About slavery

Ioan Gruffudd (left) as William Wilberforce in 2006 movie Amazing Grace

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

July 29, 2020

 

About slavery

I’ve written previously about my experience of students’ lack of common knowledge, but it seems that today, in general, many young people (and not-so-young people) seem unaware of the history of slavery. This is disturbing. I hope what follows helps set the record straight.

Here is a transcript that provides a historical overview of slavery and some philosophical-theological insight concerning its demise. It’s from a short video by Dennis Prager of PragerU: “Every Society in History Had Slavery” (July 26, 2020): 

Every society on Earth in all of history had slavery. Every single one. The Europeans/ Americans had slavery. The Arabs had slavery, massive slavery. The word for black person in Arabic is “abeed” which means slave. That’s how common slavery was. Slavery in Asia, obviously. Slavery in Black Africa. Black Africans had Black Africans as slaves. Indigenous Native Americans had slaves. Every society in history had slavery. So the only question that is honest is not “who had slavery?” It’s “who abolished slavery?” That’s the only important question. And then you come up with the answer—woah people in the West. Western civilization with its Judeo-Christian values abolished slavery. It was a Christian movement. Now I’m a Jew telling you this. It was a Christian movement in Britain. Wilberforce was the man’s name, who led this movement, seeing that it was evil and it violated biblical principles. 

Prager continues: 

And you know how many Americans died to end slavery? That was the Civil War that was about slavery. It’s one of the only things [about which] left and right agree. It was caused by slavery. Southern states wanted to maintain slavery; northern states wanted to abolish it, so the southern states seceded and that’s how you got the Civil War. And when it ended slavery was abolished. Abraham Lincoln was regarded until this very morally perverse present as one of the greatest humans we’ve ever produced. And now every statue was taken down. Washington and Jefferson had slaves. So therefore what? Who didn’t have slaves in the 18th century? But they made a country that abolished slavery. 

Pause and let Prager’s points sink in (skip the bit about statues for now; I’ve written about statues here). Prager’s first point is that, historically, slavery was widespread, even universal. That’s true, it’s terrible, and it’s often missed by many today. Also often missed by many is Prager’s crucially important second point: A hugely significant feature of the West is that it abolished slavery.

I would add that the West also planted and nurtured the philosophical-theological seeds needed to continue to fight slavery.

Prager mentions the English politician William Wilberforce (1759-1833). While the world was for centuries awash with slavery, Wilberforce and his friends fought long and hard—peacefully, for about 50 years—to abolish slavery in Britain. Why? Because they held to the view that all people were created in the image of God and therefore had great worth—and equally so.

Wilberforce and company got this view from the New Testament, which includes the letters of the Apostle Paul. Significantly, as historian Tom Holland points out, Paul’s writings are a “kind of depth charge deep beneath the classical world” that has had “ripple effects” throughout the modern Western world, resulting in concepts such as international law and human rights, which we now take for granted.

Sadly, slavery continues today, even in the West. It’s called human trafficking. Happily, people of good will—people who respect international law and human rights—continue to work hard to end it. In fact, July 30th is World Day Against Trafficking in Persons.

I hope that an accurate historical and philosophical-theological understanding of the battle against slavery/human trafficking will help us persevere over the long haul, as we follow Wilberforce's example. An accurate understanding and taking to heart of the Gospels and the letters of Paul (and letters of others in the New Testament) will probably help, too.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

 

For further thought:  

• Africa’s Role In Slavery 
• 'After All, Didn't America Invent Slavery?' 
• Amazing Grace
• ‘Christianity gave women a dignity that no previous sexual dispensation had offered’: Tom Holland
• 'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves' 
• Slaves of a different color
• The Native Americans Who Owned Slaves 
• The Real History of Slavery

 

On taking down monuments

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

July 23, 2020

 

On taking down monuments

I’ve been thinking about all the monuments that have been toppled and/or vandalized recently in the U.S. by mobs because of their anger over slavery. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1. History is messy. Contrary to what seems to pass for common knowledge these days, whites aren’t the only people who owned slaves. It turns out that Native Americans owned slaves. It turns out, too, that Arabs and Asians were heavily involved in slavery. And it turns out that blacks also owned slaves and sold fellow blacks to slave buyers. Rich African chiefs even protested the abolishing of slavery—an abolition that started first in 18th century England which was for the most part … white.

For further reading and substantiation, see The Native Americans Who Owned Slaves and Africa’s Role In Slavery and 'After All, Didn't America Invent Slavery?' and 'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves' and The Real History of Slavery.

2. I think some monuments should come down, especially if they celebrate some kind of moral atrocity. I’m okay with taking down monuments that celebrate Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the like. These men are responsible for the murder of well over a hundred million people. I think the monuments of some Confederate slave-holders should come down, too. I would also favour the taking down of the monument of Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood to use abortion to help rid the world of black people.

3. About the method of taking down monuments: I think it would be wise to do this in a way that respects peaceful and law-respecting democratic processes. We should take time to investigate the actual history of the person whose monument is on the chopping block, then petition the city council or state/province (or whomever) that’s in charge, and then present our case, providing carefully thought out reasons (including pros and cons and alternatives for the monument, besides destruction, e.g., placement in a museum). Otherwise a mob mentality takes over, resulting in some “innocent” monuments (among other things) getting destroyed.

Speaking of “innocent” monuments, I think of the recent destruction of a statue of Hans Christian Heg in Wisconsin. Ironically, it was destroyed in the name of anti-racism. But Heg was an anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War so slavery could be ended. Other innocent monuments that have been recently toppled or vandalized include those of Matthias Baldwin (an abolitionist), John Greenleaf Whittier (another abolitionist), Ulysses S. Grant (a Union general and later president who helped end slavery in the U.S.), and Frederick Douglass (yet another abolitionist). (Note: Some speculate that the destruction of the Douglass statue was some sort of “retribution” for the destruction of statues like that of Heg—but this strengthens my point. Peaceful and law-respecting democratic process is to be preferred over mob mentality/rule.)

So, yes, some monuments should come down. But let’s do it wisely. Also, if there are monuments honouring black people, indigenous people, or people of colour, it’s probably also wise—and fair—to discern whether they had slaves or committed other moral atrocities.

4. The desire to take down monuments seems to be related to seeking justice for past injustices related to slavery. But when it comes to reparations of past injustices having to do with slavery, things get complicated. Slavery was practiced by all peoples, including whites, blacks, indigenous people, and people of colour (see the above linked-to articles for substantiation). So attempts to seek justice for those who were enslaved gets seriously complex. For example, it gets very difficult to seek justice for the offspring of black people who were sold by other blacks and enslaved by indigenous people who in turn bore injustices. We may have noble goals about sorting out the injustices of the past—and those goals ARE noble—but history is, as I said, messy. This means historians need to be given time to do the necessary historical work, without pressure from the mob, and citizens should become familiar with history and respect the rule of law—and thereby resist becoming a mob.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.