I understand that point. However, the institution of chattel slavery means
that Africans were precisely "exported" "as if" they were commodities.
They were classified on plantation inventories "as if" they were
commodities,and they were bought and sold "as if" they were commodities.

So, I don't think anyone on this list wants to deny that this took place,
but this what the peculiar institution of slavery actually means. And the
fact that this was not simply a short term anomaly, but that it remained a
consistent economic-legal-political reality for several hundred years is
something which needs to be understood, if we are to understand how
Western societies developed. It was as "goods", as "commodities", that
enslaved Africans entered the economic calculations of the Slave traders
and the plantation owners. It was in this role that many of the
deliberations of government took account of slavery and the enslaved
Africans. This is also inescapable for anyone attempting an analysis of
the profitability of slavery.

The fact that these social realities persisted through a shift in the
intellectual focus of European culture from that of religion to that of
science makes this phenomenon all the more remarkable.

The "commodity" is not a naturally occurring resource, but a category
which can only exist amongst an array of social relations, one which plays
a role in determining how people behave, who has access to what, and how
wealth is accumulated. The consequences of reducing human beings to
commodities has a whole series of ramifications, including how we use
language to discuss these issues today.

So while I would agree that to simply reproduce the language of capitalism
in describing human beings as commodities to be exported is unhelpful, to
ignore that this was the way of thinking which structured the dominant
European behaviour in their relations with Africa and their development of
colonies is also unhelpful. Likewise, it is also unhelpful to ignore the
involvement of Africans in these economic relations.

In this context, I think Dubois' notion of double consciousness is
significant, particularly in the context of those generations who were
born into an enslaved condition, where the dominant culture denied them
their self-evident humanity.

all the best

Fabian

>
> There are political and other differences within the African community.
>
> The point being made is that Africans are human beings, and cannot
> therefore be 'exported' as if they were commodities. We must all be
> mindful of language.
>
>
>> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:02:06 +0000
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Nelson and African crew on his ship
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> I think any discussion of how different groups of Jewish people
>> responded
>> to their oppression needs to take account of the political differences
>> within the Jewish community, in particular the relation between the
>> socialists in the Bund, who championed Yiddish, and the Zionists, who
>> were
>> generally Hebraists.
>>
>> Those interested can see a useful summary of some of these issues at:
>>
>> http://haruth.com/YiddishHebrew.html
>>
>> I am not sure how useful it is to reduce the complexities of Jewish
>> views
>> on their oppression and how to combat it into a single viewpoint. The
>> same
>> can equally be said of any other ethnic groups.
>>
>> Bearing in mind that many children constitute in their make-up all sorts
>> of combinations, I'm not sure how useful being over-prescriptive in
>> language usage might necessarily might be.
>>
>> In this context it may be useful to turn to Dubois' concept of "Double
>> Consciousness".
>> all the best
>>
>> Fabian
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I am not suggesting that we should not teach history in such a way
>> > that our children will appreciate what went wrong in the past.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Our children should learn about history which includes the
>> > Maafa.  I don't, however, think that it's by using unhelpful language
>> > when writing amongst ourselves that our children will learn for
>> > example that during trans-Atlantic enslavement, enslaved Africans
>> > were deemed to be property.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jewish people were called horrible names by those who operated the
>> death
>> > camps, etc.  They  have not let anyone off the hook, and
>> > do not let anyone forget about the holocaust. They do this without
>> > describing themselves the way they were described by their
>> > oppressors.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:46:15 +0100
>> > From: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: Nelson and African crew on his ship
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> >
>> > I share your concern.
>> > It is for this reason that I suggested teaching both of these two
>> > perspectives—not just 'their point of view' (as is the current
>> practice)
>> > and not just 'our point of view' (which is what you propose).
>> > Why is it at all important for us to teach our children what 'their
>> point
>> > of view' was? I take it that 'their point of view' was wrong—morally
>> > wrong. If we scratch from historical record all historical
>> perspectives
>> > that were morally incorrect, then we leave our children unable to
>> point to
>> > what was morally wrong about what happened in the past. To tease out
>> this
>> > problem, I offer you a similar example from my own work. My
>> postdoctoral
>> > research is entitled 'Why was Negro slavery wrong?'. (I describe the
>> > research, here: http://natcphd.me.) I am currently seeking employment
>> to
>> > pursue this research at a British university. I was considering
>> applying
>> > to King's College London. To this end, I approached Dr Toby Green. Dr
>> > Green's reply to me was very kind, but the following comment put me
>> off
>> > pursuing the application: 'I would avoid the word Negro - no
>> > self-respecting Africanist or historian uses it today'. It strikes me
>> > that, by giving me this advice, Dr Green is encouraging me to
>> participate
>> > in the whitewashing of history. From 'their point of view', it was not
>> > slavery, it was 'Negro slavery'. If we remember this and if we teach
>> this
>> > to our children, then we and our children can hold 'them' morally
>> > accountable for the wrongful perspective they took towards other
>> persons.
>> > If we forget this and if we fail to teach this to our children, then
>> we
>> > let them, and 'their point of view', off the moral hook.
>> > Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman
>> > On 31 Mar 2013, at 16:25, HARROW bhm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I
>> > would have thought that we would write from our point of view, and
>> > not perpetuate the perception that enslaved Africans were property.
>> > If we are happy with language that denigrates us, why complain when
>> > Gove and others use unhelpful language when writing from their point
>> > of view?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The
>> > history books are full of language and imagery from an unhelpful
>> > point of view. I don't think it is useful to add to it.
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:29:54 +0100
>> > From: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: Nelson and African crew on his ship
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> >
>> > From the point of view of those who trafficked in them, these persons
>> were
>> > commodities and were exported.
>> > From their own point of view, these persons were persons and were
>> sent.
>> > Might our children not benefit from being taught both of these
>> > perspectives?
>> >
>> > Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman
>> > On 31 Mar 2013, at 15:19, msherwood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I see what you mean, and agree. Thanks.  However, as I doubt that the
>> men
>> > ‘volunteered’, they were, sadly, not treated very differently from
>> > ‘commodities’.  From: The Black and Asian Studies Association
>> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of HARROW bhm
>> > Sent: 31 March 2013 14:53
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: Nelson and African crew on his ship ...others were
>> exported
>> > to the colonies... Sent not exported. We are referring to human
>> beings. As
>> > we are pointing out unacceptable language used by Ministry of
>> Education,
>> > we should be mindful of language we use.
>> > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/export?s=t  Export verb (used
>> with
>> > object) 1. to ship (commodities) to other countries or places for
>> sale,
>> > exchange, etc. 2. to send or transmit (ideas, institutions, etc.) to
>> > another place, especially to another country. 3. Computers. to save
>> > (documents, data, etc.) in a format usable by another software
>> program.
>> > We are talking about human beings, not commodities, ideas or
>> documents.
>> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:01:51 +0000
>> > From: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: Nelson and African crew on his ship
>> > To: [log in to unmask] I do not wish to denigrate the men who
>> served
>> > in the Anti-slave trade squadrons, we have to admit the possibility
>> that
>> > some had signed on in the hope of making a fortune out of the
>> > prize-monies. On the ineffectiveness of the Squadron (and of the
>> > agreements signed with other slaving European governments) for many
>> years,
>> > and the ongoing trade in enslaved Africans, please see my After
>> Abolition
>> > (IB Tauris, 2007) We also have to recognise that many Africans died
>> aboard
>> > the captured vessels as they had to remain there until the Court
>> reached a
>> > decision on their fate.  Of those released, many were forced into
>> serving
>> > ‘apprenticeships’ in Sierra Leone, others were exported to the
>> colonies in
>> > the West Indies while some were ‘recruited’ into the local army.  Fro
>> >
>