StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Racism: A history, is a great 3-part 2007 British BBC about the history of racism in the modern age from Spanish colonialism to modern-day South Africa.

Here is why it is great:
- It tackles a huge variety of subjects and unlike other documentaries it doesn't waste time with reenactment. Instead, it uses original imagines whenever it can.
- It doesn't have pseudo-experts or caters to loudmouths. Instead, it gives airtime to real academics or real politicians. No paid shrills here.
- It is the first documentary I have seen which shows the real images of the atrocities committed by the colonial powers, from the black war to photographs of indian famine victims to herero bones rotting in the desert of Namibia.
- It shows the link between Eugenics, social darwinism, colonialism and eventually nazism clearly and succinctly
- It never preaches. Instead, it shows the cold, hard facts and lets them - like the description of the lynching of Jesse Washington - speak for itself.
- It shows dissenting voices when called for. For example, when the producers argue that spanish colonialism was less racially charged than British colonialism they give equal airtime to a disagreeing academic and then - most importantly - let him say his piece without making him look stupid via succeeding images.

There are some generalizations, but in general the trade off is worth it. This is one of the few documentaries I would recommend wholeheartedly and probably my favorite documentary I have seen this year.

Sounds interesting. Is it up on youtube or someplace else?

i'll check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efI6T8lovqY
Part one....

If Thanas recommends it, I will check it out. LaCroix provided a link from youtube.

These docos might get taken down by youtube before you can watch it, so it might be worth while to watch it as soon as possible or to download it (and then delete it naturally) using third party software or websites like catchvideo.net for example.

I'm only 16min into Part 1 before work. It reminds me much of Walter Rodney's book "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa". The narration brought up that over 11 million Africans were robbed from their homes by the slave trade. I'm willing to bet poor record keeping standards meant those numbers are conservative.

The absolute worst thing of all was that the slave trade crippled Africa's population growth during the 16th-18th centuries thus ensuring Africa was at a permanent disadvantage at agricultural and industrial self sufficiency. I think it's the biggest reason why it's so hard to so much as live in Africa today. To say nothing of the systemic and institutional racism still prevailing in African-World relations.

CaptHawkeye wrote:I'm only 16min into Part 1 before work. It reminds me much of Walter Rodney's book "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa". The narration brought up that over 11 million Africans were robbed from their homes by the slave trade. I'm willing to bet poor record keeping standards meant those numbers are conservative.

The absolute worst thing of all was that the slave trade crippled Africa's population growth during the 16th-18th centuries thus ensuring Africa was at a permanent disadvantage at agricultural and industrial self sufficiency. I think it's the biggest reason why it's so hard to so much as live in Africa today. To say nothing of the systemic and institutional racism still prevailing in African-World relations.

I wouldn't have thought enough Africans were taken to cripple the continents progress, but I am sure the constant warfare between tribes trying to capture enemies to sell as slaves greatly magnified the problem.

Frankly the "Africans sold themselves into slavery" comeback strikes me as just passing the buck. It's just a pathetic attempt by slavery apologists to minimize the role white westerners played in the enslavement of Africans by acting as if Africans themselves were to blame for their own enslavement.

Millions of Africans were sold into slavery, which over a period of centuries would have had a stagnating effect on population growth. The effects of Mercantilism and the slave trade weren't just raw numbers after all, communities were broken up and annihilated by the slave trade. Europeans fostered tribal rivalries and wars which further kept organizing and population growth low. What few states that did form often did not last long, as European encroachment ensured the development potential of such states was kept low. Eventually turning them into dependent states, or simply crushing them in colonial wars.

It is a bit like drug dealers and drug consumers.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Frankly the "Africans sold themselves into slavery" comeback strikes me as just passing the buck. It's just a pathetic attempt by slavery apologists to minimize the role white westerners played in the enslavement of Africans by acting as if Africans themselves were to blame for their own enslavement.

Millions of Africans were sold into slavery, which over a period of centuries would have had a stagnating effect on population growth. The effects of Mercantilism and the slave trade weren't just raw numbers after all, communities were broken up and annihilated by the slave trade. Europeans fostered tribal rivalries and wars which further kept organizing and population growth low. What few states that did form often did not last long, as European encroachment ensured the development potential of such states was kept low. Eventually turning them into dependent states, or simply crushing them in colonial wars.

Never looked at as passing the buck. I looked at it as how slavers were able to acquire slaves from much further into the interior of African than they were ever able to travel.

I am sure that like any tribal society there was a certain level of constant warfare, raiding and the such, that went on. The existence of the slavers and their willingness to pay just gave greater enticement to raid and fight well beyond what would have happened normally. In a way it put the coastal tribes in a very tough spot. If they did not acquire slaves that they could trade to the slavers they themselves would become targets of the slavers. So you have the unfortunate choice of sell your neighbor or watch your own village get raided.

I would never look at any of this though as mitigation of what slavers did and what slavery itself did. There is plenty of shame and this does not diminish that.

I don't see it as passing the buck, either. It was just pointing out that the Europeans themselves weren't the ones running around in Africa grabbing slaves - they were buying them in West Africa from African states that had gotten the slaves from further inland, or in conflicts - conflicts that were exacerbated by the slave trade, since it gave them an economic incentive to fight to capture more slaves to sell. You saw a similar dynamic in parts of North America in the South, with some tribes warring with others to capture native slaves to sell to colonial Europeans in the coastal colonies (who would then often trade them to the Caribbean colonies), such as the Creek Confederacy raids on the Apalachee and other tribes.

But at the end of the day, it was the massive European demand for slaves that generated the whole dynamic.

Anybody watch "Slavery By Any Other Name"?
http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758/