Update (2/12): From reader Duncan M:
In honor of Black History Month, please publish the American College Dictionary’s definition of “Republican party — one of the two major political parties of the United States, originated (1854-56) to combat slavery.”
———————————————————————
Since this is black history month and I’m black, I suppose I should continue writing in honor of “Black History Month,” on account of I’m black and all.
In his latest column, Thomas Sowell reviews a book titled Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves, the story of anti-slavery efforts in 18th century Britain, written by Adam Hochschild. Sowell writes:
To me the most staggering thing about the long history of slavery — which encompassed the entire world and every race in it — is that nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong. In the late 18th century, that question arose in Western civilization, but nowhere else.
Ah, yes, Western civilization, from which sprang the idea of individual liberty and the freedom to redress government wrongs, broadly speaking. Some of America’s dead white men owned slaves, but other dead white men created a sweeping movement to abolish human bondage.
I mentioned the West and slavery in a piece I wrote for Pop and Politics:
[A]lthough slavery existed throughout the world for millennia and still exists in parts of the world today (Africa, for example), it was the Western idea of freedom and rights of the individual, incompatible with human bondage, that prompted the United States to abolish slavery. Being proud of this heritage is incompatible with the liberal agenda.
While Africans are still being enslaved in 2005 by their own countrymen and Arabs, certain descendents of slaves in the U.S., who have it better than blacks anywhere in the world will ever have in their lifetimes, are demanding a “reparations” check for the slavery of long-dead ancestors. Once again, I am embarrassed by my countrymen.
Hochschild chronicles the history of “the world’s first anti-slavery movement.” A group of religious Londoners wanted their fellow Britons to think about the immorality of human bondage. Eventually, Parliament banned slavery throughout the British Empire, and that’s where Hochschild ends the book. Sowell hopes for an equally compelling book about the worldwide struggle against slavery. That’s a tall order complicated by a number of things, including America’s deep political division, George Bush’s decisive win over John Kerry and the resultant “moral values” controversy. Men who could be anachronistically described as “right wingers” led the abolitionist movement. Sowell writes:
The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called “the religious right” and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today’s intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn’t fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
The idea that blacks don’t need skin color preferences and have succeeded without liberals and government handouts doesn’t fit their vision, either. It’s as though black advancement absent entitlements and special treatment never happened.
Someone should write an “equally dramatic and compelling book” about that.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 22 comments }
Thomas Sowell is one of the most gifted minds and best writers in America today. All his articles are archived on Townhall and all are excellent. I’ve tried without success to persuade FoxNews to add him to their list of regular contributing analysts. If he speaks the way he thinks and writes, he’d be a terrific addition. Hope others who feel as I do will send the same message to FoxNews.
Too bad MSNB didn’t go for Mr. Sowell instead of the Boy Reagan. There’s no doubt who would win the battle of wits between those two.
Mr. Sowell is one of my favorite writers, he doesn’t get nearly the attention that he deserves.
Thanks La Shawn for posting this.
Someone should write an “equally dramatic and compelling book” about that.
Are you volunteering, La Shawn?
(I know, you’re a busy lady. I’m just saying… 
)
Excellent suggestion, AWG! We know you’re going to write one (because your fans will demand it) and this seems like a worth y subject…?
Good post La Shawn. You can be sure that with the rampant moral relativism of today’s leftist would have NO problem rationalizing slavery.
The evidence lies in the simple fact that they can equate a foetus as just a clump of cells in order to justfy killing the baby.
Likewise, they will use Feminism, Racism and other cause celebre to express moral outrage when it suits them as a vehicle towards power and/or beating the conservatives over the head, and just as readily discard them when they have their way.
To wit, economic sanctions and condemnation over apartheid vis a vis Somalia, Rawanda, Sierra Leone, Senegal, or even a boatload of children marked for sale up and down the coast of West Africa — what Clinton couldn’t send the SF to rescue the kids?. Or how about the indignant outrage over Clarence Thomas’ alleged kinkiness vs Clinton’s proven “peccadilloes”. And the list goes on.
Excellent post La Shawn.
Black advancement requiring entitlements and special treatment sounds like racism to me.
Another great post today. Thanks LB for posting during Black History Month because… you are Black
Thanks, everyone.
Renee – I’m in that kind of mood today.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!
Western civilization, sure, but specifically Christianity, JudeoChristianity… the source of the moral weight that bore down on the founding fathers when they wrote “all men are created equal” while watching their slaves work in the fields…
And this moral weight has its origin not in the west but in the ancient land of the Hebrews…
(I’m feeling a little guilty for writing this comment during black history month.. after all, I”m not black.. but there is a passing reference to slavery in the first paragraph, so hopefully it passes the relevance test for this month)
I recently read Uncle Tom’s Cabin for the first time (at age 44) because of something Avery Tooley said about it. What a powerful book. Apparently it helped strengthen and solidify the abolitionist movement in the USA, and having read it I can certainly understand that. It’s the success of the abolitionist movement that makes me think that we pro-lifers will win out. I think the day will come that people look back at legalized abortion with the same horror and disbelief that we look back at slavery with.
(I had to skip ahead to make sure Eliza was going to make it, otherwise the book would have gone in the garbage.)
“Long Live Western Imperialism” is a very interesting article. I am not black, I am Native American and I feel the exact same way. I am proud of my opinion but sometimes it can be difficult because no one else seems to see things my way. Then again who am I to have my own opinion. Many people call me a traitor because I do not feel sorry for my own people.
Oops I meant interesting. I guess I should proof read my comments.
That’s OK. I usually correct typos in comments. I think Dr. Freud had a word for that…
Thanks.
Thanks for the interesting post! Indeed, it’s interesting where and how the abolition of slavery became a potent force in our political and cultural history.
You might be interested in this related post of mine on Granville Sharp, British abolitionist and Christian, and associate of William Wilberforce.
http://rebelgarden.blogspot.com/2005/01/granville-sharp-abolition-and-grammar.html
I just read at Powerline that Stephen Douglas used “diversity” to defend slavery. The old deconstructionist attitude existed even then:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009540.php
I try to tell my “liberal” friends that everyone wants liberty and freedom but they don’t think so. If I tell them their exact words about people in Iraq were used to defend slavery they get really angry, but it’s true. Today’s “liberal” would defend slavery 150 years ago. Maybe they should change their name.
I’d recommend of the American College Dictionary that they mention polygamy as the “twin relic of barbarism” to slavery. The Republicans wanted to keep Utah out of the Senate and Electoral College as long as they insisted on treating their womenfolk like… well, like slaves. But that is off-topic nitpicking; AFAIK you haven’t posted yet on “the law of Abraham” and you may be saving that up for a new thread :^)
The Republicans of 1856 could also be called left-wingers; in that they wanted a government that would enforce social change against the plantation South and mountain West.
Perhaps “right” and “left” are also anachronistic to the *modern* stage in history. The Radical Republicans then are the neo-conservative movement now.
Thomas Sowell is a particularly gifted writer and thinker. Like Dennis Prager (one of my other faves) he cuts to the meat of an issue and lays it out so clearly one is apt to slap one’s forehead and say “well, DOAH, why didn’t I see this before?”
What is little covered in the examination of slavery in America (pre 1776 as well as post) is that two kinds of slavery were present — chattel and bond, and they were both treated about the same by their owners. Indeed, its interesting to view some of the ads in newspapers of the era advertising rewards for the return of escaped slave and bond servants.
My family was brought here in 1697 as bond servants … sold to work on a plantation in Virginia. Took ‘em about 60 years to pay off the bond. After that, some family members stayed in VA, most migrated to Kentucky where they remain to this day.
As Ann Coulter once said, “The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning.” How true!
If you haven’t read Thomas Sowell’s books, you should. He is a real treat. Love Sowell.
Excellent post!
My understanding is that, in America, the Society of Friends — aka the Quakers — were very strong supporters of the abolitionist movement. Anti-slavery sermons, letters and other writings began as early as the mid-1600s, over a century before the broader cultural movement took hold (which happened after the Evangelicals joined the Quakers on this issue in 1787).
It’s amazing how these attitudes live through the generations. My earliest American ancestors were 17th century Quakers, abolitionists, and eventually pro-secession (a combination of views that you rarely see together — the very existence of people who were both abolitionist and pro-secession is something the Left would like to obliterate from history altogether). To this day, my family is all pro-liberty, anti-aggression, etc. Today we are called conservative, but then, it was considered radical.
Thomas Sowell’s column refers to a book that ” traces the history of the world’s first anti-slavery movement, which began with a meeting of 12 ‘deeply religious’ men in London in 1787.” This side-steps our War of Independence: A larger group was meeting in the U.S. in 1787, known now as the Continental Congress, which passed the Northwest Territory Ordinance Act.
This act was the first to influence the world on this issue. ART. 6, of the Ordinance Act states: ” There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.” The war with a “shot heard around the world” was also heard in Britain.
Comments on this entry are closed.