slave migrations

So much of ancient migration patterns was determined by the slave trade that it should not have surprised Mikki that slavery played a crucial part in later migrations, too, and continues to shape the modern world via human trafficking and sex slavery from Eastern Europe and South East Asia.

“The discovery of the New World of North and South America and the need for cheap labor started a huge migration of slaves -- forcibly, of course,” says Mikki, “and while the Latin Conquistadors were plundering Africa of its peoples, shipping them off in chains and working them as slaves in South American plantations the British were plundering their own people, shipping off the surplus poor in chains and working them as slaves in North America and the West Indies.”

“This is something I did not know,” says Mikki, “and it shocked me to learn that one of my ancestors was a convicted felon who evaded execution in the Old Country by transportation and worked as a slave alongside kidnapped Negroes on the tobacco plantations of Virginia.”

“In 1701 the Calendar of Colonial State Papers records 25,000 slaves in Barbados of which 21,700 were white,” says Mikki. “There was absolutely no doubt that the white people shipped to the New World were intended to be slaves.”

“The only protests at that time were against black slavery in England because nobody knew what was happening to the whites shipped off to the colonies,” says Mikki, “and when confronted the Solicitor General of England expressed the view in 1729 that slavery of Africans was lawful in England.”

“It took until 1760 for the first organized campaign against slavery -- the Anti-Slavery Society founded by Granville Sharp -- to get up and active,” says Mikki. “Exposure of black slavery actually helped end white slavery.”

“In 1757 the Aberdeen businessmen and magistrates who were kidnapping poor white people and selling them to plantation owners in the colonies were exposed for their involvement in the white slave trade.”

“Because those running the country had more than a vested interest in perpetuating slavery,” says Mikki, “it took forty more years before any action was taken.”

“There was no universal suffrage in those days,” explains Mikki. “Only the rich and powerful had the right to vote and if you had no means of support you were fodder for the cannons of war or the plantations of the New World.”

Read more by Mikki on this issue:

a nation built on white slavery

globalized slavery

whitewashing slavery

Britons never will be slaves?

so you think you’re a slave?

Tobacco and America's Convict Past

out of sight, out of mind

digging up your ancestors

is slavery the human condition?

the ghosts of slavery

kidnapped children

black v white slavery

Anglo Slavery

lies, felons, slave-drivers and profiteers

the ghosts of slavery

Mikki points out that anyone who is familiar with the horrors of the Industrial Revolution and the earlier enslavement of hundreds of thousands of innocent poor people from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales -- who, before convict transportation and black slavery, were kidnapped, sold and shipped in chains to the New World colonies to be worked as slaves in perpetuity from the early 1600s to the early 1700s -- knows that poverty and overpopulation leads to slavery and gross civil abuses.

“Even those not familiar with British colonial history feel intuitively threatened by masses of immigrants coming into their country, taking their jobs, undercutting their wages, creating housing shortages and generally lowering the standard of living of ordinary people while increasing that of the rich and powerful,” says Mikki. “All of the good work done by the slave abolitionists and the Trade Unions is now being undone, and the ghosts of slavery are coming back to bite us.”

“There was never any consideration given to paying the kidnapped people for their labor or freeing them -- it was slavery for life,” says Mikki. “And the role of the Scots in the slave trade, both white and black, is particularly damning.”

“Scottish highland chiefs -- like their counterparts in Africa -- actually colluded with slavers and shippers to sell off their surplus populations,” says Mikki, “and venal justices, usurers and landlords in Edinburgh also colluded with them by using devious debt, tenancy and vagrancy schemes to more or less legalize kidnapping, shipment and perpetual slavery of innocent people in the New World.”

“It wasn’t until 1757 -- 130 years after white slavery to the New World commenced -- that a number of Aberdeen businessmen and magistrates were exposed for their involvement in the white slave trade.”

“By then, the African slave trade had become far more profitable than the white slave trade, and free white settlement was the norm after the 1776 Revolution,” says Mikki. “So, the bulk of white people being sent to the New World just before the 1776 Revolution were convicted criminals, petty or otherwise, mostly political dissidents, and they were not particularly welcomed by the plantation owners because of their bad character or attitude.”

“So popular were black slaves that the British gentry even wanted them as household servants, and when slave markets openly trading in Negro slaves actually appeared in London and Liverpool the awful reality of slavery was brought right into the heart of the nation. Slave markets were the norm the the USA, but they had not been seen in England since the Roman Empire!"

“As with immigration today, the native English population was horrified at the sight and plight of the black slaves within their midst,” says Mikki, “but mostly they resented that the gentry were buying these slaves in order to avoid paying a wage to a local person.”

“The activists expressed economic as well as moral outrage against slavery in England and the colonies,” says Mikki, “and in this sort of climate it wasn't surprising that the American Revolution of 1776 took place, separating the old and the new world.”

Read more by Mikki on this issue:

a nation built on white slavery

globalized slavery

whitewashing slavery

Britons never will be slaves?

so you think you’re a slave?

Tobacco and America's Convict Past

out of sight, out of mind

digging up your ancestors

is slavery the human condition?

kidnapped children

black v white slavery

slave migrations

Anglo Slavery

lies, felons, slave-drivers and profiteers

black v white slavery

Mikki claims that successive governments in Britain and America have conveniently concentrated so much on the black slave trade that very few people are even aware that there was such a thing as white slavery.

“White slavery was either not taught in schools at all or it is brushed over with the 'indentured servant' lie,” says Mikki. “This is despite white slavery in the New World being a frequent subject of parliamentary debate as early as 1656 when the selling of whites in slavery was seen as being a threat to the liberties of all Englishmen.”

“Also, in 1659 a petition to parliament described in detail the deplorable way in which white slaves were treated in slave ships,” says Mikki. “They were locked below deck amongst horses not only for two weeks or more while the ship was still in port but also for the entire voyage.”

“They were chained from their legs to their necks and cramped with 300 others,” says Mikki, “but sometimes the ship's master, for greater profit, would crowd as many as 600 into the hulks.”

“The ship’s master did not care that half of these people or more would die before reaching their destination,” says Mikki. “At that time there were no trade goods in England to send back to the colonies -- it was either empty ships or white slave ships.”

“The first slaves in the American colonies were white slaves, slaves for life, including any children they had,” says Mikki, “and the white slave trade was a far more extensive operation than the black slave trade ever was.”

“It involved hundreds of thousands of unfortunate white men, women and children stretching back to the 1600s and the kidnappings even continued well after the Revolution.”

“White slaves were worth far less than Negroes in the New World,” says Mikki. “They did not last very long in the new climate and, having paid more for a black slave, the planters treated them better than whites.”

“Even the Negroes recognized this and showed contempt for the whites worse off than themselves.”

“The wealth and status of America’s oldest families was gained entirely on the back of slaves, white and black,” says Mikki, “but primarily white slaves because they laid the foundations of the nation long before the first Negro slave stepped onto North American soil.”

“The only white settlers who prospered and left many ancestors were the slave traders and the pre-Revolution convicts and the post-Revolution indentured servants,” says Mikki. “Both the convicts and the indentured servants served their time and then took full advantage of black slave labor up to 1860, when slavery moved back to being white again.”

“Waves of poor starving white immigrants following the Irish Potato famine were worked virtually as slaves in America,” says Mikki. “So black slavery, taken into context, was merely a blip in the history of the settlement of the New World – the real burden we face is the shame of enslaving our own people.”

Read more by Mikki on this issue:

a nation built on white slavery

globalized slavery

whitewashing slavery

Britons never will be slaves?

so you think you’re a slave?

Tobacco and America's Convict Past

out of sight, out of mind

digging up your ancestors

is slavery the human condition?

the ghosts of slavery

kidnapped children

slave migrations

Anglo Slavery

lies, felons, slave-drivers and profiteers

immigrants and social norms

Noor is an immigrant from a repressive regime and she is confused by her new government's insistence that everyone must now give up existing freedoms in order to fit into a new social norm.

"What I love about this country is its diversity and its freedoms," says Noor. "What are these social norms I keep hearing about and why must we give up our diversity and freedoms in order to fit into them?"

"It seems to me that when 'social norms' are construed they are done so by the government in cahoots with vested interests and the losers in these deals are us, the general public, who have no say in the matter, no seat at the table."

"Oh, yes, of course we have the honor of electing our representatives in government," laughs Noor, "but I quickly learned when I came here that no one person can possibly represent the diverse people in his or her electorate and has no illusion about doing so."

"In the end, a democratically elected representative is no better or worse than one placed in power by a dictator," says Noor, "and the only reason they seek such positions is to exercise power over mere mortals like us."

"If anything they do actually benefits us, it is merely coincidental," laughs Noor, "and when two lobby groups are pushing their agendas there is rarely a rational conclusion -- a compromise -- which satisfies both. The government goes with whichever lobby group pays more. It's as simple as that,"

"The only real difference between a democracy and a dictatorship -- apart from the illusion of elections -- is that a dictator makes no bones about what he wants," says Noor. "He makes all decisions, up front, and is not unduly influenced by lobby groups. His appearance, manners and thoughts constitute the 'social norm' that all follow slavishly."

"So, in relation to social norms," explains Noor, "there is no doubt about what is expected of you in a dictatorship. In a democracy, however, what is socially acceptable one day can be socially unacceptable the next -- according to which lobby group pays more -- and you don't know where you stand from one day to the next."

"Okay," laughs Noor. "Maybe I exaggerate about social norms changing from day to day, but you get my drift, right?"

"Your country -- my new country -- has a history of this sort of change and cannot understand, perhaps, how difficult it is for immigrants from repressive regimes to adapt to a culture of constant change."

"When my family first came here we saw diversity and freedoms we never before imagined," explains Noor. "It took us a long time to understand that this diversity and freedom was the 'social norm' of the time, and that things were constantly changing."

"A freedom today can be taken away tomorrow, and what was restricted yesterday can be a freedom today."

"This is all very well, but it worries me that more and more of the freedoms my family enjoy are being taken away and life here, in those respects, is becoming more repressive than the life we once had elsewhere."

"Take the freedom to smoke, for instance," says Noor. "In our old country it is something we have done for centuries -- long before your country was discovered. Smoking, to us -- especially our menfolk -- is like eating. It is so normal for us that it would be abnormal to come across a man who did not smoke. "

"We don't drink alcohol, it is against our religion, but we are happy that everyone else has the freedom to do so," says Noor. "Similarly, we are more restrictive with our women in respect to clothing, marriage and behavior, but we are happy that other women have the freedom to do as they please."

"We have assimilated very well into our new country and have not met with any discrimination whatsoever -- until the smoking bans came into force."

"This does not affect me directly because I don't smoke," says Noor, "but it distresses my father and my brothers because they are heavy smokers and are having tremendous difficulty fitting in with the new non-smoking 'social norm'."

"There was no discussion of the matter and no compromise either," sighs Noor. "The anti-smoking lobby gained precedence over the tobacco lobby and suddenly workplaces, public spaces, airlines, public transport and restaurants became non-smoking."

"Had a compromise been achieved with separate smoking rooms or areas, nobody would have been inconvenienced," says Noor, "but a total ban turned my father and brothers into pariahs and criminals, just like that!"

"Where is the democracy in this new 'social norm'? Where is the respect for the civil rights of smokers?"

"All of a sudden, decent people who loved my father and brothers turned against them, accusing them of being poisoners," sighs Noor. "They were told that non-smokers had a right to clean air, everywhere, and smoking was no longer acceptable."

"The air now belongs to non-smokers, it has their ownership tag on it," sighs Noor, "and pretty soon they will start smelling vehicle exhaust fumes and factory chimneys and perfumes and want to ban them, too."

"I believe that every job and every environment comes with its pollutants," says Noor, "and it's illogical to ban one pollutant or one hazard without banning the others."

"What would happen to the economy if everyone refused to work in places with potentially damaging pollutants or hazards? asks Noor. "What job doesn't come with health risks? I am a hairdresser and I work with a lot of dangerous chemicals -- I take reasonable precautions but accidents happen."

"My sister is allergic to vehicle fumes and cannot travel without suffering extreme discomfort," says Noor, "yet she accepts that other people have a right to pollute the air she breathes with their vehicle fumes. She, and others like her, could possibly form a lobby group and gain enough financial support to sway the government into banning vehicles from densely populated areas."

"It sounds crazy, I know, but this is exactly what the anti-smoking lobby has done."

"Okay, the 'social norm' is now a non-smoking one, and in time the smokers who stay here will be forced to adapt," says Noor, ''but my father and brothers do not believe that such a decision should have been made without the input of smokers and feel they are living in a dictatorship worse than the one they left. They are even considering moving the family back to the old country, and this distresses me terribly."

"They want to know why they should be forced to adapt to someone else's new-fangled social norm," sighs Noor, "and I can see their point of view. Non-smoking wasn't the social norm when they made the decision to make this country their new home, and they are rightfully angry."

"They are prepared to compromise on the issue to make the non-smokers happy -- to smoke in designated areas," says Noor, "but even that civil right has been taken away from them. Soon, they say, there will be no smoking in private vehicles and premises."

"Coming from a regime that repressed freedom of speech, this sort of dictatorial 'social norm' is abhorrent to my father and brothers," says Noor. "It is dictatorial to force a group of people to fit in with another group's ideas about what is normal and what isn't, and it is hateful to vilify and criminalize people for something they've always done and is part of an ancient culture."

"I can appreciate that social norms can and do change in a democratic society," says Noor, "but changing them by force with false, frightening and hate-mongering propaganda is something I didn't expect to happen here."

"It's usually a sort of fashion-statement thing led by trendsetters -- you know, a movie star shaves his head and hey presto! everyone is doing it and being bald is the new, trendy social norm for men."

"This non-smoking thing hasn't come from the people, it has been imposed from above in a dictatorial manner," says Noor, "and it has been accepted by the people based on the sort of fear and lies that evil applied psychologists use."

"This is what my father and brothers object to most," says Noor. "Had the non-smoking movement been started and led by the trendies it would have caught on naturally."

"The only 'face' of the non-smoking lobby we see is an ugly one -- full of hate, lies and a dictatorial manner," says Noor. "No wonder only the very weak smokers have quit. They cannot handle being 'de-normalized'. It is a cruel and unusual way to get someone to change their ways."

"The real cowards, however, are not the weak smokers but the anti-smoking lobby for not having the guts to show their faces, tell us their names and what their real agenda is," says Noor. "I don't mean the many people who've jumped on the bandwagon after the bans. I mean the small band of people who formed the initial lobby group. Does anyone know who these people are? They would have to be very rich, wouldn't they, to buy off the government?"

"Dictators in a repressive regime hold power not only by brutality," explains Noor. "They also need to have an incredible physical presence, beauty or charisma, otherwise people would take no notice of them."

"If these people, the initiators of the smoking bans, were required to face the public," says Noor, "I doubt very much that they would be the sort of people anybody in their right mind would want to follow. Ugly is as ugly does, right?"

Noor's story first appeared as ugly faces behind social norms and is reprinted with permission.