FREEDOM AND SLAVERY

by

john roberts

“Freedom” is much talked about these days and each one of us, no doubt, has his or her own ideas as to what is the meaning of this word. Essentially, it means the liberty of each individual, of whatever race or situation, to organize his life in conformity with his own view as to what will be most conducive to his or her happiness.

Freedom has been sought and desired more fervently than anything else in this world, for men early realised that the restriction of the individual imposed great mental, as well as, physical suffering. Whenever we are constrained, we strive earnestly to relieve ourselves of the inhibiting force which surrounds us.

Earlier civilizations recognised the need for freedom of the individual, but then proceeded to restrict and limit the activities of folk in various ways. The slave was totally subjected to the will of others and only in the privacy of his thoughts, was he able to give free reign to his ideas and aspirations. The “Free” person, on the other hand, was also limited by geographical, social, familial or economic factors. He was by no means “free” in the fullest sense of the term. Even Kings, stationed as they were, at the apex of the hierarchical structure and holding power over the lives of their subjects, were not so free as we have often thought they were. Customary and traditional influences mitigated the power of such leaders to act precisely as they wished, in particular instances. This is true in the case of the modern constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch is nothing more than a superior sort of public servant, who performs a mainly ritual function, as a figurehead and symbol of authority

In spite of all these limitations on the concept of freedom, men recognised that, as a principle, all men should be able to live their lives, with a minimum of interference. In simple societies, where the pressures of modern life are not to be found, this may be achievable. In the days previous to the advent of modern transport and communication systems, when news travelled slowly and human experience was limited in so many ways, the attainment of a form of liberty was, perhaps, easier and a happy tranquil life available to greater number of unambitious souls. Even there, the local authority was never far away and a life of poverty invariably involved a measure of slavery for the indigent. Freedom may well have been unattainable for most, if not all, people. For the very poor, there was the continental system of serfdom in Russia and Germany, and probably in other European nations as well. In Britain, whilst there was a token recognition of the essential freedom of the individual, in practice, the peasantry were subjected to many customary and local rules, which severely limited their freedom and made it almost impossible for the poor to raise themselves to a higher station in life. Indeed, between the local Parson and the Squire, a poor tenant’s family might find itself destitute, following the death of the head of the household; as both laid claim to a portion of the deceased’s estate. Thus the family cow or horse might disappear, together with other essential livestock, appropriated by Priest or Squire.

The love of freedom may have created the impetus for many migrations, throughout the history of mankind. When faced with the threat of being overrun by barbarian hordes, ancient peoples moved, not merely to save their lives but to avoid enslavement. In the process they themselves were obliged to fight for survival, as they moved into land already occupied by another tribe. Thus the principles of genocide were established: kill or be killed. Gauls, defeated in battle with Roman armies, often killed themselves, rather than face a life of slavery.

Thus, the struggle for freedom continued throughout the history of mankind, as one nation enslaved another. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, we witnessed the development of Negro Slavery in the New World, as black Africans were sold into slavery, very often by their own countrymen: albeit of another tribe. Some millions of slaves were taken to North and South America and the Islands of the Caribbean, many of whom died in the course of being transported, in overcrowded, insanitary conditions. When slavery was at its height in the United States, there were, perhaps, some four-million Afro-Americans, working to enrich the White Planters of the Southern States. The lot of some of these blacks was tolerable but many slaves died in the harsh conditions of the Deep South, working the cotton and sugar-cane plantations. Their masters enjoyed a power of life and death over these people.

For two-hundred years the Slave traffic continued to feed its human fuel into the furnace of Southern rapacity. Preachers in the South, and sometimes in the North, claimed divine authority for this degrading practice. In many instances they were able to convince their auditors of the validity of their claims, thus calming the consciences of their parishioners. One has only to read the history of the slave-trade in the USA, to understand how degrading was the white-man’s treatment of his slaves: degrading more for the master, than the servant. For a glimpse into the reality of life for a slave in the Southern States during the mid-19th Century, one should read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, which brilliantly delineates the horrors endured by these victims of white arrogance.

All this villainy occurred in spite of the provisions of the “Declaration of Independence”, which provided that the founders of the USA held “all men to be created equal!”. During preliminary deliberations, prior to the settling of the terms of the document, a clause had been considered, for inclusion, in which the blame for the Slave Trade had been laid squarely at the feet of George the Third, King of England, who had forced the practice upon the reluctant Colonists. (1) However, at the final stage, this clause was omitted. Had it been included, perhaps the Slave Trade in the United States would have been abolished with the establishment of the Republic. The failure to insert such a clause in the Declaration was, no doubt, due to the fact that most of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were, themselves, Slaveholders.

(1) The Anti-Slavery Crusade, by Jesse Macy, Yale Uni. Press 1919)

Thus it transpired that Slavery continued in the USA and flourished increasingly, with the development of Cotton and Sugar cultivation in the Deep South, at the turn of the 19th Century.

We all know that Slavery was abolished in the British Isles and its Dominions, in l833 and in the USA in 1865, following a bloody Civil War. In the Arab world, slavery continued until well into the 20th Century and may still be carried-on, in a slightly differing fashion, with the “employment” of small boys from Pakistan in the homes of wealthy Saudi-Arabians. Whether there are female slaves in Arabia at the present time, I do not know. Certainly, Phillipino women are said to be employed by wealthy Saudis, as cheap domestic labour, under severely regulated conditions. Perhaps their experiences may not amount to a form of slavery, as that term is properly understood. It is said that, as slaves were valuable, they were well-cared-for by their Arab masters and, often, freed on their adoption of Islam.

When I was a young man, on holiday in Cyprus in 1949, there were girls of varied racial type, frequenting the bars of Famagusta, who may well have been prostitutes, brought to the island as children. Cyprus was then known to British Soldiers as “White-Slave Island.” I questioned several of these young ladies but could never discover much regarding their origins. They may well have been slaves of a type now familiar to tourists who visit Bangkok, Thailand, in which city, I understand, there are many children and young persons who have been sold into sex-slavery by their parents, or abducted illegally for this purpose. If true, this is an appalling situation and one which the Government of Thailand should be suppressing, most vigorously. I do not expect that we will see much change in the near future, if at all. No doubt, many of these young people would wish to be free from the ordeal of such an existence.

It is arguable that the lot of the poor, throughout history, has been tantamount to slavery. In Britain, during a time when the privileged elite possessed fabulous wealth, thousands of unemployed workers suffered starvation during periods of industrial depression: having nothing with which to feed, clothe or warm their naked children, during bitter winter weather. During the Cotton Famine of the 1860’s, when the Northern Blockade of the Southern States of the USA stopped the supply of raw cotton, many Lancashire families sold everything they possessed, even their bedding, to keep alive and were only prevented from starving or freezing to death by the charitable organizations which came to their aid. Irish peasants did, in fact, starve during the Potato famine of the 1840’s, when grain was still being exported to Britain from Ireland. A million people died and many more migrated to the United States at this time. On arrival there, their lot would have again been one of incredible hardship, as it was for the great majority of poor migrants to the USA during the l9th Century. They were not exactly “slaves”, but very little removed from such status. Whilst they were desperately striving to survive in New York hovels, Negro slaves were being rounded-up in the North and returned to the South under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made it an offence for any person in the Northern States to support or assist an escaped slave.

It is also a matter of historical fact, that following the emancipation of the slaves in the USA, their lot improved little subsequent to 1865 and, in fact, many blacks were reduced to absolute destitution, following the collapse of the South. I have previously talked about the conditions of racial segregation under which Southern Blacks lived for the next hundred years and the social degradation they endured, until Dr. Martin Luther King made his famous declaration in Washington, “Free at last!” Well, the blacks in America are, no doubt, much more free now than they were, even in the 1960’s and they still had to endure racial hatred and persecution until very recent times, when the threat of the white “lynch mob” was finally removed.

Now we perceive a new form of slavery in the world: a slavery of nations held in subjection by that Champion of Freedom, the United States of America. It seems apparent to me that there subsists in the mentality of the White Southern American a suppressed desire and a determination to be, once again, a slaveholder. This would, perhaps, account for the sustained maltreatment of the Blacks in the Southern States for so long, subsequent to their “emancipation”, in 1865. This is evidently so in the case of the Texan, George W. Bush, who evinces a pressing need for the United States to enslave the whole world. It is revealed as a conscious awareness of a supposed superiority over other races and a satisfied conviction of his own, divinely anointed, destiny as the “Saviour” of the American way of life.

The brutality and bloody-mindedness of the Southern Planter has emerged in George Bush whilst Governor of Texas. He personally signed the death-warrants of some one hundred and forty (or so) mainly black young men, who had committed acts of murder, rape, etc.. Many of these youths had been waiting for their execution for up to ten long years. This information is common knowledge and throws some light upon the character and personality of the President of the United States.

An assault has recently been launched, not without warning but, certainly without international approbation and consent, against the nation of Iraq. This massive and murderous War has been commenced, we are told, to remove a cruel dictator from control over that country and to bring “free” and “democratic” government to the people of Iraq. That many people will be killed, including civilians and much property destroyed in the process, seems inevitable, but is being played down by the principle player in the drama, G.W. Bush, President, and his aids in criminality, Tony Blair and John Howard. The latter tells the Australian people (21.03.03) that some “Prisoners” are currently being held on an Australian Naval vessel, in the Persian Gulf. One would trust that, having regard to the necessity of “freeing” these folk from tyrannical despotism, they will be released forthwith, as soon as this is possible. It may, of course, be discovered that, as these folk are Muslims, they may also come within the category of “Terrorists” and may, thus, be “lawfully” handed over to those competent US officials whose function is the interrogation and disposal of such malefactors.

The modern concept of “Slavery” is principally based upon economic principles and involves the subversion of the cultural and economic life of nations, within the massive and international corporate network established progressively, by the USA over a period of fifty years. This system is managed through an agency calling itself the “World Trade Organization”, which oversees all principle aspects of international trade, carried on by the various “members”. That the WTO is, of course, directed by the United States, goes without saying. The latter seeks to enlist all the principle nations of the world under the banner of a world-wide Free-Trade Zone. When this object is finally achieved, the USA will have free entry into all World markets and will be able to consolidate its monopolistic control over production, manufacture and distribution of its products throughout the entire Earth. It will be increasingly able to dictate what will be grown, produced, manufactured and supplied, wherever business is conducted, regardless of geographical location. Needless to say, this object is close to total fulfilment. It may, indeed, be too late to reverse the process. The result will be the establishment of a World Military and Economic Empire, unparalleled in human history. It is never likely to be repeated in the future, as there will be the swift exhaustion of remaining primary and mineral resources available to the world, by the massive diversion by the USA of these resources, in the pursuance of its scheme of world supremacy. When these have gone, the good times will pass and civilization will revert, necessarily, to a simpler lifestyle. Naturally, the cream on the cake will be appropriated by the holders of power and the rest of humanity will be, like the Africans of today, “singing for their supper” but not finding any.

The present Prime Minister of Australia, John Winston Howard, believes that the US scheme is an excellent proposition and has, for some time, been progressively removing trade barriers on many imported products, with the inevitable result that local manufacturers are unable to compete with cheaper imported products and close down, throwing workers on to the industrial scrap-heap. This process has continued, in fact, for many years and is not merely a product of recent policy. It has, however, been accelerated under the present Conservative regime in Canberra. The take-over of Australian Companies by American or Multi-national Corporations in recent years has been astonishing, with many familiar names no longer in Australian hands. One need not enumerate, as remaining Australian Companies are informing the consumer that they are still independent of US control. This is of great assistance to those of us who wish to boycott US products.

There is no doubt, in my view, that this process will result, increasingly, in the centralization of manufacturing capacity within the USA and those nations which it sees as economically advantageous to its policy of global control. Australia will be reduced to the status of a supplier of cheap raw materials and commodities to the US-controlled, trans-national corporations. Manufacture of steel will cease and it seems likely that the manufacture of motor vehicles in Australia by US Companies will also cease in the foreseeable future. This will create massive unemployment in this country, already badly affected by progressive reduction in manufacturing capacity.

George Bush is determined to pursue present policies and consolidate the economic and military power of the USA. This does not portend well for the prosperity and happiness of those nations not enamoured of US expansion of its military capacity and its evident continuing willingness to demonstrate its killing efficiency.

At the moment of typing these closing words, the United States of America and its associates in mass murder, are engaged in an attack upon Iraq, using high tech weapons of mass destruction: the very tools of which they accuse Saddam Hussein, that wicked man, of possessing. For the killing equipment used and available to the USA far, far exceeds that of any other nation on this planet. I have repeatedly complained of the hypocrisy of US officials, who mouth pious expressions as to the necessity of preserving the peace and happiness of mankind, yet, at the earliest opportunity, release these devilish devices upon those least able to defend themselves. It is a horrifying and truly sickening situation. America is a menace to the people of the world and it is time to call a halt to the madness and arrogance of its leaders.

We look to the newly established International Court of Justice to take notice of these activities and the motivation behind them. Warrants should most positively be issued by that august establishment, not merely for little “tiddlers” such as Mr. Milosovic, but the big fish of the Western Establishment who are guilty of crimes against humanity, in abundance. These are, inter alia, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair, not to mention those leaders of Australia who have been party to this appalling criminal activity. Of course, such a step will never be taken, nor result in any appearances of US criminals before such a tribunal, yet it would be such a refreshing thought, if we could really bring these gangsters to justice. Such action might result in future restraint on the part of enthusiastic proponents of war against weaker nations, when questions of culpability might be subsequently raised in a proper and competent International Tribunal.

As for the United Nations, that organization will need to sever its connection with the USA and move its apparatus to some such country as Switzerland or Sweden. With the appearance on the international scene of this mighty military power, in unscrupulous hands, it will need an independent military force of its own, which will be available as a deterrent to irresponsible aggression. The US has revealed its contempt for International opinion and for the United Nations. There can be no question of the continuance of the special relationship that has existed in the past between the UN and the USA. There will have to be a new beginning and a new determination on the part of all members to give the United Nations the relevance, in the future, which it has not been permitted to possess during the past fifty years. If this is not done, then the UN is, indeed, doomed to languish as an utterly ineffective influence in human affairs. This will suit the USA and its leaders very well indeed.

The first step will be to take control of the measures to reinstate the Iraqi nation as a true member of the family of Nations. The second will be to call the US President to account for his brutal and inhumane treatment of the people presently held at its Cuban prison and to insist on these prisoners being cleared through the International Court of Justice. The US has shown itself incapable of dealing with these folk, otherwise, than in an utterly irresponsible and criminal manner.

There is no place in our world for modern slaveholders, of whatever type and howsoever disguised. We reject every aspect of George W. Bush’s approach to the problems confronting the USA at the commencement of the 21st Century. All decent peace-loving people, of whatever race or belief, are revolted by this cynical, callous and thoroughly indefensible assault upon the people of Iraq. It is an abomination in the sight of God and Man.

Finis

John Roberts,

Sydney, Australia.

22 March 2003

mailto:robertsjno@gmail.com