Sir Francis Drake: Swashbuckling Hero Or Vile Villain?

[littlebabyjesus]

I see no difference, with enough time national war will probably seen as nothing less than failure to recognise the very same shared humanity by resolving conflicts through violence, the violence being the ultimate dehumanising factor are you effectively attempting to physically destroy other people as if they were objects. No different to slavery in that respect.

You haven't understood my criticism of your analogy. Let me clarify it. The concept of proportionality can come into play when judging whether or not to go to war. Put simply, going to war may be a terrible thing but this is balanced with the consequences of not going to war. I do not defend the rationale, but simply state it as one that is used when weighing up going to war. You have not shown that this necessarily involves dehumanising the enemy. It may in fact involve the opposite sentiment – the recognition of the humanity of enemy casualties and the need to balance these in the equation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On another tack, why should we give a toss that Drake defeated the Spanish Armada, thus protecting one feudal ruling elite from the aggression of another?

 

[N_igma]

Drake didn't defeat the Spanish Armada.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My point being that I couldn't care less who did. They're not *my* hero.

 

[Shevek]

On another tack, why should we give a toss that Drake defeated the Spanish Armada, thus protecting one feudal ruling elite from the aggression of another?

interesting debate. I must say I am tempted to side with littlebabyjesus. Chomsky said of the second world war (in year 501) that it was like a shoot out between rival gangs which rather undermines all the sentiment about the allies the British and Americans. To Chomsky they were all imperialist pigs. The Americans in the last century had decimated the native american population so how were they any better than the nazis prey.

Shevek

 

[Badger Kitten]

nah, he was a top pirate. Our pirate.

 

[Spion]

Are you saying that slave traders did not know they were inflicting suffering? As I said before, their behaviour was far from 'normal' for their times.

Not true. Most people in England at the time were peasants who were tied to their locality and their lord, who, if they left their masters land were clapped in irons and taken back. There's little difference between black slaves and European serfs in terms of the relationship to their masters and the land. It's just that the African slaves were gone and got before they were bonded to the land

 

[bhamgeezer]

You haven't understood my criticism of your analogy. Let me clarify it. The concept of proportionality can come into play when judging whether or not to go to war. Put simply, going to war may be a terrible thing but this is balanced with the consequences of not going to war. I do not defend the rationale, but simply state it as one that is used when weighing up going to war. You have not shown that this necessarily involves dehumanising the enemy. It may in fact involve the opposite sentiment – the recognition of the humanity of enemy casualties and the need to balance these in the equation.

And how then is enslavement of other peoples not balanced against the consquences of not enslaving other peoples? Sure they might not be as pressing as war, but its hardly like in modern wars surrender leads to death, usually its merely a change of sovreignity, the consquences of not fighting that back are usually not as severe as imagined. I don't believe you criticism is significant and I also think you are asking far too much on an indiviual living in the 1500's.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And how then is enslavement of other peoples not balanced against the consquences of not enslaving other peoples?

What are you talking about?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not true. Most people in England at the time were peasants who were tied to their locality and their lord, who, if they left their masters land were clapped in irons and taken back. There's little difference between black slaves and European serfs in terms of the relationship to their masters and the land. It's just that the African slaves were gone and got before they were bonded to the land

Peasants were indeed tied to the land. I don't accept your second point, though. There was a great deal of difference, not least that serfs were both tied to the land by law and accorded some protection by that law. They also had family, roots, culture, a home. Those who were kidnapped and enslaved in West Africa were torn from their homes, mixed indiscriminately with others with whom they often shared little culture or language and brutally transported to a foreign land where they were sold as property to the highest bidder. Robbed of their culture and their land, brutalised by a terrible crossing in which a large proportion of their fellow slaves perished and afforded as good as no protection from any law. Where is this comparable?

 

[bhamgeezer]

What are you talking about?

What are you suggesting slaves didn't contribute to the societies they were taken to? Would be strange if slaves weren't used for labour? A contribution that would not have existed had it not occured. What makes you think that the 1500's was a time when anybody could afford to not to the upmost to ensure their future prosperity, even if their was a recognisable moral objection.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The bible openly supports slavery alot, they weren't the ones doing mental backflips, thats modern christians

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav3.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sorry but personal profit was the motivation that got civilisation to the point where it could realise the error of its way to some degree. I tend to side with the opinion that human knowledge is retrospectively self-knowing. It is not fair to view historic figures with same moral perspective we have today.

I agree to an extent, but according to the articles I dug up, some of his slaving activities were illegal even in his own time.

And does any moral culpability attach to his taking part in the massacre of Irish women and children?

 

[N_igma]

My point being that I couldn't care less who did. They're not *my* hero.

Nah slave trading English ugly cunts are my cup of tea, I rid his oesphagus and came in his patella.

 

[N_igma]

Peasants were indeed tied to the land. I don't accept your second point, though. There was a great deal of difference, not least that serfs were both tied to the land by law and accorded some protection by that law. They also had family, roots, culture, a home. Those who were kidnapped and enslaved in West Africa were torn from their homes, mixed indiscriminately with others with whom they often shared little culture or language and brutally transported to a foreign land where they were sold as property to the highest bidder. Robbed of their culture and their land, brutalised by a terrible crossing in which a large proportion of their fellow slaves perished and afforded as good as no protection from any law. Where is this comparable?

Sorry but there's little comparison between indentured slaves and actual slaves in 16th Century America. Family, law and custom didn't matter a bit to European colonists. It was an ends to a means for the profiteers, the only difference was that indentured European slaves could work their way to freedom.

As for slaves being sold to the highest bidder, that came a long time after Drake. Slaves didn't come onto the market until the Atlantic save trade became illegal, when that happened female slaves became the highest commodity for their propensity to breed. All this happened c.1830, the South tried to institutionalise slavery at this time and did a very good job of racialising labour relations. Still to this day unfortunately.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sorry but there's little comparison between indentured slaves and actual slaves in 16th Century America. Family, law and custom didn't matter a bit to European colonists. It was an ends to a means for the profiteers, the only difference was that indentured European slaves could work their way to freedom.

I'd call that, quite a difference.

I don't think there were any laws against european indentured servants being taught to read, but I could be wrong.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I imagine that if there is some hope that you can buy freedom for yourself and most importantly, for your family/children, it means that those years of labour have a light at the end of the tunnel.


But what do you have if there is no purchasing your freedom? A life of toil, followed by death, with the same to be repeated by your children, and by theirs.

 

[N_igma]

I
But what do you have if there is no purchasing your freedom? A life of toil, followed by death, with the same to be repeated by your children, and by theirs.

It all depended on the plantation. Some masters wanted to displace families and made sure they lived as far away as possible, some masters thought that the family unit was conducive to slave life and kept them together. During Reconstruction freed people travelled all over the former Confederate States to meet their relatives, way before the Great Migration.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It all depended on the plantation. Some masters wanted to displace families and made sure they lived as far away as possible, some masters thought that the family unit was conducive to slave life and kept them together. During Reconstruction freed people travelled all over the former Confederate States to meet their relatives, way before the Great Migration.

Sounds like a joyful time was had by all.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I wonder how they reconnected, given that they couldn't read and write, and census records of blacks weren't kept in any event. Hard to know where granny went, when nobody wrote it down, and you couldn't read it anyway.

 

[N_igma]

I don't think there were any laws against european indentured servants being taught to read, but I could be wrong.

There were no laws against blacks to read...ever. However, some Southern states used illiteracy among other tedious "deformaties" to disenfranchise the black populace. All this happened 20 or so years before the Jim Crow laws.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I also wonder where these suddenly freed blacks found the money and time to go galavanting around the South, on some Roots-like journey of self-discovery.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There were no laws against blacks to read...ever. However, some Southern states used illiteracy among other tedious "deformaties" to disenfranchise the black populace. All this happened 20 or so years before the Jim Crow laws.

11. Punishment for teaching slaves or free persons of color to read. -- If any slave, Negro, or free person of color, or any white person, shall teach any other slave, Negro, or free person of color, to read or write either written or printed characters, the said free person of color or slave shall be punished by fine and whipping, or fine or whipping, at the discretion of the court.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slavelaw.htm#11.

 

[N_igma]

I wonder how they reconnected, given that they couldn't read and write, and census records of blacks weren't kept in any event. Hard to know where granny went, when nobody wrote it down, and you couldn't read it anyway.

You'd be surprised how connected the slave population was, orally, mail, church etc. Sunday was a time for congregation, prayer, discussion. Slaves were not robots like.

 

[phildwyer]

As for slaves being sold to the highest bidder, that came a long time after Drake. Slaves didn't come onto the market until the Atlantic save trade became illegal

Hang on a second, this is not true. Where do you get this?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Slaves were not robots like.

Of course not. They were only treated as such.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

North Carolina, 1831

Whereas the teaching of slaves to read and write has a tendency to excite dissatisfaction in their minds and to produce insurrection and rebellion to the manifest injury of the citizens of this state: Therefore

Be it enacted by the General Asembly of the State of North Carolina, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, that any free person who shall hereafter teach or attempt to teach any slave within this State to read or write, the use of figures excepted, Shall be liable to indictment in any court of record in the State having jurisdiction thereof, and upon conviction shall at the discretion of the court if a white man or woman be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned and if a free person of colour shall be whipped at the discretion of the court not exceeding thirty nine lashes nor less than twenty lashes.

Be it further enacted that if any slave shall hereafter teach or attempt to teach any other slave to read or write the use of figures excepted, he or she may be carried before any justice of the peace and on conviction thereof shall be sentenced to receive thirty nine lashes on his or her bare back.
Comments

white man or woman be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned and if a free person of colour shall be whipped at the discretion of the court not exceeding thirty nine lashes nor less than twenty lashes.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-newnation/4384

 

[N_igma]

I also wonder where these suddenly freed blacks found the money and time to go galavanting around the South, on some Roots-like journey of self-discovery.

They never galavanted about the South. The vast majority of freed blacks lived in fear after 1865.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slavelaw.htm#11.

Georgia 1848? How progressive...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hang on a second, this is not true. Where do you get this?

In all honesty, I think he's making some of this stuff up.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Georgia 1848? How progressive...

You said that at no time were laws passed making it illegal to teach blacks to read. That isn't true.