Yes they should as a mark of respect. Fair point in black chiefs selling there own people off, but its the way the slaves were treated while on board the ships, they went through hell and suffered heavy abuse, torture etc..

Thats the reason why Britain should apologize.

tooo late for that there other things they can and correct like in Cyprus they sold half the island to Turks..so they can have a base..

This government can't even get simple statements correct. It's too late to say sorry. Blair and Brown, what a pair of embarrassing twits

Tony Blair was not apologizing for our actions, but for the actions of our ancestors. Nor is he claiming all of the blame. Many other nations were involved too. And I am told that, in some parts of Africa, it was local african leaders who rounded up people and sold them to foreign slave traders. It is good to expose that shameful history.

Such an apology is a very good thing to do. Slavery was very nasty. We need to make it clear to everyone, by this and other actions, that modern Britain wholly condemns slavery and the attitudes and laxity that allowed it to flourish.

Moreover, slavery has not been abolished in this world. Our condemnation of it is as relevant today as it would have been several centuries ago.

You are missing the point! Millions of West Africans were forceably taken against their will to work for nothing to create wealth for the British Empire. Yes, no-one alive today was involved in slavery, but there has been no formal acknowledgement by the British government of the day that this country (and numerous individuals) benefitted greatly from the abduction, selling and working of slaves. An apology by this or any other Prime Minister would show that history is an important part of a country's make up and that errors have to be owned up to.

i don't see the point of him bringing it up again. it is long gone and any one that was resposible is dead now. the only thing he has the right to do is say is britian is not like that anymore and will not be like that again. for all we know the people who did this might agree with slavery. are the germans gonna apologise for hilter as well?

Usual Bliar talking in his usual inconsesequental falsity

Britain should not apologise now for something which happened in a generation which the people are not responsible for , we had no say in it . Who will be apologising in the future? I agree with you . Every nation is or has been guilty of slavery of one kind or another

Yes everyone involved should apologize if they have not done so as yet, even the Africn countries with guilty tribal leaders!

Slavery was not that long ago and the effects can still be seen today - who still controls a significant portion of the diamond mining in Africa? De Beers, a european company.

The British Empire got to where it is today BECAUSE of slavery and so white britons now have a quality of life thanks largely in part to back-breaking labour, horrible treatment and complete disregard for life when it came to slaves.

Yes Britain did abolish first, but not until there were serious rebellions and it was clear that the "slaves" far outnumbered the "masters" and were prepared to fight tooth and nail to win - Haiti and Jamaica are perfect examples.

Give the UK credit for that yes, the USA was quite different, BUT still apologize. You can ask for your apology as well, there is nothing wrong with that, however it seems that aryans haven't been tremendously affected negatively from a financial standpoint, and if they have, nothing even close to Africans.

If the holocaust, where 6 million Jews were killed, is important in history, then certainly the slave trade, which resulted in significantly more deaths, is worthy of constantly being promoted as a sad time in history. Anything less is merely placing the value of a jewish life above that of an african life.

The legacy of slavery still lives with us today even more than the holocaust - the millions that live in abject poverty, suffer under tyrants that came to power after european colonizers ran away, apartheid still fresh in minds, the concentration of african wealth among the elite with european backgrounds, so much that still shows today that even though slavery was abolished, slavery still exists in different forms precisely BECAUSE europeans felt it was ok to treat people as sub-human.

If your ancestors had been subjected to this and the effects were still alive today, you would want an apology as well, and more.

Alas, most white people fail to see this point.

Slavery has existed pretty much for all of human history, so it seems kind of pointless.

Sounds like a bunch of politically correct nonsense.

It seems a bit strange that he is more than willing to apologise for something he had no control over but he will not apologise for lying to use about WMD and leading Britain into an illegal war which were all his own doing.

They shouldn't!!

(Nice easy one, that!!)

Why should any country apologise for what happened years and years ago….
Would you apologise for what your great great great great great great grandfather did?
Blair should apologise for a lot of things, but NOT for this.
What a farce.

what did William Wilberforce do he didn't apologise he stopped it

They should not but negroids should be thankfull for past slavery.

Reparations should be tied to repatriation back to the Motherland. We would pay any price to be rid of them! Yet they would not go back willingly no matter the price. Even with the average negroid IQ at the retarded 69 and 80 for Jewnited States mulattos they are not so stupid as not to know they have it made here taking advantage of christ insanity inspired White foolishness and guilt.

The effects of slavery are wonderful for them (negroids & mulattos)but very destructive for Caucasoids and for the Jewnited States of America. If not for past slavery most all of them would not be here leeching from White created civilization. Rather they would be in Sub-Sahara "black" Africa in mud and dung (poop) huts with flies all about (that seem not to bother them) living their stone age existance and waiting for the next food shipment from the christ insanity infected White man.

We must remember the lives they lived and the standard of living they had in Africa. We must remember that stronger tribes enslaved weaker ones (as is the history of all peoples -human and sub-human) and most all of those slaves that were bought by rich Americans from the Jewish slave traders were already slaves under much harsher conditions than slavery here. We must remember that slaves here had it much better than even most all free negroids in the Motherland.

We can look at tribes in "black" Africa today that have had the least help and influence from the White man and see how they live. They bath in cow urine, cover themselves in cow poop, cut themselves with deep cuts all over their bodies, whip themselves bloody with branches - all as custom, and or tradition and ceromony. Here they were valuable property and thus were kept in good health and treated fairly well. They recieved better health care than back home and better housing and easier work and better and more food and recieved better education. They were rarely whipped and then only as punishment while back in Africa it is something they submit to volantarily not as punishment but per their customs, ceronmonies and traditions.

This nation was not built on slavery or cotton or defective cotton pickers. Most everything in this nation was designed, created and built by White men to include the railroads that had hundreds of thousands of White workers (mostly Keltic)but only 3,000 mongoloids that get all the attention today. The South was very backward and poor during slavery and the North was much richer and industrialized. Slavery was harmful to Southern White folk since it eliminated jobs for them and lowered their wages.

Today White folk have had most of their civil rights taken away while non-whites get special treatment. We no longer can sell our property to whom we please or serve whom we want or hire whom we want or have the freedom to associate with our own kind. Our traditional White living areas and schools and businesses and clubs have been destroyed yet non-Whites have all of those for themselves. Negroids and now metizos have destroyed every major city in the nation and most minor ones as well. Now they pollute most all areas of the nation. They have ruined our public education systems and degraded our culture.

They (negroids) rape over 30,000 White's per year and kill 1,500 of us and violently attack about 1 million of us each year. This has been going on for 47 years ever since they stopped fearing the White man and his rope. Crimes the other way around are a tiny fraction of that and rare indeed though they get all the attention. The rare White on black crime is highlighted and many books and movies are still made about crimes that are decades old while the majority (90%+) of inter racial crime that is black on White is ignored - no movies or books.

Just last month a White couple in Indiana was tortured and murdered by Blacks and racial things were written in their blood on the walls of their home. The husbands penis was cut off and put in the wifes mouth while both of them were still alive. That crime is not being charged as a hate crime and there is no national coverage and little local coverage. Remember the "Zebra" murders? Of course not since even when they occured they recieved no national attention and little local attention even though it is estimated by the police involved that a racist black cult killed as many as 300 White people, though most of the cult was never charged and those that were were only charged with under 20 murders. Most all of them have long since been let out on parole. Heads and hands of White victims were brought in by members to prove a kill. They needed to kill 30 White people to be "made" members. They had 30 "made " members. No movies about that and only one out of print book.

It is all about highlighting the rare case of White racism and ignoring the usual racism the other way around so as to fan the flames of hatred for us and encourage the "kill Whitey" attitude while creating and growing foolish White guilt. The harm that negroids have caused this nation is so great they could never repay us. Yet they talk about reparations for them when they owe us. Sure pay them reparations they do not deserve but only if they repatriate back to the motherland. Oh what a Whiter brighter world it would be without them. However as our nation darkens so does our future.

Remember that it is part of humanoid evolution that stronger superior humans dominate and even enslave inferior weaker humans or humanoids.

Remember that despite the mindless slogans the stupid masses parrot there is no such thing as racial or any other type of equality nor is there a human race. There is a human species that like all species is divided into competing sub-species. We call our sub-species races. For horses it is breeds while for most species we just say sub-species. Each sub-species has it's own general strengths and weaknesses and other traits and even individuals within a sub-species will have those traits to varying degree's. Not even identical twins are really identical or equal. It is natural and healthy and even required for survival that all sub-species practice sub-species ism (racism for humans).

Every creature is here to look out for it's own intrests ONLY, and to advance and reproduce and expand to the limits of it's capabilities in competition with other sub-species and species. The closer related sub-species are naturally our greatest enemies since we compete for the same territory and resourcers. The history of race relations proves that. Despite the propaganda we get from childhood on against racism (from the media, school and parents) our natural racial instincts can not be destroyed totally. Sure among White folk our racism is weak while the other races are very racist.

Hate is a protective emotion that springs from love and only exists in connection to love. We naturally hate those and that which is a threat to whom and what we love. Our hate is only as strong as our love. Those that do not give much of a hoot about anything or anyone (even themselves) can not muster much hate since they do not have much love. Forget all the christ insanity inspired propaganda about hate and love and try independent rational thought for a change. If you are like most all (95%+) you are a herd animal that needs to have masters and is slave minded and even bends knee's to fictional pie in the sky masters & thus you are not capable of independent rational thought.

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what *is* racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then *institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality

Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "******" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of… the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate *homogeneity*. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from *deploring an excess of whites.* In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, *whites* must *also* champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

The 14 Words

Rahowa
88
Might Is Right!!

Good question. In the United States we've already had this through President Bill Clinton on behalf of the nation, Rev. Billy Graham on the behalf of Christians, and tons of others like John Edwards either apologizing on the campaign trail or near enough to it. Many others have spoken along these lines as well. Yet despite all these men being white Southerners people still continue to hold this against many (white) Southerners for all this today even though this was long before the birth of any modern person and we couldn't have done anything about it even if we wished. So apologizing won't mean anything significant in and of itself.

However, most black people don't reallly care about all this- it's more of a theoretical subject popular with liberals and the like. If you want my opinion the whole meaning of the world "apologize/apology" has been messed up. What we should say is "issue a statement" because you cannot really APOLOGIZE for something that you didn't do - esp. that which occurred 100+ yrs. ago. The real meaning of the word 'apology' should be something meaningful- like, you know, when you actually do something wrong and you express regret for it. Maybe you were rude to the wife and are now expressing a change of heart- something meaningful like that. You just cannot apologize for some abstract issue- you can only issue a statement like I said however even there why are some so obsessed with this? Is it really better with all this political correctness to have people hide their (sometimes) true thoughts behind a big typed up statement so that I have no clue what they really think? As a female there was a lot of discrimination against women in the past but I don't wish men to "issue a statement" about something they have nothing to do with. My personal feelings is that people should just say whatever they really think because people don't act on their "statements" they act on what they really think so it's not good to encourage free speech for a faux front.

Of course I'm not saying they should allow all kinds of prejudiced people in the media or whatever to spread their views but yes, I do think average people should be allowed to at least express them. My way of looking at it is that even if you don't like me I want to know about it so that I at least know to stay away from you! There are so many things nowadays where I wish I knew what people really thought but am not quite sure because of political correctness. I still have no clue what so many like Bush and Blair think it's a good idea to wage war against the Iraqis but no doubt someone will issue statements in fifty years time on that as well.

he should not.

When will Britain get an apology and admission from the immigrants that have brought down our country, screwed our traditions?

THEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR FREEING THOSE CREATURES AND FOR AIDING THE ENEMY AND GOING AFTER HITLER IN WWII.

1488
Rahowa

Britain shouldnt apologise

Your right all these people need to apologize but someone has to go first.

I do think that Britain as a country should apologise. A lot of British people do not understand slavery and do not realise that if it wasn't for it the country would not be in the good state it is today. However some people may say that is isn't in a good state with all the immigrants coming over but I think that is time Britain gave back to all those they took from.

Indeed, but apart from the slavery aspect, Britain has never apologized to other nations they did irreparable damage to. I remember when I visited Berlin, Germany in 2002, they were erecting a monument to the " murdered " Jews during the war years.I do condemn what the Germans done, it was properly the worst travesty in history, however..
How come Britain has never apologized to Ireland for making slaves to produce crops for Britains income, which was a cause for the famine. (Before people say it was potato blight, it was , but because Irish has nothing else to eat, they starved). Also ,how come Britain never apologized to India and Pakistan ?
And ,why not South Africa ? Did ,or did Britain not set up concentration camps there during the Boer war ?
I think , among slavery , Britain has a lot of catching up to do with apologies.