Colonialism as part of the European-Christian war against slavery
The deepest fracture in our history
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Xrc 8 Winch W/synthetic Rope & Aluminum Fairlead
Is it human rights by force against cultural special requests? Those who fear the fundamentalism of the Enlightenment, the abolition of slavery did not understand. We live in a slave-free society. This privilege is due to the political destruction of sklavistischen systems in the nineteenth century. But as we stand by this destruction? As to their costs? How to forcibly impose a universal principle to special cultural rights? Slavery existed in every civilization, without exception, and in many of the so-called primitive societies. They meant to abolish the lowest break in the recent cultural development of mankind. However, what is slavery? The article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights distinguishes slavery from "slavery" conditions. Slavery is the extreme degradation of man, but not the worst. Extreme are the levels of lawlessness, bad experiences are. The worst humiliation is not institutionalized, the most extreme it is. Slavery is an institution and therefore is not forced prostitution slavery. Those who blur the differences and any Servitude called slavery expanded the vocabulary of moral Anprangerei and reduces the historical understanding. However, among the various forms of bondage, slavery is the cornerstone, if it is allowed, then other forms of oppression of people are not inevitable. If it is banned, then all forms of freedom come under moral, political and eventually police pressure. was a catalyst for the abolitionist movement, the European colonial slavery. The fight against them began immediately. Largely taken him from the late seventeenth century evangelical movements in England and English America. After a Century featured a successes. The Vermont Constitution of 1777 put an end to slavery, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Rhode Iceland followed. The British House voted five times from 1779 to 1802 on the request to ban the slave trade. But the Manchester City with 75,000 inhabitants gave 1792 a petition 20,000 signatures.
Revolutionary France overtook the British abolitionism: 1791 slave revolt in Haiti began with an appeal to the ideals of the Revolution, in February 1794 told the National Assembly any slavery in French territories as illegitimate, and the Revolutionary War, however, prevented implementation. Decided in 1807 the British Parliament, the slave trade within the Empire prohibited. In February 1815 declared to the Congress of Vienna in eight European monarchies their will to suppress the slave trade. British ships controlled the West African waters and brought the first time the ambivalence of humanitarian intervention to light, which we torment to this day: the constant pressure from the British navy felt other countries as a violation of international law, as a world policeman defended the UK, a universal principle and wounded special cultural rights and national sovereignty. English captains, the one in transporting slaves seized, were hanged. 1833, Parliament decided to abolish slavery throughout the Empire, and the Abolition was 1838th 1841 it came to a multilateral treaty, which placed the slave trade on a level with piracy, and allowed to monitor the oceans and to impose naval blockade - in the service of humanity. Thereafter, patrolled regularly up to sixty warships in African waters, foremost British but also French and those of the United States. On 27 April 1848 revolutionary France declared slavery abolished in all territories with immediate effect. From 1807 to 1287 began in 1867, a total of slave ships from. This policy was expensive. Nine-tenths of the total load carried the British, whose Marine for this purpose fifteen percent of their vessels related. This amounted to half a century to around 250,000 pounds per year, about two to six percent of the total marine budgets. From 1816 to 1862, the suppression of the slave trade cost as much as the British traders had earned from 1760 to 1807 on the sale of slaves. But against all expectations
broke sklavistischen systems together, neither in the United States or in Brazil, Cuba or in the Islamic world. In Africa, the forced enslavement was running at full speed. With the fate of this continent is closely Abolition. Everyone knows about the second largest deportation of people, the export of nearly twelve million black Africans across the Atlantic to America. The largest went to the heartlands of Islam and involved at least seventeen million black Africans. The Europeans were deported, but they do not enslaved, they had to buy like slaves on the coast. The Muslim Emirates and the non-Muslim south of the Sahara Kriegerethnien other hand, were employed twice: They enslaved, and sold them in all directions. If reparations are due, the successors of these offenders would be liable for payment for centuries.
But as the gruesome Versklavungsprozesse ? Stop First and foremost, the abolitionists pushed for direct intervention, while conservative politicians are not the neck of Britain wanted to hang with other colonial millstones, and even 1865 withdrawal from West Africa demanded. As always apparent, was that the Islamic countries from slavery and the slave trade would abolish never had the British fleet in the Indian Ocean similar to operate as before in the Atlantic. Only when they occupied Egypt in 1882, managed to dry out the slave trade in the Middle East, except the further influx of the Red Sea. In Africa, the elites had the Abolition imposed politically and militarily. It was high Zeit. Eine stattliche Anzahl von muslimischen Warlords führte zwischen 1880 und 1910 vom Niger bis zum Nil ihre „Befreiungskriege“ gegen die Europäer. Der afrikanische „Antikolonialismus“ wird geboren als Kampf zur Verteidigung der Sklaverei.
Die Berliner Konferenz 1884/85 steckte nicht nur die Einflusssphären der europäischen Mächte in Afrika ab, sondern verbot den Sklavenhandel zu Lande. Völkerrechtlich geächtet wurde die Sklaverei in der Berliner Kongo-Akte von 1885 und durch die Antisklaverei-Akte der Brüsseler Konferenz von 1889/90, laut dem englischen konservativen Premierminister Lord Salisbury der ersten in der Geschichte der Menschheit, die um einer Angelegenheit purer Sake of humanity took place.
distinguishes the British and French colonialism in Africa from all other imperialist formations, so far as he is primarily owed to the impulse to intervene for a universal principle. Colonial intervention and presence eliminated finally sklavistische system, such as the American historian Seymour Drescher points out: ". The main initiatives for the destruction of the system in Africa depended initially on the further development of European civil society and its public opinion"
War of humanitarian interventionism a mere pretext for imperialist Expansion? Suzanne Miers and other researchers believe this with good reason. Certainly, the universal abolition of slavery - within a century - took place just in time to the hegemonic and imperial dominance of European culture, which Jürgen Osterhammel commented succinctly: "Nowhere in the empires of the British or Dutch, French or Italians, it was permissible to sell to buy other people to give away or justify them without government contracting, ie, in prisons, inflict severe physical cruelty. "Does that mean the" imperialism "? As stultifying the question may be, the answer, no matter how it turns out, is a philosophy of history.
The British and French interventions Africa to open a thousand-year history of the bloodiest violence and genocides new ground - albeit under colonial supervision. The investment and expenditure were higher than the gains. In our view is an intentional action that overrode economic "constraints". A historical-theoretical problem: When the interventionist powers to abolish slavery brought high costs that are not profitable, then why the political elites operate such a useless company? Seymour Drescher called the Abolition a "Econocide" - The political assassination of a highly profitable economic system. The "materialist" historian brings into conceptual confusion, they prefer economic-natural growth processes and are baffled by an intentional act that is beyond economic motivation.
The visionaries of the abolitionist movement had not seen before colonial rule. This dialectic - that another historic result sets as its object the - is the norm in history, it is striking to realize all the efforts at political, humanitarian ideals. What would be the alternative to the colonialism of the intervening legitimate humanitarian been? Drescher replied bluntly. "It is quite conceivable that the continuous growth of the enslavement and without the exogenous pressure from the abolitionist movement had come to a standstill by crises like genocide depopulation" If you run the auto-destructive processes, Africa would therefore now depopulated. Or would it be - I suspect - to become a supplier of slaves on a large scale. And the return of slavery in the slave-free zones of the world would ever not be stopped.
The struggle for the abolition of slavery is a unique world-historical phenomenon, and he comes from Western culture. In all other civilizations lacking any trace of it. In the Islamic world exists, according to the British economic historian William Gervase Clarence-Smith is still no authoritative fatwa that prohibited slavery in principle, instead, is not slavery as provisional practicable. In China, the emperors had to the eighteenth century de facto slavery to disappear, of course, with purely administrative measures without principled justification. But only the basic reasoning can prevent once and for all that a superseded evil returns silently. So where does this western special?
Jürgen Osterhammel has a strange Dichotomy drawn attention: the European mother countries were a few exceptions, free from slavery, she was paged to the American continent. This dichotomy allowed the successful attack on slavery. Significantly, was the "clash of civilizations" rather than just where the culture went through the middle of a border state, namely in the United States. Here the decision had to fall between two political systems and two incompatible cultures, here was fought from 1861 to 1865 the worst war of the nineteenth century, in the 360 000 soldiers of the North died that of slavery, first a boundary and then put an end .
wars were for self-liberation, in world history, many wars to free others are a rare and recent phenomenon. The total defeat of the most powerful sklavistischen state brought the balance of power across the globe to tilt. This dichotomy is the key to the explanation of that macro-historical process, whose outcome we call Abolition. If we use it.
The strongest driving force of the abolitionist movement, the Free Churches of England and North America. Why had such a success? First, they acted on legal and political conditions that are tolerated poorly by not being free, second, they came upon a centuries-old antisklavistische spiritual receptivity to arguments. A comprehensive political semantics prepared the evangelical abolitionism, in the debates circulating arguments that reach back to antiquity. Scholars familiar with vulgärmarxistischem luggage of course no such texts. Anyone who witnessed a slavery researchers at an international conference called the racially inclusive education and then wobbles around when he was asked to source documents cite this knows what has hit the academic hour. To explain how radical discourses of a bygone era in later times "light" suddenly - under new social, political and discursive constellations - requires a very different methodological and conceptual assets and sound hermeneutics.
It was the evangelicals, to update a concept of nature that could be played off against all human institutions. Where did he come from? From Eastern church fathers in the Roman Empire. There were springing up in the Constantinian era sects whose religious radicalism clashed with slavery. In a sermon by Gregory of Nyssa by 370 we read: "I bought slaves and Aufwärterinnen '. What are you saying? You condemn a man to slavery, whose nature is free and autonomous. And you make laws against God, adding overturn the law that he has done to nature. Those, who was born to be lord of the earth, those established in the reign of the Creator, whom you harnessing the yoke of slavery. And that you transgress and fighting you in the full sense of the commandment of God "
The perfection of the arguments surprised, therefore, controversy had taken place at a high level. For Roman jurists, it was clear that the jus naturale all men were free and equal. But the law of nations - jus gentium - they were not necessarily, because at this level, there were human rights institutions such as war, property, marriage and precisely the slavery. Natural law is thus broken in the state of culture, which is set by people higher than the natural, therefore, slavery is culturally justified and reasonable. This ratio is reversed Gregor, he is the law of nature over human institutions. These are illegitimate if they contradict the laws of nature. Why is that? Because God has given to the creator of the natural law, which remains untouchable. Breaking the law of nature is breaking God's law. It's that simple and because it is so easy to get lost no more of this trick. Several theologians of the Latin West took him in, so in the ninth century, Abbot Atto of Vercelli and Emerald St. Michel.
In no other culture similar texts have been found so far, and should you ever find it, then most probably a Christian influence. Needless to say, those ideas do not lead to the abolition ado. Two factors were added. The first was the urban freedom: In the course of the high and late middle age spread in Europe north of the Alps from hundreds of communities in which personal freedom was expressly forbidden. This exclusion of non-freedom from growing areas of Europe explains why the advocates of abolition later found such a strong and effective appeal.
The second factor was the Acquisition of abolitionist arguments in juridical texts: The first law book of world history that the body, and - a fortiori - rejects slavery radical, a German: Sachsen mirror of 1235: slavery was wrong that are held by customary rules. 65 years after the Mirror of Saxony, 1299, King Philip the Fair of France was all the serfs of the crown lands of Valois in freedom. The preamble to its ordinance reads: "Considering that every human creature, which is shaped in the image of our Lord, free power of natural law in general must be" wished the king not that "be wiped out this natural liberty or Freed unit so and obscured by the so hated yoke of slavery, that the men and women who live in the above-mentioned places and countries, while they live, are treated as dead."
The advisor to the king could figure out, what effect this preamble had to unfold. That the lack of freedom was contrary to the natural law, all lawyers know, but people were not in natural law, but the jus gentium. The preamble does, however, the natural right to a parent guideline. So that it breaks with the tradition of Roman law and creates the ideal Matrix for the idea of human rights. If lawyers hit upon the idea that the royal decrees not only for the crown lands were considered, but for the whole kingdom of France, then the personal freedom to an illegitimate state. That is what happened, though slowly.
What would have happened if you had the abolitionsfördernden arguments from late antiquity is no longer found in the memory of cultural memory? Then, the discomfort at the lack of freedom in the thirteenth century would probably sags in appeals to treat the non-free people do not inhuman. From such Mahndiskursen abound in many cultures and religions. But just moral suasion aimed anywhere on the idea of abolition. Therefore, begins the story of the abolition not only with the famous English discussions of the sixteenth century.
banned in 1537 Pope Paul III., Indians and enslave peoples who were discovered in the future yet. Emperor Charles V prohibited to distribute this papal bull in his kingdom. On 16 April 1550, however, he ordered to stop all the conquests, until the legal and theological issues had been resolved. While the Emperor was afraid just to his soul, but this is just the point: If the question was whether it was a mortal sin to enslave non-Christian people, then was a cultural situation has arisen, as it had in the history of humanity ever.
1550 it was about the famous disputation between Sepúlveda and Bartolomé de Las Casas. He wrote in a letter to the Indies by the English crown in 1552, the slavery of the Indians is contrary to the "rules of human rights", that was the idea of human rights was born.
The virulence of the English discussions became apparent when in 1570 the first time a political philosopher, Jean Bodin, required in principle to abolish slavery: it is contrary to God's law and natural reason. So thought many, a century before Protestant preacher in the English speaking their campaign began. For the Parliament of Guyenne in 1571 decided a release process on the ground, "France, the mother of freedom, allowed no slavery." Set foot on the floor slave of the mother country, they should immediately be considered free, including a decree of Louis XIV in 1691 again inculcated. The Parliament of Paris has the Code Noir, the slave law of Louis XIV in 1685, and therefore not registered, the lawyers feared that it would break up the kingdom into two areas, which had been subject to different rights.
And so was the law between the mainland and one in the colonies a Dividing line. This dichotomy was the lever for uprooting the sklavistische system. What remained was banned here, where permitted, allowed - but always controversial, therefore contesting legitimacy. Increased the contentiousness over a certain level, then you had to abolish slavery in the colonies. That these controversies, was excruciating - beyond endurance, that humanity owes to the narrow interpretation of religious disputes and intellectual elites, who presented a universal principle of all the cultural privileges. Now that return every where diverse forms of oppression in the former "mother countries", cultural anamnesis and reflection on the cost of freedom intellectual duty.
_____
Time on 8 January 2011
Tags: Dr. Egon Flaig
,
Nicolas Sarkozy,
Volker Kauder
In addition to that the contributions of Factual Fictions:
Alfred Brehm about the slave market in Cairo 160 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment