The ghost in the box

May 07, 2011 15:10

If liberty is inalienable natural right, as we hold it, how can the convicts be deprived of liberty as just punishment? The Bible does not consider imprisonment (as opposed to jailing before a trial) as the lawful mode of punishment. There is no "tradition" justifying this barabarian practice except for the perverted sadism of Germanic pagans, ( Read more... )

complaints

Leave a comment

i_eron May 14 2011, 19:33:12 UTC
The point is that Liberia was conquered by Americans, the locals were suppressed and the immigrants to Liberia from the USA were given the power. There was no pretense of democracy. The locals were given no say in selecting the governor, who later became first "independent" president. Frequent conflicts have followed. Perhaps the immigrant descendants have eventually mixed with the locals, it is only natural. But at least for the first couple of generations the division was clear - the Americo-Liberians were in power, the locals were subordinated and rose violently against the governing elite. The elite was distinct from the indigenous population in culture, dress, habits etc. Not only the elite has considered itself superior, the natives considered it distinct and foreign. It is not important (I think), how large was the actual racial difference. What matters is this mutual feeling of being different.

In short, suppose for a minute it is possible to repeat this story today (I think it is not). Americans will conquer an African country, suppress its population, install its freed convicts there, give them power and support them with weapons and other supplies. There will be a degree of segregation, mutual hatred and rebellions but in time there will be assimilation (with some very bloody consequences). Is this your plan?

Reply

shkrobius May 15 2011, 00:38:38 UTC
The locals were hardly angels. They raided the colony repeatedly from 1820s to 1870s. In any case, the control of the colonial government was over a very small territory: it was a country more on paper than in reality. I think you are repeating someone's narrative intending to invent historical wrongs. If your source is Internet, you should be cautious. I do not think that Liberian history even exists as a nonpartisan account, with most of the historical documentation long destroyed by the sides involved in the conflict.

Reply

i_eron May 15 2011, 10:12:49 UTC
I am not an expert on African history, I am not even particularly interested. I have read a book a long time ago that said something about Liberia, now I discover that what I remember fits with the Wiki article on Liberian history. The article looks serious, but you are right - it might be biased. It looks to be written from the anti-colonial sentiment, which is common now but was not common back then. But I hope the facts are still correct. Anyway, you suspect I repeat "an invented narrative". I do not like "inventing historical wrongs", but you do not challenge the validity of any specific fact, only the general bias, which I am not defending. So let us stick to the facts.

Of course the locals were not angels - no one is (even if some want to be). They raided the colony. You have asked earlier "Why do you think the locals will necessarily be hostile" - here is one example.

You have said "Neither did the emancipated slaves integrate nor were they harassed", but then you have said "they peacefully blended with it [the local population]". Also they were "repeatedly raided" - how does that square with "not harassed"? Either you accept that the locals were suppressed but frequently revolted or you must accept that the immigrant colony was repeatedly attacked. But whichever you choose, happy it was not.

You have said "The locals will be delighted to have any influx of $$$." - these particular locals, however you look at it, were not delighted. Although later the elite claiming the descent from the emancipated slaves was "delighted in the influx" - in the words of Wiki:

In the decades after 1945, the Liberian government received hundreds of millions of dollars of unrestricted foreign investment, which destabilized the Liberian economy. Liberian Government revenue rose enormously, but was being grossly embezzled by government officials. Growing economic disparities caused increased hostility between indigenous groups and Americo-Liberians.

You have said "in no time the locals and the colonists will start to mix and settle. These settlers would partake of both words and temper bad passions on both sides." In fact, the bad passions were not tempered but brooded and resulted, predictably, in the elite being overthrown in a bloody coup and in the civil wars that followed. Mr. Charles Taylor, with whom I share a birthday, is a very typical successful African bandit of the kind I was talking about.

Liberia is just one example of why I am "overly negative". But I repeat - the Liberian experiment was long ago, its relevance for today is limited.

Today the world consists of countries. There are no tribal areas left. All land except Antarctica is claimed (and usually controlled) by the governments of modern(-ish) states. A "proper" way to introduce settlers into a country would be to win a democratic agreement there. Which is kinda difficult since most of the "third world" countries are dictatorships. Also, the history does not provide many examples that would encourage us to expect such a positive vote. France is an example of a democratic country. Would it accept the convicts?

What is left is to win an agreement from a dictator. This is possible, oh yes. He "will be delighted to have any influx of $$$." Also, he will be delighted "to welcome little fishes in". But is it what we want? Imagine winning such an agreement, say, from Stalin in 1949. Would you send any American convicts to their freedom and pursuit of happiness in the "gently smiling jaws" of Stalin?

Reply

shkrobius May 15 2011, 15:43:02 UTC
That these Liberian tribes raided the colony proves nothing. American and Australian colonies by and large coexisted unharassed.

The raids in Liberia involved agricultural outposts. The bulk of the settlers were not harassed. Over three generations they've blended in. The Crown Hill was an exception rather than the rule. How many people were actually involved in these raids is anyone's guess. In different periods widly different numbers have been given.

These particular locals were not suggested retributions by the ACS, so the example is not telling.

No coexistence is entirely blissful and you can always blow a border incidence to the status of "battles", "wars", etc., especially if it suits your purpose. The difficulty with Liberia is right there. First its history was written to conform to imperialist narrative,. Then it was rewritten to conform to nationalist narrative. I'd use common sense. 2% of population cannot harass 98% without local suppor, and if 98% would really want to wipe out these 2%, they would do it.

If penal colonies trade with the locals, the locals would be all for such colonies.

Surely, democratic acceptance would be best.

The French loved Polanski, did not they? So, apparently, they can tolerate and even want some of our bad guys.

Reply

i_eron May 16 2011, 07:35:28 UTC
All right, let us just agree to draw different conclusions from the Liberian experiment.

Yes, the French do love Polanski, perhaps he will now even replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn as their favorite presidential candidate.

But you are talking about 2.3 million Americans now in prison. The ones that are on parole or on probation should probably be added, bringing the total to 7.2 million. Not many of them are famous as talented film directors or brilliant socialists. A large majority of them are black and male. Also, presumably, a large majority of them are criminals. This is not a combination of qualities that would be easily voted in by any democracy.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up