March 6, 2003

The idea that black on black slavery was and is better is being advanced by the Smithsonian's new African American History exhibit. The museum operators and supporters believe slavery was more dehumanizing when white Europeans were the masters.

They believe that black masters in the past and today are less violent, so slavery by blacks against  blacks is a better system!

You have got to be kidding !?

As you read this, there are perhaps a million African (black) human beings enslaved in Africa. The country most connected with black on black slavery is the Sudan where children are sold by their parents for economic reasons. But many are simply kidnapped and forced into slavery to perform labor and/or sexual services.

Slavery is slavery no matter who the master is, or the color of his skin.

To be a slave means you are forced into labor, have no birthrights, and  treated as sub-human. That is dehumanizing, even without violence.

But there is violence!

To say that black on black slavery is less violent, implies a kindler and gentler slavery system. Preposterous. Black on black slavery TODAY in Africa involves, torture, rape, amputation of body parts and murder. How is that better or less violent? Is it better that a black person inflict this, than a white?

To say one type of slavery was bad and the other better, is difficult to understand. It is certainly hypocritical coming from the African American museum curator of the African American exhibit at the Smithsonian.

Slavery was wrong in America and it is wrong today in Africa, Burma, and Thailand.

Where is the outrage? Outrage, especially from African Americans in the United States? Why their hypocrisy?