Oliver
Part of Tony Blair's statement on the slave trade.
The transatlantic slave trade stands as one of the most inhuman enterprises in history. At a time when the capitals of Europe and America championed the Enlightenment of man, their merchants were enslaving a continent. Racism, not the rights of man, drove the horrors of the triangular trade. Some 12 million were transported. Some three million died.
Slavery's impact upon Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas and Europe was profound. Thankfully, Britain was the first country to abolish the trade. As we approach the commemoration for the 200th anniversary of that abolition, it is only right we also recognise the active role Britain played until then in the slave trade. British industry and ports were intimately intertwined in it. Britain's rise to global pre-eminence was partially dependent on a system of colonial slave labour and, as we recall its abolition, we should also recall our place in its practice.
It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time. Personally I believe the bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was - how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Talking about the trade in human slaves I read somwhere recently it is more prevalent today than when England was involved in it trade. The Australia sex industry has asian wemon held here as slaves. In this industry there is no sense of guilt over the use of wemon held against their will as sex slaves.

Philo, I agree in part with your comment "Much of the depression / guilt industry operates on someone else's unresolved crimes. Let us live life by our own conscience and be free of the guilt of others. Stop grovelling to others agends to make us bear guilt that is not our doing. We are answerable for our own lives not others. That means we do not commit the sins of our ancestors."

The point where it becomes more complex is where the current generation benefits from the wrongdoing of a past generation.

If wealth was aquired by an earlier generation by doing harm to others is it then OK for the current generation to live off the benefits of that earlier wrongdoing or is there a responsibility to try and put right what you can?

In this case is a part of the British crowns wealth derived from the harm done to australian aboriginals? If so should that be put right?

I'm not aware of the financial implications of what was done here, maybe Elizabeth's wealth is entirely unrelated to what was done in Australia or maybe not.

R0bert

Oliver: << I guess CJ Morgan feels all these matters are "silly" and beyond OLO Discussion. I have great faith than he in the intelligence of the OLO readership. >>

Of course "all these matters" aren't silly.

However, that's not how you began the discussion. Instead, your initial post was poorly written, tendentious and silly - and my comment was directed at those aspects of it. If you want to discuss something sensible, why not just come out and say it?

These 'bait & switch' exercises seem to be increasingly common in this forum, and I for one find them irritating rather than conducive to actual discussion.

Robert,

"The point where it becomes more complex is where the current generation benefits from the wrongdoing of a past generation."

That is certainly true of the Crown monopolies [East India Company] from 1601 [in memory serves], of the slave trade and the opium trade [against the Chinese]." We will go to war with the Middle East at a drop of a hat but not napalm the Goldren Triange and the Columbian jungle.

Yes, in many ways the Royal families are like the MAFIA, crooks, whom ultimately ligitimise themselves; as was alleged of JFK's family too.

CJM,

Had I let be known that I was trying to catch out double standards between apologies made by the PM seeming okay but by the Queen not; the exercise would have been lost.

Blinds are commonly used in experimentation, wherein a subject thinks they are doing one thing, while the experiment is testing something else. Otherwise it doesn't work.

Some posters supported Stephen Hagan's push for a treaty/apology but opposed the Queen taking the same action as did Rudd. Curious?

That said, it is hard for the British Monarch to be "Defender of the Faith" and maintain the 39 articles [originally 42] of the Anglican Church, which do include the doctrine of orginal sin; if s/he feels no fault. She should apologise or drop the religious title. Not to; creates an obvious contradiction. Does it not?

I would prefer she drop the title and England have separation of State and Church. She can forget about the apology, if the majority of the English people don't care. But to iterate, two positions do not logically stand side-by-side. Think about it.

Sorry if what you see "bate & switch" irrating but trust the topics now under review are neither trivial nor Silly.

In advertising, there is what is called the ADIA model; Attention, Desire, Interest and Action. I was trying the AIA bit.

Foxy,

In the name of Commerce [palm-oil trade] Victoria traded with "slave trading" Kings well into the nineteenth century [c.1850]. The drugging the Chinese took over

Foxy,

Please note, that the Trading Kings I refer anre not British, rather Black African Tribal Kings whom used slave labour. England did not embargo trade was the point.

Black Africans exported something like 11 million of their own ethnic kind over five hundred You wont here that from any US preacher or Opra. In theb fifteen century there white slaves [Moors} too.

Incidently, must of the slave trade between the fifteen and nineteenth century was between Africa and Brazil & Cuba. At least ten times that with the US, despite the impression from TV. Suguar not cotton was the main commodity.

In 1845 as follow up to 1807 leglislation was passed in 1845 saying that any Briton could involved in the slave trade would be executed [without right to seeing a clergiman]. No-one was every prosecuted when discovered that the nobility were ring leaders. A bit like waiting a day before a NSW socialite a DUI test?