He followed up on his previous assessment of Iran’s election candidates, this time focussing on the winner, Ahmadnejad. It’s almost as though he were trying to bolster his argument that we should have been hoping for a Rafsanjani win.
But I was struck by his characterisation of America’s view of Iran:
‘Abroad, the Americans were the least surprised by the result. They assume anyway that Iran is a country seething with hatred for the US and determined to dominate the region by threat and undercover terrorism.’
Well, certainly they often take that view of Iran’s ruling class, but it seems to me a very ingrate sort of comment given that the US offers succour to all manner of dissidents from Iran. Since they’re not as infamous as Iraqi counterparts such as the tarred Chalabi, perhaps we can still find sympathy for them and interest in the views of those for whom the US has provided refuge.The point here is that the US rather assumes that under the dead weight of the Mullahs there are many people lying powerless who have no animus against the US and see them instead as a flickering lantern of hope.
Simpson goes on to say ‘Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.’
Now, I could accept ‘complex’, and can understand a columnist’s desire for snappy duplicates to make his sentences sing, but ‘sophisticated’?
When was the last time the US’s politics was described by the BBC as ‘sophisticated’? (a challenge for fans of Justin Webb, I feel. Funnily enough, in this by now quite well known article, he says that the US is complex- in its heart-, and… unsophisticated (-in many respects).
Examples of Iranian political sophistication, here.
I suppose I mention the US because some might say that, as both the US and Iran have the death penalty, that makes Iran as worthy of the ‘sophisticated’ epithet as the US. Even granting that point, which I wouldn’t, still only leaves us with ‘as worthy as’– a slight problem for the Justin Webb fraternity (or the John Simpson one– ed– and by the way this doesn’t mean all Beeboids should think alike, but that the use of totemic language should be minimised and strictly weighted by factual evidence– also ed). Indeed, if I opposed the death penalty and considered all governments who allowed for its maintainance to be cause for branding a country unsophisticated (which I don’t), it still leaves the ticklish problem of how one squares Simpson’s view with the reality that as a proportion of their population, the Iranians (officially) execute far more people (in public, too) than does the US.
And, of course, it’s what they execute them for which is often horriffic…
Finally, Simpson says that ‘The best the British, French and Germans can do is persuade Iran to be more cautious and tactful in following its nuclear ambitions. Ayatollah Khamenei may see the sense of that.’ , which goes to reinforce the point that Simpson does not regard the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons as an extremist position.
He has foregrounded this comment by saying that ‘Iran believes it lives in a difficult neighbourhood, with Israel, China, Russia, India and Pakistan’– which seems on the face of it a fair enough point. But which of these exactly threatens Iran in a nuclear fashion? Who has an interest in nuking or invading Iran? Answer, none- and again he ignores the Israeli issue, which, if Rafsanjani is a moderate, makes you almost tremblingly curious as to what Ahmadnejad has in his locker (my own suspicion is they wanted a dog with a louder bark, who has a reputation for biting).
But, a country’s elite which flays its people, imprisons political opponents, executes many publicly, organises ‘interesting’ elections outside all scrutiny, and on top of all this sees its salvation in the ultimate psycho’s wet dream, the nuclear option, is to be regarded as too sophisticated to bother except with diplomatic pillow talk?
That’s why the BBC remains a gift to the moonbat left, singing an incoherent lullaby of appeasement.
Re: Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda, PLO et al.
SoCalpundit notes that “In fact there are more than 50 points of connection between Saddam’s Iraq and international terrorist activity.”
Follow this link:
http://socalpundit.com/blog/index.php/2005/06/29/proof-saddam-complicit-in-911/
Ealier, Eamonn mentioned a comedian called Boothby Graffoe who has pitched up on Radio 4’s 6.30pm comedy (ehem) slot. Yet another left wing goon finding much to laugh at from the USA.
Scott Burgess at the Daily Ablution has picked up on it and goes a touch deeper:
THE ADOLESCENT LEFT
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/
The phenomena of the ‘left liberal’ in today’s world.
I cannot recall a time in the last 50 years when the divisive opinions between left and right have been so pronounced. It would appear that the Iraq war has been the catalyst that has created this divide.
The left liberal mind like to present themselves as ‘one wishing for everyone to live in harmony’. There is of course nothing wrong with that, and they may be surprised to learn that most on the right wish for the same. The difference is how they see it as being achieved. There seems to be an assumption on their part that most EVERYBODY wishes to live in harmony, and only those who wage war for greedy purposes, which to their way of seeing things are those on the right, prevent it.
So what is it about the Iraq war has brought things to a head?
Several factors have contributed most strongly to this situation;
The Muslim world assertion that the West is to blame for causing Islamic terrorism by greed and corruption in one form or other, and that they have a religious duty to combat these forces by any and all means possible. The liberal mind believes that if the West ceases to be corrupt then the threat of this terrorism will cease.
Governments such as France, Germany, and Russia who benefited by having huge financial contracts with the Saddam regime, and in an effort to forestall any attempt to remove him, tried to swing public opinion against a war by stressing ‘how immoral’ such a war would be. The UN too, with so many Muslim member nations creating an anti-war lobby, as well as powerful figures within the UN who were involved in the ‘Oil for Food’ scandal, also reinforced this ‘moral’ point.
Finally, much of the media adopted this line. Perhaps because many of the public couldn’t conceive of a reason for bias by the media if it wasn’t factual, especially the ‘impartial’, ‘independent’ BBC, they swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
If the liberal is guilty of one thing, it is that of being too simplistic. They seem incapable of attributing corruption and greed to anyone who claims to be acting under the guise of morality and harmony, after all, they are the very attributes that the liberals believe they are standing for. The problem is they don’t have the intellect to examine the complexities of the reality and come out with any alternative solution. Instead they cling to their worn out clichés, fed by the media, and seem incapable of thinking anything through for themselves.
If they took off their blinders, and realised that those who use morality and harmony as the means to further their corrupt ends, they might find that left and right ceases to exist – we are fighting for the survival of our society against those who are gambling with it.
OT- I’d be v interested in a post on the extraordinary testimony given by John Humph at this week’s Parliamentary Committee.
BUGSY AND DONALD!
Yesterday on the satellite bbc tv “news” someone called Paul Adams was supposed to be giving a “report” on a Bush speech. But instead Adams proceeded to tell us all the things Bush did NOT mention. Subjects like global warming, and other matters close to the leftist bbc heart. But where Adams fell down on the job was his failure to report that Bush also did not mention Bugs Bunny or Donald Duck!
Last night’s Question Time was possibly the worst and least intelligent I have ever witnessed.
The whole programme contained such low quality debate.
We had the increasingly senile and embarassing Tony Benn doing a muppet impression with his hand whilst blaming Bush for just about everything including Africa, ASBO’s and Manchester United. Can someone take this tired old man away – far away if possible. No doubt we will again be subject to his silly views via the G8 protests. And did anyone see how he wriggled out of certain questions? Oh, of course he supports certain protests, such as that daft bloke outside Parliament who is anti-war (and, incidentally, somewhat antisemitic), but when it comes to hunting, Benn wasn’t so supportive. In Benn’s cloud cuckoo commune, comrades must only believe the approved ideas.
Then there was Lembit Opik, he of the stupid grin who thinks that Michael Moore is a serious and accurate documeter of 9/11 and the Iraq war. Enough said, but I think he has convinced himself that he is rather cool.
Next we had Otis Ferry, who has strong views on hunting, but has clearly not thought about much else in life. Perhaps future potential.
Then we had the new Tory MP Justine Greening who is getting a lot of coverage because she is nicer looking than Michael Ancram. She is clearly a serious politician, but needs to be careful that she isn’t promoted above her present abilities. To be honest though, at times I can’t tell the difference between statements from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems.
Finally we had June Sarpong, who contributed zilch to the debate, apart from constantly nodding every time Benn or Opik said something. How many times did the cameras cut to her nodding during the programme? It must have been dozens.
Of course on the BBC QT website, all is praise, particularly for Benn.
The previous comment on QT was mine.
If you thought last night’s QT was bad, what about this morning’s Radio 5 Live phone in? The background of the three guests gave the game away:
1. A guy from some policy centre called the African Policy Centre for Social Justice and Peace (or something like that).
2. A guy from Action Aid/Make Poverty History.
3. A girl who will be protesting in Edinburgh at the weekend.
Bottom line: it’s more or less all whitey’s fault.
Oh for a bit of intelligent discussion about Africa! Is it possible to get any from the BBC?
According to the BBC charter, the BBC can not back any “political campaign”. However, in the run up to the G8 meeting, they seem to be doing a good job of “raising awareness” of the “important issues”.
The 6 o-clock news the other night was a joke. One article on climate change and another on world poverty. Surely these issues arre more suited to documentaries, where the issues and arguments can be explored fully.
Anyway, before I start ranting… I just found this little piece on the bbc news website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4637801.stm
It would appear that African poverty is Maggie’s fault:
Money from Live Aid saved lives but, as aid expert David Rieff recently argued, it may also have led to the loss of just as many lives.
There was no sea change in attitudes. That wave of compassion did not stop millions voting for right wingers like Thatcher, Reagan and Kohl in subsequent elections.
Today, Africa is, if anything, worse off.
He continues…
Geldof has been a spectacularly tireless fundraiser.
But inevitably, given his profession, he is addicted to the spotlight and despite his reputation as a plain and profane speaker, rather too chummy towards the powerful over the years – be it Prince Charles, the Pope, Mother Teresa, Tony Blair or George Bush.
But these people front the very institutions – church, empire, Western states – that can be argued have done little to alleviate African misery
I wonder when they’re going to print the alternative argument that its all the fault of corrupt leaders, population growth, badly conceived aid programs, civil war, brain drain, etc.
I’m not holding my breath.
Whoops, that was me above.
Rob
The very next line in that piece runs:
They should be interrogated, not cosied up to. Geldof’s un-punkishly conciliatory stance to these people creates the illusion that, as with the tsunami, “no one is to blame”.
Now I’ve read that a few times and really must be missing something. I must have been away when the news broke that someone is to blame for the tsunami.
I must have been on holiday when blame was apportioned for the tsunami. The Guardian did try and pin the blame on the US. I didn’t realise the BBC had now accepted that as fact.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/uk-guardian-tsunami-assault-on-america.html
___________
The link to the BBC article does say it is written by a “music reviewer”. Perhaps he should stick to reviewing music rather than political comment – the very thing that he critises Bob Geldof for.
“I must have been on holiday when blame was apportioned for the tsunami”
You chumps can really outdo yourself with your brainless interpretations.
“Geldof’s un-punkishly conciliatory stance to these people creates the illusion that, as with the tsunami, “no one is to blame”.
The writer is obviously saying that Geldof’s stance creates the illusion that the situation [in Africa] is like that of the tsunami, where no-one is to blame.
If you adopt such boneheaded approaches to reading comprehension, no wonder you find bias everywhere and reds under the bed.
The point about corrupt leaders is interesting. How many corrupt leaders has the US propped up over the years?
Mobuto in Zaire is probably the worst, both for unpleasantness and looting. But the US and other Western nations have got behind a dozen murderers and thieves because of their strategic interests.
This is why they owe a certain debt to Africa, to say nothing of issues like slavery and colonialism.
Freer trade is probably the long term answer, but aid will have to be increased in the meantime.
And we must restrict arms sales.
Even rightwing moonbats must recognise this.
On the contrary, the use of inverted commas around the words no one is to blame changes the meaning completely. Quotation marks are for quoting somebody or introducing further meaning. In this case the sentance should really read (if what you are saying is correct):
“Geldof’s un-punkishly conciliatory stance to these people creates the illusion that, as with the tsunami, no one is to blame.”
By placing no one is to blame in quotes, it suggests that in fact somebody is indeed to blame. I’m guessing the author blames “these people”.
Here are some nations other than the US and the UK responsible for misery in Africa in the post-colonial era:
France and its deals with the cannibal despot ‘Emperor’ Bokassa, who blew a year’s GDP on his replica Napoleonic ‘coronation’.
The Soviet Union, propping up Mengistu in Ethiopia. The Ethiopians may have been starving, but Mengistu’s army had a huge arsenal of T-72 tanks.
The Soviets’ most loyal ally, Cuba, providing assistance to Marxist rebels in Angola.
P.S. Don’t forget, the supreme African statesman whose name ranks above God in the eyes of the Left – their greatest icon in history – was originally a pro-Moscow revolutionary.
Anon
As Rob says, those little strokes (“”) are quotation marks. As someone here said not so long ago, You chumps can really outdo yourself with your brainless interpretations. You really shouldn’t adopt such a boneheaded appraoch to reading comprehension, chum.
“By placing no one is to blame in quotes, it suggests that in fact somebody is indeed to blame. ”
The presence of quotes doesn’t suddenly make the author blame the tsunami on unnamed parties.
You are resorting to the ridiculous. Quotes = music writer blames government/politician for natural disaster? Sure.
The most likely explanation is that the writer is paraphrasing Geldof.
Unless you want to stretch the interpretation to a degree that neither logic, nor the context of the statement, support, you are being simply being obtuse.
Anon
It’s simple English, though if your ability is on a par with that porn site you link to I’m not surprised you’re having difficulties.
More blatant editorializing about the Beeb’s favorite ideology inserted into this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4638609.stm
“Belgium’s parliament speaker, Herman De Croo, decided to cancel a lunch rather than hosting a meal with no wine.
Strict Islamic teaching instructs Muslims to avoid looking at alcohol, as well as to avoid drinking it.”
This is not true. I know a lot about sharia and I have never, ever heard of anything instructing Muslims to not even “look” at alcohol.
Muslims are supposed to avoid drinking it and profiting from it, that is all.
The Beeb inserted this completely untrue statement to excuse and justify the Iranian visitors’ bigotry and intolerance.
The Beeb is really becoming very frightening these days.
On the topic of Supreme Court justice O’Connor: The lefties are already quaking in their boots, it seems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4642115.stm
The best comment was that from the Iranian guy near the top – comedian or what? 😉
Given that African leaders made a nice profit selling slaves to European and Arab dealers I don’t quite see how we, the descendants for former slave buyers owe a thing to the descendants of the former (?) slave sellers.
Roxana: Considering that arabs / muslims are still enslaving people (especially Blacks in Africa) as we speak I wonder how much money the Saudi Royal family are going to pledge. If the aid they gave to their fellow muslims after the Tsunami is anything to go by it’s not going to be much.
Hi all. This is Dominic here from the other day. I just wanted to clarify that this is NOT the same Dominic who posted today and yesterdat, Sorry Me and Laura haven’t been contributing for the past couple of days, v busy @ work. Should be back on form tomorrow.
More on the Justice O’Connor succession: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4628391.stm
The Beeb have highlighted “A court with more justices who share the radical legal philosophy of the far right’s favorites… would reverse decades of legal and social justice accomplishments
Ralph G Neas
People For the American Way Foundation”
Typically they don’t quote the opinion of a “neo-con”
Rod
I am not sure why you think why anything is owed to Africa because of “slavery”. “Slavery” existed in Africa before the arrival of the Europeans, people were commonly traded before the Europeans arrived, indeed one could blame the Africans for selling their own countrymen, as was the practice. Slavery existed in Africa long after it was banned in the British Empire.
PS: I am not claiming that slavery is a good thing, just that it was not caused by the West, as most of Africas problems were not caused by the West. Perhaps you should do more than form your opinions on an episode of “Roots”. This self loathing is promoted by many liberals in the West that Africa is somehow the fault of the West.
The BBC highlights the People for the American Way Foundation which suggests the US Supreme Court could swing to the “extreme right”. But most commentators expect Bush to nominate someone who is centre right. So who is this Foundation, which the BBC describes innocuously as left-leaning ? Their website shows they are supporting Jose Padilla, a suspected terrorist. Their “causes” are all far-left/liberal. They support the filibustering against Bush’s judicial nominees. They oppose John Bolton. They opposed Alberto Gonzales as Att-Gen.
Thank you, BBC, for once again giving us scaremongering quotations from an extreme left source.
/not
I made no suggestion the West had invented slavery. It was present in most ancient cultures.
But the West was involved. Do you think European and US slaving in Africa increased the number of slaves taken or left it stable? The fact somebody else has done something does not absolve you from blame or responsibility.
And I see nobody has anything to say on the point of US and Western support for dictators in Africa. I take it the rightwing moonbat fraternity has to accept this.
Rod
Sorry. I hadn’t read your other points since you had clearly disqualified yourself from intelligent conversation by your incoherent argument on slavery. (Because Africans sold Africans the West owes the Africans some money)
My other points came before slavery. If you think the West owes no debt over slavery, fine, what about everything else?
Everybody here is obsessed over corruption and dictatorship in Africa. But they go very quiet when the role of the West in sustaining those dictators comes up.
It applies the world over. If it’s right to topple Saddam, why isn’t it right to punish those politicians who helped him when they knew him to be a corrupt, murdering dictator?
Now Reagan’s dead, why don’t we start with Rumsfeld?
Rod
I do believe we should topple all the corrupt African regimes, just like Saddam was
toppled. Are you saying that we should topple these regimes.
I like the way you are thinking.
Rod
Though you mention Reagan and Rumsfeld as guilty of dealing with unsavoury foreign leaders, you missed Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Tonny Benn, George Galloway.
You don’t have a particular blindspot in your world view do you?
As slavery existed long before the Europeans arrived, the Europeans no doubt thought it was part of African culture.
Actually, the abolition of slavery was in itself an act of imperialism (imposing our morality and culture upon Africa). But of course you’ll never here any leftist admit that, because that would imply that Western culture hs doen good.
The media witters on about “the West”, yet fails to mention who really holds the cards in Africa.
China.
Alot of the aid and relief the West gives to Africa goes into the pockets of the Chinese.
But of course, why criticise China when it’s far more simple and easy to blame “Cowboy Bush”?
I’ve got no agenda for Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Benn and Galloway. Kennedy certainly did some disgraceful things on the foreign policy front. Galloway’s probably been up to no good.
But I’m glad we agree that Rumsfeld should be punished.
As for the arguments on slavery there’s a word for that. Sophistry.
If you spend time with children you realise their favourite defence is simply to say somebody else did the same bad thing and therefore they shouldn’t be punished.
In my world view when you’ve done something wrong, you own up to it and you make amends.
Not clear about the Chinese influence in Africa but I’m sure they must have some because of their economic might.
I’m interested in this
“As slavery existed long before the Europeans arrived, the Europeans no doubt thought it was part of African culture.
“Actually, the abolition of slavery was in itself an act of imperialism (imposing our morality and culture upon Africa). But of course you’ll never here any leftist admit that, because that would imply that Western culture hs doen good.”
Earlier I explained that slavery has existed almost as long as civilisation. It is almost certainly neither a European nor an African invention.
But the point is that the West did things in Africa that by that point it knew to be wrong. It took the concept of slavery and it amplified it and mechanised it. It is the difference between the pogroms and the Holocaust.
Enslaving people is wrong.
Rod
Are you mental? “We” did not agree Rumsfeld should be punished. I think you are living in your own little world and are prone to make things up.
You also claim that Reagan should be one of those that should be “punished”. Whereas, in reality, history has already proved
Ronald Reagan to be right and one of the greatest post- war leaders. He is credited by
many people (John Lewis Gaddis, The Economist, Lech Walensa) as “the man who defeated
communism.” Now you being a neoSocilist probably do not think that it was such a good thing
to defeat communism. If you have any doubt about the virtue of defeating communism check
out this “hollocausts of communism score” at
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/museum1.cgi
President Ronald decided to take on and defeat communism and he embarked on an arms race.
President Reagan also insisted on the release of political prisoners, such as Natan Sharansky
at negociations. Communism collapsed and the secret police in countries such as Poland were
disbanded.
The Left has never actually forgiven President Reagan for defeating Communism, as many on the left
insisted that President Reagan was a stupid and unsophisticated war monger, over a million peace
protesters turned out in New York alone. Much to the embarassment of the left President Reagan
turned out to be smarter than them and he brought an end to the Cold War.
I would guess that you may have been one of these people who opposed President Reagan and
the liberation of Eastern Europe from Soviet tyranny. If you were, I would suggest that
history proves you were pretty stupid
PS: Though it is not yet clear that The Bush doctrine will succeed (only history will tell),
a number of the smarter commentators have noted the similarities between the Bush and Reagan
doctrines.
I hope you are not proven to be an idiot (again)
PS: This is from Lech Walensa, you’ve probably never heard of him, but he was a political prisoner
in Poland and later the first president of the newly free Poland:
“When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal.We in Poland took him so
personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people
who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.
President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central
and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he
believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society.
He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa,
and that freedom is an innate right.”
The idea that slavery is wrong is a Western ideal based on concepts of individual liberty alien to traditional societies. However this was realized only in the late 18th early 19th centuries by a minority and was finally accepted by the majority several decades later.
Therefore the slavers who bought from the African dealers didn’t feel they were doing anything wrong any more than their trading partners did.
Of course we enlightened moderns consider both in the wrong – or should if we are consistent.
I think your failure to grasp the root cause of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe is extraordinary. I’m sure Reagan played a part, but the reasons will be discussed for many years and if people are looking for one man, outside of Republican circles, they will probably pick the flawed Gorbachev.
I find it hard to believe that a serious publication like the Economist would say Reagan was responsible.
But whatever Reagan may or may not have achieved in Eastern Europe, he also had foreign policy elsewhere.
Central and South America for instance.
Ronald Reagan described Argentinian tyrant Leopoldo Galtieri as a “magnificent general”.
This is a man famous for his appetite for torture and murder. During Argentina’s Dirty War, their favourite trick was to take dissidents or their family members out in a helicopter and drop them handcuffed into the sea.
Angola, El Salvador, Guatemala.
The School of the Americas has taught a couple of generations of Latin Americans how to deal with trade unionists and students.
Carter and Bush on either side of Reagan also did unacceptable things, but not with the same vigour and scope as Reagan.
He supported murderers , solely because they opposed communists and leftists.
But my favourite bit of his foreign policy was Afghanistan, without Reagan’s support for the Mujahedin there would have been no 9/11.
What a great man!
Thanks Roxanna
By the way, historically Britains biggest export under Roman rule was slaves.
Personally, I am not expecting the Italians to ‘make amends’. Indeed, it is recognised by many people that Roman rule was good for the development of Britian, similar to the Life Of Brian sketch,
REG: And what have they (the Romans) ever given us?!
XERXES:
The aqueduct?
REG:
What?
XERXES:
The aqueduct.
REG:
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that’s true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3:
And the sanitation.
LORETTA:
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG:
Yeah. All right. I’ll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS:
And the roads.
REG:
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don’t they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads–
COMMANDO:
Irrigation.
XERXES:
Medicine.
COMMANDOS:
Huh? Heh? Huh…
COMMANDO #2:
Education.
COMMANDOS:
Ohh…
REG:
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1:
And the wine.
COMMANDOS:
Oh, yes. Yeah…
FRANCIS:
Yeah. Yeah, that’s something we’d really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO:
Public baths.
LORETTA:
And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let’s face it. They’re the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES:
Brought peace.
REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
The argument of a child. Somebody else did bad, therefore I should not have to make amends. Keep going round in circles.
If the actions of Western slavers in Africa wasn’t evil, just say so. Just say the slavers were not evil and the governments that supported them weren’t evil.
And on the point of Rumsfeld I’m not seriously suggesting that any rightwing moonbat would want to punish him.
After all Rumsfeld’s meetings with Saddam were before he went “bad”.
And on the slavery point, the West condoned it for many years after there was a significant body of opinion campaigning for it to be abolished.
Saying people thought slavery acceptable is untrue. They would have bridled at enslaving of whites. what they would accept was the enslaving of blacks by whites because blacks were inferior.
Much the same argument persisted in Germany in the years up to the Second World War, that Jews and Slavs were inferior people.
The fact that this view was held has no bearing on whether Germany should have been punished. They did evil and therefore had to be punished and forced to make amends.
But a much better example is the treatment of women in Islamist nations at the present time. There’s no point rattling on about Iran all day when ultimately they are just following what they believe to be right.
This is called moral relativism.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the British relationship to slavery is that they abolished the slave trade in 1807 when they knew it to be wrong but allowed slavery to continue until 1833.
There is no defence for this
As a matter of fact there were a good many white slaves in the Old South. Those with an eight or less African blood were legally white, (this was before the one drop rule) but that didn’t free them.
In fact the enslavement of white workers was actually urged by the defenders of the ‘peculiar institution’.
So much for bridling at the thought of white slavery, (and let us not forget serfdom!). BTW I’m sure you’re aware the Ottoman Empire and other Islamic states dealt in European slaves.
Slavery is evil. Absolutely. In the words of Abraham Lincoln ‘If slavery isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong.’ The point is it was Western Europeans that first realized this and tried to do something about it. It was a long, hard fight but the Abolitionist won in the end. In the West anyway.
Slavery is evil. Therefore *all* the parties should be equally condemned or none! In other words don’t try to give the African and Arab traders a free pass! Especially as slavery is still alive and well in their part of the world.
Rod
You say you are not sure whether China has played any part in Africa.
That really is monumental ignorance.
I lived through the decolonisation of Africa, from McLeod’s time onwards. Britain’s record was pretty good. Much of the little that Africa has was provided by Britain, and there has been much provided since. Britain does not have a record of supporting dictators there – quite the opposite. You are talking through your hat.
Somebody who is an eighth black is mixed race, whatever the legal definition at the time
But don’t get me wrong, I obviously equally condemn any slaver whatever their background or ethnicity.
But African states are hardly in a position to make reparations as they are poor. Turkey is not rich, so cannot make reparations.
The West on the other hand is well able to make reparations without feeling the pinch. That is the community I come from, and always my main concern.
As for numbers trafficked, do you really think the Ottomans can hold a candle to the West?
Condemning other slaving nations is by the by, either the West did something wrong or it didn’t. It doesn’t get out of making amends by saying some other nations were doing it.
Anymore than you can defend yourself against speeding by saying others speed.
As for the malign influence of China in Africa, I have to admit I’m ignorant. What have they done in Africa?
Rod
You take your own illogical guilt-trip if you want. We just don’t want you or people like the BBC to foist it on us.
I prefer what squishy Matthew Parris says on Africa – at least he speaks with some local knowldge :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1677350,00.html
PS I don’t recall singling out the UK’s record in Africa. Certainly the US, France, and Belgium have much worse records for backing dictators.
On the other hand Britain has sold an awful lot of arms to regimes it shouldn’t have.
Show me where I’ve been illogical. It’s just history.
But most of all tell me about China’s actions in Africa, I’m really fascinated. There must be some examples
But why, oh why should the West pay reparations to the descendants of their slave trading partners? It just doesn’t make sense! You could as legitimately argue African states should return their profits from the trade.
Rod, we are *all* mixed race. I personally have ancestors native to four out of the six continents. Which doesn’t alter the fact I am pallid enough to make Caspar look like he’s got a healthy tan. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck! Or in other words if you’re pale enough to ‘pass’ you *ARE* white! Live with it!
It may surprise you to learn that East Africa was seriously depopulated by Arab slave raiders. As opposed to West African states which profited from the trade with Europeans.
Arabs have a lot of oil money they could use to pay reparations.
“For too long we Africans have been looking for an easy way out. I am fed up with our “Continental Anthem” or “Our Colonial Masters”. Yes, our Western masters came and took whatever they could and left us with all these controversies. But we have also governed ourselves for 10/15 years now. Since some of our states gained Independence what have we delivered? We just don’t want to face up to our own mistakes; we don’t want to accept blames, it’s easier to bury our heads in the sand and continue blaming the west for our 40 – 50 years misrule.”
Sorious Samura. An African film maker.
http://www.sorioussamurasafrica.org/about.htm