Sure--this is fair enough.  But is anyone here seriously arguing the contrary?

It is widely acknowledged that various peoples in Africa participated in the slave trade, and that large numbers of Africans were enslaved by other Africans.  No credible historian today argues otherwise.

But so what?  How does this fact in any way reduce the moral culpability of those English or American persons who purchased slaves?

Slavery is repugnant not just by any arbitrary set of ethical standards, but rather when judged by the standards of English and American political and constitutional values, to which I would hope everyone in this conversation is committed.  The fact that people in Africa, who lived by other standards, committed (what are in my view) morally reprehensible actions in no way or fashion lets my ancestors off the hook.  *My* ancestors violated their *own* standards.  So did everyone who owned slaves who was also a citizen of the United States of America. 


---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:36:20 EST
>From: [log in to unmask]  
>Subject: Re: Slave owner or slave "owner"?  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I would recommend Slavery and African Life by Patrick Manning and  
>Transformations in Slavery by Paul E. Lovejoy who rebut any misimpression that  white 
>men needed to do anything but pull into African ports and pick up all the  
>pre-enslaved black Africans they needed.
>
>
>
>**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
>(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
>2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
>
>______________________________________
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
>http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html