargo in relatively shallow water,"
Yet this ship supposedly came from Africa. It's not shallow coming from Africa.
But that's just what I think, based on extremely limited understanding of the material. Hopefully someone can clarify and/or correct me.
Pensacola Bay to east is a much better natural deep water port, but the Alabama River made Mobile much more attractive for shipping goods inland.
I guess large shallow boats such as this were part of that "success".
edit- wikipedia confirms that Clotilde transferred slaves from Dahomey which is now in modern day Benin.
I don't know if it was really less "successful". It lasted longer, and enslaved more. Though it seems the route was more difficult because it was over land instead of by sea.
It's possible to be excited about the discovery of the artifact without being an apologist for the crime it was associated with.
> With the nation edging closer to civil war over the slavery issue, Alabama steamboat captain and plantation owner Timothy Meaher made an infamous bet that he could sneak slaves into the country, right under the noses of federal troops at the twin forts that guarded the mouth of Mobile Bay. Historian Sylvianne Diouf traced the evolution of the wicked scheme and the resulting journey in her excellent book, Dreams of Africa in Alabama, published in 2007. Attempts to contact Diouf were unsuccessful.
The author is clearly excited about the find (and should be, after spending years working on it), but there's nothing in the article to indicate that he's excited about slavery.
Just 5 years of slavery. I think this person lacks imagination and empathy if they think "just" is a relevant word here.
Is slavery an awful, despicable thing that no one should ever endure? Of course. But 5 years is significantly shorter than a lifetime of enslavement. Just is rightly used here.
I would also be skeptical of anyone willing to make a mortality judgment on the basis of a single adverb.
Slavery to this day still continues in Africa and especially west Africa. Niger was the first West African nation to create a law penalizing slavery [1]. That happened in... 2003. Unsurprisingly there is also still slavery in Niger. So yes, I do think "just" 5 years of slavery, sometime from the 19th century, is an extremely apt phrasing.
Conditions for these slaves are illustrated in the 'Mani v. Niger' entry in that wiki entry. A man purchased a '5th wife' (he's allowed 4 under local Islamic law, and then the 5th is a slave) for $400. She was 12 years old and endured a decade of physical and sexual abuse bearing 4 children before he married and then 'freed' her. But since now she was his wife, he had the right to demand she not be able to leave his house. This made it all the way to their supreme court, where they ruled in favor of the 'husband' - though he was charged with bigamy which carries a 6 month sentence.
In the New World, all African slaves were treated as property and dehumanized. Slave masters sought to erase the slave's identity, to destroy the family, and to sow division in order to exert and maintain control. This form of servitude is called "chattel slavery", and was written into law in the United States.
There were many different forms of slavery practiced in African societies during the 1500-1800s. Commonly, slaves were given rights and were treated like indentured servants. Slaves could own property. They could marry and start families. Some slaves were treated brutally, but it is a tragic oversimplification of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade to suggest that all Africans sold to European traders were "doomed to enslavement". [2]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slavery_i...
Similarly the first link tries to downplay chattel slavery at one claiming that "Precise evidence on slavery or the political and economic institutions of slavery before contact with the Arab or Atlantic slave trade is not available." And almost immediately following, "Chattel slavery had been legal and widespread throughout North Africa when the region was controlled by the Roman Empire (47 BC – ca. 500 AD). ... Chattel slavery persisted after the fall of the Roman empire in the largely Christian communities of the region. After the Islamic expansion into most of the region, the practices continued and eventually, the chattel form of slavery spread to major societies on the southern end of the Sahara (such as Mali, Songhai, and Ghana)."
Wiki does not tend to deal with issues that are contemporary, or involve social issues. And I think this is probably an instance of that. I think instinctively some want to demonize our actions so much as possible even if only as a sort of self flagellation. And so appealing a spin on the myth of a noble savage would certainly do as much. In reality we utilized, incentivized, and adopted an inhumane system, but it was not our direct creation in this case. And while we have learned from the past and moved on, these systems of inhumane exploitation which existed before us continue to exist without us.
I often see such comments on any post about the US practice of slavery. I have yet to understand a good reason for them.
Academic curiosity? No, because I doubt anyone thinks the US invented slavery. Even when we think (as i do) the US took an existing immoral practice and (as a nation) made it worse, these comments don't try to address any such distinctions.
This means the comments come across as 'US slavery wasn't that bad because it just maintained an existing evil'. In addition to lacking support for the conclusion, no reason is given for why that would be relevant at all to the discussion at hand. Here we're discussing the fate of a ship that was used in violation of even the immoral laws of the time purely prove it could be done. In what way does whether the victims were already slaves or not matter at all to the topic? Adding "as an aside" to admit the comments aren't directly relevant is the same as using 'on average' to claim that racist/sexist statements aren't so because it allows the comments to not apply to any given individual - it seems like an excuse to be able to spread the idea without having to justify it.
Assuming your reasons are not to downplay the US actions, what ARE your reasons? Does knowing how your comments come across change your likelihood of repeating this sort of interjection? I'm not interested in silencing any facts, but timing and context matter. If you are introducing these concepts, the onus of justification falls upon you.
Regardless of the above, I'll indulge you because this is a topic I find particularly interesting - and there is also a moral. It seems many people in society are starting to view things as caricaturizations of reality. There are the good guys, and there are the bad guys. And the person I was responding to, I suspect, likely viewed the transatlantic slave trade through this lens based on his apparently significant offense as somebody daring to use the word 'just' in reference to a time frame of slavery. I think this is surprisingly dangerous.
The reason for this is that in reality things are not caricaturizations, but changes that might not seem so severe to many. For instance back on the slave trade I hope you'll indulge a few more of those condemnable facts. In the entire transatlantic slave trade about 12.5 million slaves were bought from Africa, with 10.7 million surviving the voyage. Of the 10.7 million 388,000, or about 3.6% [1], ended up in what would be the United States. Many people in the US seem to think that slavery ended, more or less, after the Civil War. That's obviously quite a poorly informed view, but it's built upon this caricaturization of slavery. In reality today there are more slaves than ever before in history with an estimated 45.8 million people enslaved worldwide [2]. That includes an estimated 57,700 slaves even within the United States.
Rather than judge people and events, I try to understand them - try to put myself in their shoes and see how things played out. And in this case, it's not hard to see. Slavery was likely a story of apathy and cognitive dissonance. In the US about 1.4% of free Americans owned slaves, about 8% of families. [4]. Obviously more owned slaves in states where slavery was legal, but I'm considering the entire population as slavery was a rich man's game - and getting involved in the business was little more than a carriage ride away. Similar to today how California's ratio of entrepreneurs cannot be considered in isolation as the lucrative opportunities there draw in people from across the entire country.
And those that did choose to own slaves likely convinced themselves it was morally fine since they were buying people who were already enslaved. In Africa at the time slaves were even subject to things including human sacrifice. [5] Just in West Africa there were events including the regular sacrifice of hundreds of slaves and on rare occasion even thousands at once. The cognitive dissonance there is not really hard to see.
And this behavior of cognitive dissonance and apathy continues to this day. Do you really care about slavery? I imagine we'd all like to think so, but reality paints a less favorable picture. What if the president started implicitly condoning slavery for his own benefit? You might think you'd care, but that has already happened very recently. Malaysia is one of the worst places for modern slavery. You can see from the aforementioned link [2] that about 0.4% of their population is a slave. That's one out of every 250 people for 129k slaves in a country of 30million people. In 2015 Obama chose to remove Malaysia from a list of the worst human traffickers. He did this just so he could squeeze them into a trade agreement he wanted to pass (the TPP). This was the same year that more than numerous mass graves and trafficking camps were discovered in Malaysia. [3] A few media outlets ran the story, but for the most part people showed they couldn't really care less. And so it almost certainly was during slavery as well.
What if I told you a list of companies or products that are still generated using slavery? Like chocolate? West Africa supplies about 69% of the world's cocoa. [6]. And unsurprisingly, slavery and even child slavery, is involved in its production. Companies funding the practice include Mars, Nestle, Hershey, and others. Will you now stop buying their products? Probably not. Think about that for a minute. A sweet treat is more important to you ("you" in this case is rhetorical, as even if you in particular would/will give up the companies - few would) than taking a stand against not only slavery, but child slavery. Slavery is incredibly offensive until it provides something we want, or when doing something about it might cause you some inconvenience. It's quite phenomenal isn't it? This disconnect between what we think we think, and what we actually seem willing to do based on that?
The point of this all is that I think if people were more aware of reality, and understood that the line between good and evil is far closer than any of us would like to admit, that we'd be much more inclined to concern ourselves with actual events and happenings - instead of taking faux offense at somebody using the word 'just' in a way you find offensive.
[1] - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cro...
[2] - https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/
[3] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/25/malaysia-migra...
[4] - http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#West_Africa
[6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_cocoa_productio...
Facts don't require justification. Which and where and when one chooses to provide them might well require justification. Just as you are questioning the above poster's selection of facts to present, I often question when someone chooses to say "but what about X" whenever an issue is brought up, as if X changes the issue actually under discussion.
> Regardless of the above, I'll indulge you
Quite generous of you. Without sarcasm, I will truly try to understand you, though I do not agree that we cannot/should judge events, because our actions are all we can control, and without judging their quality how can we evaluate future ones?
> many people in society are starting to view things as caricaturizations of reality
You believe this is a new and/or increasing trend? I won't deny over-simplistic viewpoints and even that there are areas that are having more of an issue with this than in recent history, but I'm not willing to declare this to be out of historical norms. For all that, say, US politics is more bitter than in recent decades, we can't ignore politicians committing violence upon each other (including in the US) or even such dramatic incidents such as the Great Defenestration, all of which I assume involved a great amount of hero/villain perspectives. Per my previous concern these examples do not make such over-simplifications suddenly complex, but it does stand to show this is not new.
> [ a great deal of material supporting the concept that modern slavery exists and that psychic/statistical numbing and compassion fatigue exist]
> The point of this all is that I think if people were more aware of reality, and understood that the line between good and evil is far closer than any of us would like to admit, that we'd be much more inclined to concern ourselves with actual events and happenings - instead of taking faux offense at somebody using the word 'just' in a way you find offensive.
So your point was solely to argue that we should think that 5 years of slavery is NOT a big deal? Your rationale appears to be in your previous post:
> These individuals were doomed to enslavement for their entire life, one way or the other
I understood the article's use of "just" to be a relative term, but I also understand that 5 years of slavery is a big deal, EVEN IF they would have been slaves anyway. Because while I do indeed practice a great deal of selfishness, doing so does not mean I should deny charity to anyone. A wrong does not justify a wrong, and a wrong certainly does not justify that we stop trying for right at all.
The facts you have chosen to present seem cherry-picked to distract from the actual point of the discussion. You've expended a great deal of effort to only say that the phrase "just 5 years" is apt. If we acknowledge that good/evil (however we define it) is a spectrum and not a fine line as you claim is your desire and that 5 years as a slave is unarguably better than a lifetime as a slave, you've not addressed either the (presumed) actual reason behind the above poster's reaction (that being that a slave for 5 years should not be minimized), nor have you addressed my points about how the timing and choice of facts you present serve to convey the message that US slavery was fine.
Take, for example, how you carefully select statistics to argue that relatively few US citizens owned slaves. But you don't address the large population of citizens that supported it, that elected politicians that made it a large national division from literally the founding of the country through the civil war and it's aftermath, then through Jim Crow, redlining, all the way to All Lives Matter. If slavery was merely a rich man's issue, why did non-slave owning people accept it on it's face as opposed to requiring the distance and plausible deniability we (mostly) do today? Was it Lee that captured and conscripted free black people, or was it his non-rich troops? (Plenty of problems in the North - I'm not trying to deny that, I'm addressing your choice of facts)
Absolutely it is inaccurate to think in black or white, and it's wrong to feel we are morally superior and/or without error. It is likewise wrong to use our own flaws as an excuse to have more flaws, and it is wrong to ignore the results of our actions. In this case, I'm seeing your actions as downplaying and distracting from the problems of slavery, the historical brutality of these particular incidence, and as placing a reaction to a potential downplay as more important than other aspects of the issue, all under a guise of warning of the perils of over-simplifying.
That's my impression, with no opinion on whether you are doing so intentionally or innocently. I can be mistaken - it would be ironic of me to over-simplify either your intentions or the effects of your choices. If I am mistaken, please grant me a little more indulgence and explain how. At the moment, regardless of the accuracy of my conclusions, I am not getting the message you say you are trying to send, for I fully acknowledge our many moral failings and the messy complicated details of human interactions, particularly when it comes to those who are being victimized by multiple nations, and yet agreeing that life is not as simple as good or evil has not modified my opinion of the above poster's reaction to "just 5 years" as reasonable, if likely not reflecting the intention of the author. Considering 5 years of slavery to still be bad is not "faux offense", that is attempting to acknowledge a fact.
From my perspective you seem to be trying to rebuke data by yourself ironically playing quite fast and loose with sourceless data and conclusions. For instance you imply that because people elected politicians that supported slavery, people must therefore have liked or supported slavery. I take it you support, or think it's justified, killing hundreds of thousands in the Mideast in wars waged primarily over oil and geopolitical control? What, how could you not? Every single politician America has elected for the past several decades has been all about this, so surely most Americans must support it? Again if you can provide objective data and facts, with so much context as possible, I'd love to discuss these - but I have little interest in facile speculation.
I think our entire worldview should be shaped by facts. To do otherwise would be to appeal to misconceptions, bias, and prejudice. As a consequence of this there is literally no scenario in which I would consider the submission of facts and data to be unacceptable. Language policing is one of the first step towards moving into a world where facts themselves begin to be unacceptable. In all of the worst examples of fascism and oppression in the past one of the first things to go is the ability for people to speak freely. Consequently, any time I see somebody attempting to police language - I am certain to go sharply in the opposite direction regardless of my personal views on the issue at hand. As for what that makes you think of me? Well let's put it this way, on a scale of 0 to 100, how much do you care about what I think of you? Now why would you expect it to be any different for me?
What data did I rebuke? I'm addressing that you chose to not only distract from the actual issue at hand, but also chose to bring up specific true-but-200-years-afterwards facts. Your selection of those outside facts is the cherry-picking. You claimed to do this to prevent over-simplification but instead commit it yourself by raising what is at best nihilism and has the effect of promoting racism.
> For instance you imply that because people elected politicians that supported slavery, people must therefore have liked or supported slavery
Supported, certainly. Slavery wasn't a small issue, it was forefront, as demonstrated by the many high-profile compromises and conflicts, and that it ultimately led to a civil war, as seen in the very declarations of succession and surrounding language. Such views and actions at such a scale don't just happen, they are either accepted or resisted.
> I take it you support, or think it's justified, killing hundreds of thousands
I do not, but I believe the country as a whole de facto declared that they did. And yes, while I was against that particular topic and spoke up and voted accordingly, there are many actions I take that support and sustain actions that I vocally claim to be opposed to. That my actions belie my words and conclusions does not make may words and conclusions incorrect - it points out a level of hypocrisy. Rather than declaring that because I'm sometimes a hypocrite there is no point in judging my actions or those of others, I'm saying that we must continue to push to improve. Wrong does not become Right just because I've done it.
But I don't want to lose the topic: your original post which spent 50% of it's content talking about slavery in Africa today. This is no more relevant to if "just 5 years" was appropriate than the mating habits of the fruit fly, but unlike such trivia you chose matters that would place a negative connotation on Africa and Africans.
> I think our entire worldview should be shaped by facts.
This is a misleading statement - where did I say otherwise? The issue is not what facts exist, but why you chose to raise these particular facts in this particular context.
> Language policing is one of the first step towards moving into a world where facts themselves begin to be unacceptable.
How are you not performing an equal amount of "language policing"? Your reasoning applies equally to the language you were objecting to. I doubt you believe that 5 years of slavery is inconsequential, you're saying it's much less than a lifetime. The above poster was implying that 5 years of slavery is very consequential compared to a a lifetime without slavery. He/she objected to the implication of word choice, you objected to the implication that the word choice was inaccurate.
> Well let's put it this way, on a scale of 0 to 100, how much do you care about what I think of you? Now why would you expect it to be any different for me?
What is the point of defending free speech if you don't care how your words are taken? On scale of 0 to 100, if a total stranger pointed out that my words promote racism, my concern is much closer to 100 than not. Is it different for you?
In summary:
1) Author said "just 5 years" of slavery
2) A poster expressed disagreement with the implication that 5 years of slavery should be dismissed as not a big deal, obviously comparing it to not being a slave ever
3) You expressed disagreement with the idea that the victims wouldn't have been slaves of some sort anyway, and thus the author's language was accurate. You also brought up that slavery exists in Africa today.
4) I expressed that your choice to bring up that second point promotes the feeling that because slavery happens we should not be upset by it
5) You defended your choice because facts are involved and because free speech is important
This is not an issue of if facts are valid - MANY facts are valid but not relevant to the topic at hand. This is not an issue of free speech - both sides are arguing over what language was appropriate, and I have no objection to discussing modern slavery when we're discussing modern slavery.
This is an issue that you made a choice to bring up certain facts _outside the topic_ and I questioned the purpose of doing so. The negative results from your actions come not from knowing any particular facts, but from attaching those facts-outside-the-topic to the topic, which is very misleading.
I have no concern for what people think facts "promote." Give the same information to different people and they will come to different conclusions. Ultimately facts are what inform our opinions. When you believe something may promote some opinion or another, you should consider the fact that you may likely be projecting. People interpret things differently. For instance let's take another controversial example, but one that also brings the issue down to its most fundamental level. Imagine somebody states that blacks make up 38% of the prison population, yet only 13% of the US population. This is very true. However, it's also true that that same 13% of the population also commits more than 52% of all the murders in the nation, along with similar over representation in most forms of crime.
Rather than trying to cherry pick data to lead people in one direction or the other, I think it is important that all facts are considered - even when we might consider those facts as less than pleasant. In my example here, both facts are very likely to mislead without the context of the other. And if either fact were presented without the context of the other, I would fully agree with you about 'cherry picking' facts. When I asked you to provide any relevant facts I may have omitted after you claimed I was 'cherry picking data', you failed to be able to provide a single one.
--
As a sort of meta comment. Line by line quoting tends to create somewhat scattered and disparate logic, made even worse with paraphrasings. Try to think of things holistically and I think you might be able to express yourself more clearly if you're perhaps expressing some nuanced view I'm still too dense to perceive.
It also breaks the HN guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."