Rebels and Red Coats - Native Americans & Blacks in the American Revolution

by Simon 69 Replies latest jw friends

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge


    Thanks for the interesting read about the capture of the slaver ship.. one of the items I noted was:

    "After a good deal of questioning I learned that most of them were from a long distance in the interior, some having been one and some two moons on the way, traveling partly by land and partly by river until they reached the coast. They had been sold by their kings or by their parents to the Arab trader for firearms or for rum. Once at the depots near the coast, they were sold by the Arabs or other traders to the slave captains ,,,"

    I knew that african sold africans, but I didn't realize that not only was it from the same tribe (the king) but from their parents!.... talk about tough love.....

  • Abaddon


    you have targeted the underlying reason why Europeans have been so keen on mistreating all other (non-European) peoples, whether they be Natives, Africans, Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese... whatever.

    Sorry teejay, 'Manifest Destiny' is a concept dreamt up, named, and practised by Americans. Obviously the European powers acted as thought they had divine right (and in the case of Spain and Portigal actually had permission from the Pope to divide large parts of the Western hemisphere between them), but it took Americans to package the concept in the way they did.


    It's just that britain and america were the first countries to change all that.

    Mmmm; not strictly true. Slavery in Western Europe was rare by the 1770's, and was normally only possible in the cases of colonials who had slaves retaining right to those slaves when returning to their home country - it was very far from the slavery as an active institution as practised in the USA and the European powers colonies (very hypocritical, banning slavery at home and allowing it in the colonies). All the same, on both sides of the Atlantic the late 1700's saw the increase in arguments for abolition, and the first modern legislation against slavery was indeed American;

    1777: Vermont abolishes Slavery
    1780: Pennsylvania abolishes Slavery
    1794: France abolishes Slavery in its colonies
    1802: France re-establishes Slavery in its colonies
    1807: Slave Trade abolished in British Empire
    1823: Slavery abolished in Chile
    1824: Slavery abolished in Central America
    1829: Slavery abolished in Mexico
    1831: Slavery abolished in Bolivia
    1833: Slavery abolished in British Empire
    1848: France abolishes Slavery again
    1854: Slavery abolished in Venezuela
    1863: Emancipation of Slaves in USA
    1863: Slavey abolished in the Dutch colonies
    1865: US: Slavery abolished by 13th Amendment
    1873: Slavery abolished in Puerto-Rico
    1880: Slavery abolished in Cuba
    1888: Slavery abolished in Brazil

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    1794: France abolishes Slavery in its colonies
    1802: France re-establishes Slavery in its colonies
    1848: France abolishes Slavery again

    Obviously, this was facilitated by one "Gray le poupon Davis", a distant relative of our current Governor in California... he too couldn't make up his mind on running government.

  • Abaddon

    Double Edge:

    I did think it rather funny, in a very non PC fiunny way;

    "I ahm sorr-ie, dere az bin zom kind of miztake, would you plea-ise put deze chains back on"

  • waiting
    I don't have an obsession for America but just have an interest in both history and politics. Things like the war of the roses, culloden, or the battle of salamis would probably not be as vibrant discussions though. - simon

    Simon makes a good point. I doubt if but a handful of us could "vibrantly discuss" the European (all those little countries) wars - and the total history behind them.

    Kudos to you, Simon. You know more information (and a damn good deal of it correct - even if I do disagree with you sometimes) about United States - I can't say the same about my knowledge of European history. Speaking for myself only here.

    And I'll give you another credit. I saw an exchange over on H20 one time about the USA's use of the atomic bomb in Japan during WWII. A poster mentioned it in passing - and the American came in stompin' against "America Bashing". The German man (who had been a child in Germany after the war - and fondly remembered the Americans' feeding him - apologized, and then show the clicks to the evidence behind his comment. When clicks to evidence not proving the American viewpoint were shown by several posters........the American said he just didn't have time to discuss it anymore.....and left the thread. I remember - I was one of the American several posters showing the clicks.

    You are a persistent Brit - give you that!

  • waiting

    Thanks Blondie for the click, and Edge too.

    That's a massive DISSERTATION. Who knew history could be so interesting? FIVE chapters!

    As the focus of this dissertation is on the Keetoowah Society, the best place to begin is with primary sources from the Keetoowah Society. The best resources for understanding the Cherokee Nation as well as the Keetoowah Society are through the oral traditions and stories of the people themselves. In traditional culture, history is often transmitted through the oral tradition with religious items such as wampum belts and other sacred items serving as keys to reflection upon the history and cultures of times past. As this history is often elusive to but the best of scholars and in some senses should remain the property of the people themselves, we are often left with the musings of ethnographers and contemporary historians that serve as pathways to primary resources.
  • Panda

    Simon, Just one point for now (more later) during the Civil War, England sided with the Confederacy which was pro-slavery.

    Oh and maybe one other thing until later ... In South and Central America the Portuguese and Spanish continued slavery until the 20th century (add the Phillipines in there) and while the Brits may have said "No more Slavery" they were harvesting opium in India and selling it to the Chinese. They even fought a war so that they could continue to be the dope pushers of Asia. So India and Malasia remained virtual slave labor for the Brits and French , also into the 20th century. more later gotta get dinner on ...

  • Satanus


    You're welcome. To certain african countries, slave export was a big money making industry. When it stopped, they complained long and loudly.


  • Abaddon

    Panda; so, your argument is that 'cause Britain did bad things no Englishman can make any criticism of the USA? That's a pretty dumb argument!

    In any case it doesn't influence the topic of the discussion, which was about reasons why Native Americans and blacks were treated so badly for so long, and argyuably still are - although there has been some discussin' over the causes of the Civil War.

    You seem to have had a nationalist kneejerk reaction there, never mind.

    I'm also not sure about your facts;

    In South and Central America the Portuguese and Spanish continued slavery until the 20th century

    The data I have show five South American countries abolished slavery in the sixty years before the USA did, followed by Brazil in '88. Please give your sources showing that colonies of Portugual and Spain still allowed slavery in the late 19th and 20th Century.

    You also say;

    ...(add the Phillipines in there)

    ... what are your sources? For one thing, by 1898 the Philipines was in US control, for another, I could only find statements to the ends there never was a slave trade in the Phillipines .

    I agree the Opium Wars were (there were two) totally reprehensible, but cannot see it affecting antipathy and discrimination against Native Americans and blacks in the USA.

    I'd also love to see you prove;

    So India and Malasia remained virtual slave labor for the Brits and French , also into the 20th century.

    ... as although they acted in the typical role of colonial powers and colonisers (is Puerto Rico a State of the Union yet?), 'virtual slaves' 'also into the 20th century' seems hyperbolic.

    I will look forward to the promised 'more later', and evidence to support your claims.

  • nilfun

    The issue of African complicity in the Trans-Atlantic slave is a subject of interest to me and definitely something that I would like to explore.

    Here's an excerpt from a review of Adanggaman, a film which deals with this subject. I would like very much to check it out:

    The controversy behind director Roger Gnoan M'Bala's new film
    is that it raises the issue of African complicity in the slave
    trade. Produced in the Ivory Coast and shown at the Toronto and
    Vienna festivals, "Adanggamman" created a stir at the recent
    Fespaco Film Festival in Ougadougou, Burkina Faso, the African
    equivalent to Cannes. Annoyed critics stressed that the film
    absolves Europeans of guilt and responsibility for the predatory
    plundering of Africa by colonial powers. The film's defenders
    claim Europeans could not have taken hold on a continent like
    Africa -- and stolen its children -- had there not been
    collaboration with local establishment. After all, slavery
    existed in Africa long before the Middle Passage...

    Filmmaker M'Bala is to be commended for braving a sensitive
    topic, and possibly enlivening debate. Little is known about
    African complicity with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and
    M'Bala's film raises the taboo topic. Too bad "Adanggamman"
    separates the dilemma of African culpability from the realties
    of the Middle Passage, which, historians agree, entailed
    immeasurable brutality. Slavery in Africa was unlike slavery
    in the Americas.

    First and foremost, it was not confused with the notion of
    racial superiority or inferiority. Lacking contact with
    American slavery, African traders assumed the lives of slaves
    overseas would be as much as they were in Africa; they did
    not yet know that whites in America associated dark complexion
    with sub-human qualities and status, and that they would treat
    slaves as chattels generation after generation.

    I believe it possible to examine (controversial) history without using such an examination as a springboard to further racial hate/resentments/divisions.

    Interesting posts by all.

Share this