Reply to: BBC News has a Pidgin version... who knew?

[vetran]

You are deliberately mixing up different groups who captured and used slaves. How many black people working on a plantation in for example Barbados would be able to use their accountancy skills? Or file a complaint against their master?

No I'm pointing out that slavery is as old as time and everyone did it, the basic process and outcome is the same. The levels of abuse varied.

The only thing different about African slavery is that the UK realised that the millennia old selling of slaves by African leaders and the trading & abusing was morally wrong and something we should stop despite many other countries including Africa (who sold 90% of the slaves sent to America) wanting to continue it.

Try reading up on being a slave of a Roman/Greek/Egyptian/Arab many of those were treated worse than African slaves. Christianity tended to shield the Western purchased Africans from the worse excesses of their master.

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2018/0...%20prosecution.

A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.

I know this did occur on some plantations but it wasn't the norm. In Rome it was expected for all slaves to satisfy their owners desires.

Tiro & Cicero's relationship was unusual by Roman standards.

Actually quite a few African slaves did document abuses and were published, encouraged by mainly the clergy & god fearing people this is what led to abolition.

https://spartacus-educational.com/USASpunishments.htm

Spartacus is based on a true story of a Roman slave rebellion they were all crucified on the Appian way.

If you were an Egyptian slave you may well be put to death when your master died. You were probably expected to service them in the same way Roman slaves were. Maybe that is why the Israelites fled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien...ner_sacrifices

You know more Africans were purchased by Arabs than by the British, over half the slaves purchased went to Arabia. It even caused a price rises as they got scarcer.


It was horrific being a slave any type of slave. But the current African slavery reparations industry is rather cynical.

[SueEllen]

I didn't mansplain I have always seen the Old & New as two separate "bibles". The other variants have individual names Torah/Koran etc. As I say Christian brainwashing. Though you are correct some consider the disparate works created centuries apart as one series of a best seller where atheists see it as fan fiction.

The old testament God encouraged Moses to take slaves. The new testament saw it as a part of life and did not challenge it, .

Slaves were bought from their countrymen and shipped to other countries with many dying on the journey they were then owned by their masters being abused physically & emotionally and this had happened since the start of history. I see that as no different to how we Europeans treated the Africans or even how the Arabs did 7 centuries before we got there. Slavery has been endemic throughout history.

You are deliberately mixing up different groups who captured and used slaves. How many black people working on a plantation in for example Barbados would be able to use their accountancy skills? Or file a complaint against their master?

[vetran]

It is a bit embarrassing when you mansplain the bible. The old and new testament are not two separate bibles.

As an aside, the slavery we see in the bible is in general rather different from the slave-trading of blacks we typically think in our current cultural awakening to past wrongs, although I'm not the one to go into detail - I seem to recall Gibbon might have mentioned it (or someone else, possibly even yourself) in recent discussion? But that's just an interesting bit of history, not a defense of slavery in biblical times - that we as a society are fundamentally pretty ignorant of world history.

I didn't mansplain I have always seen the Old & New as two separate "bibles". The other variants have individual names Torah/Koran etc. As I say Christian brainwashing. Though you are correct some consider the disparate works created centuries apart as one series of a best seller where atheists see it as fan fiction.

The old testament God encouraged Moses to take slaves. The new testament saw it as a part of life and did not challenge it, .

Slaves were bought from their countrymen and shipped to other countries with many dying on the journey they were then owned by their masters being abused physically & emotionally and this had happened since the start of history. I see that as no different to how we Europeans treated the Africans or even how the Arabs did 7 centuries before we got there. Slavery has been endemic throughout history.

[d000hg]

Oh apologies that is what comes from being brain washed as a Christian. The Christians recognise an Old testament (heavy on slavery) and New Testament (still approving but not advocating enslaving virgins so much).

I realise Judaism is based around a variation on the old testament as is Islam, other texts do exist.

It is a bit embarrassing when you mansplain the bible. The old and new testament are not two separate bibles.

As an aside, the slavery we see in the bible is in general rather different from the slave-trading of blacks we typically think in our current cultural awakening to past wrongs, although I'm not the one to go into detail - I seem to recall Gibbon might have mentioned it (or someone else, possibly even yourself) in recent discussion? But that's just an interesting bit of history, not a defense of slavery in biblical times - that we as a society are fundamentally pretty ignorant of world history.

[vetran]

Most of those who want to rewrite history regarding statues and slavery would like to ban the bible, Koran, etc as well as outlaw traditional values as bigoted.

I'm unclear what you mean by "both bibles" though.

Oh apologies that is what comes from being brain washed as a Christian. The Christians recognise an Old testament (heavy on slavery) and New Testament (still approving but not advocating enslaving virgins so much).

I realise Judaism is based around a variation on the old testament as is Islam, other texts do exist.

[d000hg]

If that were so both Bibles would be toast God's children liked a few virgin captives as slaves.

Most of those who want to rewrite history regarding statues and slavery would like to ban the bible, Koran, etc as well as outlaw traditional values as bigoted.

I'm unclear what you mean by "both bibles" though.

[SueEllen]

Part of the BBC's purpose is to build itself as a trusted news service globally, and thereby increase Britian's influence and image. But over the years - and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union - the funding to the world service has dropped, so it no longer fulfills this role.

Soft power which the idiots in government don't understand.

If they did they would use it for a lot more.

Covid showed how the government could get its Public Health messages across through broadcasters both on TV and radio.

[OwlHoot]

Part of the BBC's purpose is to build itself as a trusted news service globally, and thereby increase Britian's influence and image. But over the years - and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union - the funding to the world service has dropped, so it no longer fulfills this role.

World Service funding is a bit of head scratcher, because it's reputation is based on it being impartial and not just a UK Government mouthpiece or based on advertising revenue from mega corporations.

That implies it should be funded mostly or ideally entirely out of licence fees, which then means less to spend on other programs which British people can literally understand (as much World Service output is in foreign languages) or old timers having to cough up for their TV licences.

[NotAllThere]

Part of the BBC's purpose is to build itself as a trusted news service globally, and thereby increase Britian's influence and image. But over the years - and especially since the fall of the Soviet Union - the funding to the world service has dropped, so it no longer fulfills this role.

[vetran]

I thought we were supposed to be removing anything with slavery links

If that were so both Bibles would be toast God's children liked a few virgin captives as slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bi...urers%2C%20and

Africa selling slaves to the Arabs probably needs trimming, it only started 7 centuries before the Brits turned up.

Romans are gone as well. Poor greeks, Moors etc airbrushed.

[mattster]

Isn't it a bit patronising and racist of the BBC to assume that some Africans know only pidgin English and are too stupid and/or ignorant to manage normal English?

It is literally the language used in that region so no, at least no more than having a French or Italian or any other language version of the site.

[d000hg]

That's what the Wail want you to believe.

Should the BBC world wide site refuse to cater to a particular language group because the people who speak that language are from an area that a lot of people were enslaved from?
By your same logic, we should not study anything to do with Africa.

It's not my logic.

Isn't it a bit patronising and racist of the BBC to assume that some Africans know only pidgin English and are too stupid and/or ignorant to manage normal English?

I would imagine it's based on knowing that they are ignorant (in the literal rather than insulting sense) of proper English.

[xoggoth]

Is there a sweary version of BBC. I'd like that. Today's *** boring news. Some *** politican has....

[OwlHoot]

Isn't it a bit patronising and racist of the BBC to assume that some Africans know only pidgin English and are too stupid and/or ignorant to manage normal English?

[WTFH]

I thought we were supposed to be removing anything with slavery links

That's what the Wail want you to believe.

Should the BBC world wide site refuse to cater to a particular language group because the people who speak that language are from an area that a lot of people were enslaved from?
By your same logic, we should not study anything to do with Africa.