Prince Albert speech: "Slavery is a stain on Christianity" Um....
Christians are the ones who led the anti-slavery movement. Nothing in the Bible condones slavery, in fact, the opposite. Why did Albert put blame on Christianity then?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Victoria (2017) Discussion > Prince Albert speech: "Slavery is a stai...
Christians are the ones who led the anti-slavery movement.
Slave owners in 18th and 19th century America were Christian. share
Most American slave owners were Christian, so not sure where you got your information from.
TEXT:
OLD TESTAMENT
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." -- Leviticus 25:44-45
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. " -- Genesis 9:25-27
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." -- Exodus 21:2-6
"When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property." -- Exodus 21:20-21.
NEW TESTAMENT
"Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives." -- Matthew 24:45-46.
"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain." -- 1 Timothy 6:1-5.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." -- Ephesians 6:5-6.
"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men." -- 1 Peter 2:13
"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval." -- 1 Peter 2:18-29.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/slavery.htm
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.
Nothing in the Bible condones slavery, in fact, the opposite.
You must have read a different Bible then...
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco share
Did Victoria or Albert or any of them realize that heavy labor, long hours and badly paid work for men, women and children in Britain at the time was another form of unescapable slavery, not just severe poverty?
share[deleted]
Living conditions for the working class in the U.K. improved dramatically during Victoria's reign, compared to what it was like previously.
Her influence (and Albert's) can be debated -- there was a lot going on politically -- the maturation of the industrial revolution and the real fear in the upper classes after the French revolution, among them.
What are your sources for stating that the lives of the working classes in England improved
from 1837 to 1901? In what century was Dickens writing, or Engels? Or just about anyone else? I left out the rest of Britain to simplify matters, but Scotland, Wales and Ireland were miserable places for workers, especially in the factories and mines. Life was hard even for lower-middle class shopkeepers and publicans, not to mention the limited choices women had then -- and you surely know what those choices were. BTW, Albert "designed" a working class 4-family "cottage" (2 rooms in each flat) for the 1851 Exhibition but nothing was done until the Socialists and Fabians built 7-floor walk-up housing for the poor, still being lived in today, but created post-1901. And it went on and on: in 1937 Winston Churchill wrote in a parliamentary report that not everyone in the country "needed" to have running water, much less hot water in their homes. And the French Revolution was less a perceived threat than the other European revolutions of 1848.
And they worsened for the Irish. In fact, when aid was offered to the Emerald Isle at the height of the Potato Famine, this inbred sow wouldn't allow any foreign dignitary to donate more than she did - a paltry £2,000.
There is a special place in Hell for the ruling class.
Let's see who takes the bait.
Regarding caring about poverty in England at that time, one must keep in mind that most people (including Victoria) would have assumed that there just wasn't much that could be done to end poverty.
However people today may get upset about that statement, they looked at it this way:
(1) They assumed what Jesus said, "The poor shall always be with you."
(2) They assumed that there was simply not enough money in the world to end poverty.
(3) To tax the rich and give the money away would not only have been though insufficient, they saw that as wrong because it would have been stealing from one group in order to give to another.
(4) Some worried that giving money to the poor would simply produce more children and that would produce even more poverty.
If many of us had lived back then, we would probably have held those opinions.
(By the way, many people in history felt similarly about slavery. They would even have said, "If you free the slaves, they will starve! Nobody will be feeding them! That is cruel." They assumed that there would not be enough wage jobs to support them. They were often right.)
They would even have said, "If you free the slaves, they will starve! Nobody will be feeding them! That is cruel."
You have NO IDEA how correct you are! I inherited some paperwork, correspondence, pictures, etc., from my spouse's great-great-great aunt. They lived in Oklahoma, were farmers but did NOT own slaves. However, they were aware of what was going on and that when slaves were freed, many stayed on their original plantations, but many also "hit the road" without actually understanding how "having nothing AND no food" could be devastating.
I don't want to be too specific because those on the Left will read these few words that were written back in the late 1860s, that I am daring to write, and their collective heads will explode with criticism and derision and mocking and outrage, BUT, these were times long past, in a world that no longer exists, and these were people doing their best to live in the world as it was.
This after the end of the Civil War, and she had spent the day riding out on horseback, "overseeing" her farm (fences, animals, etc.) because her husband was away on business. I remember a specific entry she made, as she also wrote a note to her mother, about the same situation. She wrote the following entry:
"I found 17 'Nigs' dn by the river. I brought them back to the house to feed and see to their medicines. They need baths and add'l clothing. R. will see about what to do further when he returns from Chndlr." [R was her husband, and he had gone to Chandler for a few days. It was a LONG buggy ride, and he would stay over, in town, when he had business there, leaving her at home with their cook and 3-4 hired hands. She noted that the 17 were composed of 8 men, 4 women, and 5 children.]
Now before the Left orders my arrest and execution (for marrying someone who had a great-great-great aunt who could not allow "17 Nigs" to suffer without food, a medical check, and comfort. And, who depended on her HUSBAND to come up with the best suggestions as to how to move them on).
She could NOT afford to feed them indefinitely and had no room to house them, but she KNEW they needed help at that moment and didn't hesitate to do what she could (which was, alternately, not much and everything). She knew that it was HER responsibility as a fellow human being and a Christian woman to do what she could.
She listed the food, medicine, clothing, and bandages that she dispensed to them. She was responsible for her "household accounts" and needed to note how she was spending money. I have no idea what happened to those poor souls; 17 is a lot of people, but I know they were fed for a time by a very nice lady, who did not hesitate (or wait to ask anyone) when she found folks in need. share
What a great example of real history as told through the words of people just trying to survive the world known to them at the time.
Thanks for sharing that family history.
Great story - thanks for sharing. These are the kinds of insights I will miss when the message boards go away.
Just a tiny nit to pick - in the 1860s there was no "Oklahoma" - it was Indian Territory, and the 17 refugees might have been local, as members of the Cherokee (and other) tribes were slave-holders.
Just a tiny nit to pick - in the 1860s there was no "Oklahoma" - it was Indian Territory,
I hate to nit-pick a nit-pick, but she was correct and your nit-pick might be considered wrong by a pedant. (LOL!)
The word "Oklahoma" has a semi-complex story but basically it meant "the red people", a term the Indians who ended up there used to refer to themselves and sometimes the land on which they lived. So when you say "There was no Oklahoma." just because it wasn't given statehood until a half century later, that doesn't make any sense. Do only those of European descent get to name the place where the Indians lived and settlers settled? What leads you to assume that what non-Europeans called the area in which they lived somehow doesn't matter?
Would you say that there was no "America" before Columbus' voyage in 1492? If no, how in the world is someone supposed to refer to it? By your logic, people can't call it "the New World" or "America" until the Europeans sailed there. So what name should be used?
I'm a retired linguist and "corrections" like yours on the Internet frustrate me because the "logic" of it is, frankly, ridiculous. Besides, for much of America's history, the name "Indian Territory" is so ambiguous as to be... well... ridiculous. That's because it was applied at one time or another to just about any and every area beyond the frontier!
So insisting that somebody call a particular area "Indian Territory", as if that was somehow helpful and more specific, is... well... ridiculous.
I realize that your "nit-pick" was politely provided and was sincerely meant to be helpful. But I can understand why Native Americans and other aboriginal peoples around the world get very frustrated by this mindset that only European peoples get to assign the "official name" of some thing or some place.
Besides, the purpose of language is to COMMUNICATE. By calling the region of her husband's ancestors "Oklahoma", she was clearly communicating geography by means of the least ambiguous term appropriate to the situation. To call it simply "Indian territory" would have been far less clear and would have gained nothing. Even though I sometimes get fed up with "political correctness" in online forums, this is a case where the issue is not about PC. It's about common sense and clear communication.
I don't mean to sound harsh and the error is certainly a small one. But the retired professor in me hates to let a teachable moment pass by without comment.
(P.S. Someone will probably dispute whether "Oklahoma" was an applicable name at the time of the lady's story because "the Oklahoma Territory" was not incorporated until something like a generation later. But there is no rule of linguistics which says that we have to apply whatever place name applied at the exact time of a story's setting. Instead, we generally use whatever term is most useful. I'm covering all of the bases here because in just about any undergraduate course there is usually at least one student who insists on pressing such issues.) share
Camarge, this is fascinating. Thank you for sharing.
LBE
*****
On your feet, Sam.
Regarding caring about poverty in England at that time, one must keep in mind that most people (including Victoria) would have assumed that there just wasn't much that could be done to end poverty.
However people today may get upset about that statement, they looked at it this way:
(1) They assumed what Jesus said, "The poor shall always be with you."
(2) They assumed that there was simply not enough money in the world to end poverty.
(3) To tax the rich and give the money away would not only have been though insufficient, they saw that as wrong because it would have been stealing from one group in order to give to another.
(4) Some worried that giving money to the poor would simply produce more children and that would produce even more poverty.
If many of us had lived back then, we would probably have held those opinions.
(By the way, many people in history felt similarly about slavery. They would even have said, "If you free the slaves, they will starve! Nobody will be feeding them! That is cruel." They assumed that there would not be enough wage jobs to support them. They were often right.)
And in all fairness, Albert seems to have done what he could to improve the situation for the working class. He was even the president of something, that was called "The Society for the Improvement of the Condition of the Labouring Classes". And he did his work there under the patronage of his wife, Queen Victoria. So yes, they realized the harsh reality of what so many of their subjects had to go through. But alas, it is not possible for anybody to solve all the problems in the world. So they could hardly stop poverty and the harsh working conditions from existing.
shareYou are correct that Christians led the anti-slavery movement, and they did it in the name of their Christianity.
There is an astonishing degree of ignorance regarding the effective universality of slavery prior to Christians overthrowing it.
As to the slave-like conditions of the masses prior to the overthrow of slavery, slavery had to be overthrown first in order for that to even matter, morally.
BTW, I am not a Christian. God is a metaphor, like free will, not an absolute reality. Understanding that truth does not mean I have to be stupid about the good things Christians do. It doesn't even mean Christians are "wrong," except about the metaphor part. A metaphor can be more powerful than the reality, as we can all clearly see from the power of the concept of free will.
[deleted]
While it's true many slaveholders were Christians, not all Christians were slaveowners. There was a long-standing fight to end slavery in the U.K. which really took on steam in the 1790s because of the devout faith and political work of the Clapham sect (of which William Wilberforce was a prominent member).
Slaveholders used prooftexts from the Bible, taken out of context, as an excuse to treat human beings as chattel. They ignored other verses that tell us God doesn't see differences between races or even genders, but values all people.
Non-christians took part in the fight against slavery as well.
share[while] many slaveholders were Christians, not all Christians were slaveowners
And not all slave owners were Christian - several Native American tribes' members, including Cherokees, owned slaves.
share
Doubtitall, even though you and I hold different opinions on these matters, I really appreciate your sharing your views on this. Your articulation of your position is quite interesting and thought provoking! This is a great example of public dialogue that politely informs and leads to a better mutual understanding.
So thanks for posting!