
My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader - danielam
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-great-grandfather-the-nigerian-slave-trader
======
loso
Slavery was one of the original sins that built this country but its funny to
see so many comments in here believe that was it. That once it was abolished
call it a day. Blacks in this country were not truly free until the Civil
Rights era. Which the height of it was only 10 years before I was born.

I agree that you can't let the past define your future but you also can't be
naive and think that in 50 years true unabashed equality has been established.
Hell it took until 77 to get redlining by race wiped out. Imagine not being
able to buy the house you want to live in based on your race.

~~~
Panjam
When I visited the US for the first time 3 years ago, I was shocked by the
levels of segregation. For reference I grew up in black South Africa.

------
Panjam
This is the most fascinating article I have read this month, if not year.
Thanks to the author, if you find your way to these comments. What I found
particularly interesting:

1\. The insight into Igbo culture and its complexity. We rarely see this in
articles published in the West about African culture, in part because many
African writers care not to disclose (not just because of existing narratives
into which western writers place lazy stories).

2\. The nuance in the response to the past: guilt and pride. Many people feel
this I suspect. I wonder if knee jerk reactions such as that by the commenter
(1996) at the top of the comments is a reaction to that discomfort, rather
than the perceived accusations of historical injustice.

3\. The way in which traditional belief systems, curses etc, gave rise to such
a mature and measured response to the sins of the past. There is a parallel to
German acknowledgement of past sins; I'm fairly sure roooted in their
traditional Catholic belief systems.

------
1996
Can't we all let our ancestors rest in their grave?

Every country/ethnicity/race whatever you want to call it did some major wrong
at some point or another.

Now please excuse me while I don't join in your self flagellation trip.

EDIT: to answer some of the accusations below, you guys know nothing about me,
my background, or my ancestors, yet most of you are quick to jump to
conclusions. It's both funny and sad.

The past doesn't make me feel anything anymore. It's the past. I care about
the future now. I used to resent what was done to my ancestors. I don't give a
flying fuck anymore.

Now I let the industry of guilt and regret find other customers.

~~~
seszett
> _EDIT: to answer some of the accusations below, you guys know nothing about
> me, my background, or my ancestors, yet most of you are quick to jump to
> conclusions. It 's both funny and sad._

It seems like in the US, knowing (or thinking you know) the "race" of the
person you are talking with is fundamental, and everything always ends up
being relative to that. When you don't state your own racial background (or
what you said didn't convince them) people will simply guess something on
their own.

Just a few days ago, a black (half black? but I think it's the same, in the
US) humorist used the exact same words as the far right always does when
describing the French soccer team, but somehow it was different because of his
skin colour (that was actually his line of defense). Them explicitly saying
they are _French, not African_ was not something he could accept, because, you
know, they're black.

When I was in the US or Canada, people were always asking my wife "where she
came from" for no special reason, and very few accepted "Canada" as an answer.
I was the actual immigrant, but since I'm white I wasn't subject to that. For
her, after having mostly lived in France where nobody would ever assume you
aren't just French unless you explicitely tell them (or can't speak French at
all) it was a horrible experience.

It's just something I have observed. Everyone seems to be obsessed with the
other persons' origins, sometimes with good intentions (who actually cares
about being praised for their parents' birthplace, though?) but it never stops
and it's very obvious to anyone who isn't used to North America.

Not sure if it's really on topic, sorry if I got carried away a bit.

~~~
loso
He was acknowledging that their origins were African. Which they were. The
humorist that you are talking about is Trevor Noah and he is from South
Africa. He is an immigrant. So it's not really a US thing. Its a being
subjected to a double standard thing. In the US when you're a minority and you
are doing something positive you are considered without doubt an American. But
when its something negative or objectionable to some people race comes in to
play really quickly.

When I was growing up it was common for the news to report the race of a
subject when it was a black person doing the crime. But you knew the person
was white when race was not mentioned at all. In the past few years that has
gotten better but it was definitely a thing in the not too distant past.

When a large segment of the population thinks its okay for police to profile
based on race its hard for people subjected to it to not think about race in
all avenues of life. Because its something that you deal with on a regular
basis.

~~~
tor0viking
The issue is that by people from minority racial groups becoming hyper
sensitive to race they end up perpetuating racial division.

Trevor Noah's comments are an example. His view of the world is probably
significantly influenced by race due to real or perceived discrimination he
has experienced, but by his commentaries focusing on race he pushes a
worldview that directs people's attention to the fault lines of race rather
than the things which unite us in spite of racial differences.

~~~
loso
Acknowledging race is not being hypersensitive about race. The problem is in
what you said "pushes a worldview that directs people's attention to the fault
lines of race rather than the things which unite us in spite of racial
differences". You have the luxury to not think about it because it doesn't
affect you directly. When you're a minority its something that you have to
think about either consciously or subconsciously. Because you run into it
frequently. Depending on where you live and who you deal with it can be
something you deal with on a daily basis or something you deal with every now
and then. But it will be something you deal with.

~~~
tor0viking
And it doesn't have to be that way. The racialization of everything in our
political and social discourse does not help. The political Left has become
hypersensitive to race.

In America we have constructed a society where racial minorities can be more
successful and more integrated into the broader society than in any other
country on Earth. Racial divisions of the past are melting away. And yet the
Identity Politics of the Far Left have come to dominate the worldview of many
in a way that pushes them away from MLK's vision of a world in which people
don't care about race, to one in which all they seem to care about is race.

We are well on our way to achieving MLK's dream, but it is in spite of
Identity Politics.

------
atlantic
It's important to remember that all civilizations practiced slavery, and not
just in the remote past. African tribes cooperated with Arabic slave traders
by selling them prisoners from rival tribes. American Indians practiced
slavery; so did the Aztecs. The Barbary pirates captured millions of
Europeans, at the very same time that other Europeans were enslaving Africans.
Mauritania only abolished slavery a decade ago. And so on. Taking a broad view
of history, westerners are no more guilty of enslaving other peoples than
anyone else.

~~~
Panjam
This is true. It's also 'whataboutery'. Slavery was always abhorrent, and the
fact it was and is widely practiced does not excuse its beneficiaries. What is
interesting is that I don't think you are deploying this rhetorical trick as a
means to persuade others, so much as to make yourself feel better about
something: to assuage some sort of cognitive unease. Contrast this with the
author of the article: she owns it. That is absolute moral bravery.

~~~
atlantic
I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. Not making any moral judgements
about slavery, either, either positive or negative. It is what it is, an
institution that has arisen time and time again in human society. What I was
doing is making an historical point; lack of historical perspective is sorely
lacking when discussing this kind of topic.

As to your keen insights on my psychological mechanisms: rational argument is
conducted objectively, without reference to personalities or group
affiliations. Arguments stand or fall on their strength alone.

------
diego_moita
I am not German, don't even speak German but stories like this bring me
admiration for the German culture. Every country in the world has a "big
shame", but I feel like only Germany faces their shame with dignity.

Belgium still keeps statues of King Leopold, Spain keeps statues of Cortez and
Pisarro, Portugal of Vasco da Gama, the US is only now arguing about the
statues for Confederate soldiers; Italy and France never did a real "mea
culpa" on how they actually helped and collaborated with the Nazis, Brazil and
most of Latin America keep ignoring the ongoing extermination of their
natives, most Japanese try to avoid knowing what their country did in
Manchuria during WWII, Turkey keeps denying the Armenian genocide, most
African countries keep denying their active role in the slave trade ...

Germany has something to teach the world.

~~~
craigsmansion
I'm not German either, although I'm a fellow EU citizen.

As someone old enough to still marginally view Germans in a WW2 context, it
was their (her?) decision to allow a million war refugees to settle in Germany
that really clinched it for me. That's how nations should learn from their
past, statues notwithstanding.

I know the decision was not undividedly popular within Germany itself, but
internationally, it made me proud, and made me feel that's what modern EU
countries should aspire to: to be exemplary in the face of human suffering.
That action put Germany's role in WW2 irrevocably in the past for me.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
And what if these actions end up being a net negative not only for Germany,
but even on treatment or acceptance of migrants in the future perhaps
throughout all of Europe? For instance, I think we can agree that the sharp
growth in European nationalism is strongly connected to this situation. Brexit
was certainly strongly connected to this situation.

This is why I would take the opposite view. I do not think that people holding
themselves in shame over something they had no direct role in is productive
for society. It is bound to lead to emotional decisions which may make one
feel good in the short run, yet blow up in your face in the longrun.

By contrast had Germany handled the migrants with more consideration to
quality, integration, and what their country could comfortably support then we
might have seen a huge boon for all parties as an example of how immigration
can help both migrants and host countries. But it would also have been seen as
heartless because that more responsible action would also have entailed
turning away people who were suffering. Short term heartlessness or long term
negative outcomes?

We can perhaps even see the longterm echoes of this sort of problem in the US.
For instance Andrew Jackson wanted to free slaves, but under a system of
transition. He proposed that existing slaves only be freed as they were
trained and given compensation to start 'proper' lives for themselves. In the
mean time new slave children would be taken from slave owners for a modest fee
and then educated, trained, and sent abroad (to Santo Domingo in particular)
to live life as skilled freemen. This system could be seen as cruel compared
to outright freedom, yet here we are many generations after the fact still
trying to solve an ongoing problem that the compassionate solution arguably
produced.

~~~
craigsmansion
And what if these actions end up being a net positive for Germany, and Europe
by proxy? There will be a lot of German-Syrians, some of whom will return to
Syria after things settle down. And they will speak to the disgruntled youth
who have lost family there, and will speak positively about their adopted
second home country. You want to prevent future terrorist attacks? That's how
you do it. Not by bombing them more, but by being a friend in need.

> I do not think that people holding themselves in shame over something they
> had no direct role in

Remembering what your society is capable of, even if not directly culpable any
more, is not a weakness; it's a strength. Branding that as "emotional
decisions" is disingenuous. How a society treats its prisoners and pets is
also an "emotional decision", as well as a good indication of how civilised a
society is.

> I think we can agree that the sharp growth in European nationalism is
> strongly connected to this situation.

I don't think we agree there.

> Brexit was certainly strongly connected to this situation.

Brexit is strongly connected to the likes of Farage, their insulated partisan
press, and UK exceptionalism.

> Short term heartlessness or long term negative outcomes?

Or a false dichotomy altogether? What exactly are the long term negative
outcomes here?

> the longterm echoes of this sort of problem in the US.

The U.S. has its own share of problems. IMO it's of little use to try and draw
comparisons between back-then problems of subjugation and the modern problem
of influx of war refugees in Europe.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
As one comment here this is certainly a discussion I'd enjoy continuing, but I
find this response pattern of quote - one-liners, quote - one-liner, ... to be
incredibly low effort and lacking in substance. If you can speak in any
holistic fashion to try to make a coherent point then we can go that route.

In my opinion most of your one liners here are 'provably' (at least so much as
social views can be proven) false, yet the effort required there to refute
each one is probably not worth it. However, at the same time if you think any
of these one liners would sufficiently encompass your worldview that
compelling evidence to the contrary would change your opinion on matters then
please do tell me which one it is.

~~~
craigsmansion
> I find this response pattern of quote [..] low effort and lacking in
> substance.

It's a format of online discourse that has been used on mailing lists and
usenet groups for decades now. It keeps things on point and makes sure we're
addressing the same subjects.

> if you think any of these one liners

"How a society treats its prisoners and pets is also an "emotional decision",
as well as a good indication of how civilised a society is."

Your arguments are based on "appeal to rationality," which sounds enticing,
but is a form of "appeal to nature" when there is no evidence that "things
will blow up in your face in the long run."

------
spiritoftech
At some people, going back far enough in your ancestry:

\- they were slave owners \- murderers \- rapists

We literally have them to thank for our current civilization and existance
against tremendous odds.

