SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
(Credit: flickr / cc / Hartwig HKD)
All men are created equal. All chattel are insured.
I saw the movie Belle the other day and a piece of it got stuck in my head. The costume drama, set in England in the 1780s, hinged on a real historical event: the monstrous voyage of the slave ship Zong in 1781, from West Africa to the Caribbean. Its cargo when it set out on its transatlantic voyage included some 470 tightly packed human beings -- too tightly packed, it turns out. Disease ran through the cargo hold. Slaves and crewmen began to die. The ship got lost. They began running low on water. Eventually the surviving crew jettisoned . . . 132 live humans, still in chains. This was business as usual.
Marcus Rediker, author of The Slave Ship: A Human History, wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2008, commemorating the bicentennial of the official end of the slave trade in the British Empire: "Over almost four centuries, from roughly 1500 to 1870, 12 million to 13 million Africans were forced onto slave ships and sailed to New World plantations. . . . We know that during the middle passage, about 1.8 million of these enslaved men, women and children died, their bodies thrown overboard to the sharks that usually trailed the vessels."
Uh, we don't talk about this too much, do we? The era in question is the glorious Age of Exploration, when Europe went out and discovered the rest of the world. In the classrooms of my childhood, they taught us about the silk trade and the noble quest for new sea routes and that sort of thing. Go, civilization! I remember no unpleasant disclosures about the rape of Africa or the profit to be made by Europe's upper classes in human trafficking.
Belle's plot, though it involves fictionalized characters, addresses the real court case that followed the Zong's arrival in Jamaica. This case was not about the murder of 132 people but whether or not the ship's owners could collect insurance on the loss of 132 slaves.
Eventually the case was heard before the highest court in Great Britain. In a historically significant decision, William Murray, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, ruled in favor of the insurance company: No, the insurers weren't obliged to pay cash for deliberately discarded slaves. The British abolition movement was ignited by this trial and abolitionists saw the ruling as a great victory.
And so it all sits in history. But the movie, wrapping the historical details in period costumes and a fictional love story, managed to pull off a remarkable feat, in my humble opinion. It brought the Zong and all its implications smack into the 21st century, not abstractly, as history, but with a raw and terrifying contemporary relevance. We're not done with our past.
As Rediker wrote in his essay: ". . . if European, African and American societies are haunted by the legacies of race, class and slavery, the slave ship is the ghost ship of our modern consciousness."
The discarded cargo of our past is still with us, no matter how hard we try to ignore it. The slavery out of which we constructed civilization -- the cruel certainty of our moral relativism, the enormous profit, the buried psycho-spiritual consequences -- awaits, awaits, awaits . . . our collective grief and atonement.
They had single names, like our pets: Jim and Jack, Winney and Zach, Congo and Chloe. They were meant to be worked to death and forgotten. But they remain with us, deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of our global culture, staring at its soul.
In refusing to take up a criminal case against the captain and crew of the Zong, Justice John Lee, British solicitor general, reputedly said: "What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honorable men of murder. . . . The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard."
This is our legacy, as much as and perhaps more than whatever else has shaped us. Historian Nell Painter has used the term "soul murder" in describing the impact of slavery. Indeed, she is the author of the book Soul Murder and Slavery. Interviewed some years ago by PBS, she talked about the terrible psychological wreckage on every side of slave life.
Speaking of the children of plantation owners, who at a certain age would be forced to observe slave beatings, she noted that the girls could retain at least partial identification, as females, with the victim. "But the boy must learn to identify with the beater," she said. "If he doesn't, then he's not fully a man. So that makes the ability to inflict violence an integral part of one's manhood."
Do we not continue to reap these consequences? This week, at a high school in Troutdale, Ore., a 15-year-old boy "opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle and also was carrying a semi-automatic pistol that he did not use, as well as a knife and nine loaded ammunition magazines capable of holding several hundred rounds," according to Reuters.
Ho hum. This insanity is on the increase, as everyone knows. It's an imitation of militarism, but there's more to it than that. We've barely begun to acknowledge, let alone heal, the profound brokenness of human culture. We're still lost in the Age of Exploration.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
All men are created equal. All chattel are insured.
I saw the movie Belle the other day and a piece of it got stuck in my head. The costume drama, set in England in the 1780s, hinged on a real historical event: the monstrous voyage of the slave ship Zong in 1781, from West Africa to the Caribbean. Its cargo when it set out on its transatlantic voyage included some 470 tightly packed human beings -- too tightly packed, it turns out. Disease ran through the cargo hold. Slaves and crewmen began to die. The ship got lost. They began running low on water. Eventually the surviving crew jettisoned . . . 132 live humans, still in chains. This was business as usual.
Marcus Rediker, author of The Slave Ship: A Human History, wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2008, commemorating the bicentennial of the official end of the slave trade in the British Empire: "Over almost four centuries, from roughly 1500 to 1870, 12 million to 13 million Africans were forced onto slave ships and sailed to New World plantations. . . . We know that during the middle passage, about 1.8 million of these enslaved men, women and children died, their bodies thrown overboard to the sharks that usually trailed the vessels."
Uh, we don't talk about this too much, do we? The era in question is the glorious Age of Exploration, when Europe went out and discovered the rest of the world. In the classrooms of my childhood, they taught us about the silk trade and the noble quest for new sea routes and that sort of thing. Go, civilization! I remember no unpleasant disclosures about the rape of Africa or the profit to be made by Europe's upper classes in human trafficking.
Belle's plot, though it involves fictionalized characters, addresses the real court case that followed the Zong's arrival in Jamaica. This case was not about the murder of 132 people but whether or not the ship's owners could collect insurance on the loss of 132 slaves.
Eventually the case was heard before the highest court in Great Britain. In a historically significant decision, William Murray, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, ruled in favor of the insurance company: No, the insurers weren't obliged to pay cash for deliberately discarded slaves. The British abolition movement was ignited by this trial and abolitionists saw the ruling as a great victory.
And so it all sits in history. But the movie, wrapping the historical details in period costumes and a fictional love story, managed to pull off a remarkable feat, in my humble opinion. It brought the Zong and all its implications smack into the 21st century, not abstractly, as history, but with a raw and terrifying contemporary relevance. We're not done with our past.
As Rediker wrote in his essay: ". . . if European, African and American societies are haunted by the legacies of race, class and slavery, the slave ship is the ghost ship of our modern consciousness."
The discarded cargo of our past is still with us, no matter how hard we try to ignore it. The slavery out of which we constructed civilization -- the cruel certainty of our moral relativism, the enormous profit, the buried psycho-spiritual consequences -- awaits, awaits, awaits . . . our collective grief and atonement.
They had single names, like our pets: Jim and Jack, Winney and Zach, Congo and Chloe. They were meant to be worked to death and forgotten. But they remain with us, deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of our global culture, staring at its soul.
In refusing to take up a criminal case against the captain and crew of the Zong, Justice John Lee, British solicitor general, reputedly said: "What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honorable men of murder. . . . The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard."
This is our legacy, as much as and perhaps more than whatever else has shaped us. Historian Nell Painter has used the term "soul murder" in describing the impact of slavery. Indeed, she is the author of the book Soul Murder and Slavery. Interviewed some years ago by PBS, she talked about the terrible psychological wreckage on every side of slave life.
Speaking of the children of plantation owners, who at a certain age would be forced to observe slave beatings, she noted that the girls could retain at least partial identification, as females, with the victim. "But the boy must learn to identify with the beater," she said. "If he doesn't, then he's not fully a man. So that makes the ability to inflict violence an integral part of one's manhood."
Do we not continue to reap these consequences? This week, at a high school in Troutdale, Ore., a 15-year-old boy "opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle and also was carrying a semi-automatic pistol that he did not use, as well as a knife and nine loaded ammunition magazines capable of holding several hundred rounds," according to Reuters.
Ho hum. This insanity is on the increase, as everyone knows. It's an imitation of militarism, but there's more to it than that. We've barely begun to acknowledge, let alone heal, the profound brokenness of human culture. We're still lost in the Age of Exploration.
All men are created equal. All chattel are insured.
I saw the movie Belle the other day and a piece of it got stuck in my head. The costume drama, set in England in the 1780s, hinged on a real historical event: the monstrous voyage of the slave ship Zong in 1781, from West Africa to the Caribbean. Its cargo when it set out on its transatlantic voyage included some 470 tightly packed human beings -- too tightly packed, it turns out. Disease ran through the cargo hold. Slaves and crewmen began to die. The ship got lost. They began running low on water. Eventually the surviving crew jettisoned . . . 132 live humans, still in chains. This was business as usual.
Marcus Rediker, author of The Slave Ship: A Human History, wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2008, commemorating the bicentennial of the official end of the slave trade in the British Empire: "Over almost four centuries, from roughly 1500 to 1870, 12 million to 13 million Africans were forced onto slave ships and sailed to New World plantations. . . . We know that during the middle passage, about 1.8 million of these enslaved men, women and children died, their bodies thrown overboard to the sharks that usually trailed the vessels."
Uh, we don't talk about this too much, do we? The era in question is the glorious Age of Exploration, when Europe went out and discovered the rest of the world. In the classrooms of my childhood, they taught us about the silk trade and the noble quest for new sea routes and that sort of thing. Go, civilization! I remember no unpleasant disclosures about the rape of Africa or the profit to be made by Europe's upper classes in human trafficking.
Belle's plot, though it involves fictionalized characters, addresses the real court case that followed the Zong's arrival in Jamaica. This case was not about the murder of 132 people but whether or not the ship's owners could collect insurance on the loss of 132 slaves.
Eventually the case was heard before the highest court in Great Britain. In a historically significant decision, William Murray, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, ruled in favor of the insurance company: No, the insurers weren't obliged to pay cash for deliberately discarded slaves. The British abolition movement was ignited by this trial and abolitionists saw the ruling as a great victory.
And so it all sits in history. But the movie, wrapping the historical details in period costumes and a fictional love story, managed to pull off a remarkable feat, in my humble opinion. It brought the Zong and all its implications smack into the 21st century, not abstractly, as history, but with a raw and terrifying contemporary relevance. We're not done with our past.
As Rediker wrote in his essay: ". . . if European, African and American societies are haunted by the legacies of race, class and slavery, the slave ship is the ghost ship of our modern consciousness."
The discarded cargo of our past is still with us, no matter how hard we try to ignore it. The slavery out of which we constructed civilization -- the cruel certainty of our moral relativism, the enormous profit, the buried psycho-spiritual consequences -- awaits, awaits, awaits . . . our collective grief and atonement.
They had single names, like our pets: Jim and Jack, Winney and Zach, Congo and Chloe. They were meant to be worked to death and forgotten. But they remain with us, deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of our global culture, staring at its soul.
In refusing to take up a criminal case against the captain and crew of the Zong, Justice John Lee, British solicitor general, reputedly said: "What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honorable men of murder. . . . The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard."
This is our legacy, as much as and perhaps more than whatever else has shaped us. Historian Nell Painter has used the term "soul murder" in describing the impact of slavery. Indeed, she is the author of the book Soul Murder and Slavery. Interviewed some years ago by PBS, she talked about the terrible psychological wreckage on every side of slave life.
Speaking of the children of plantation owners, who at a certain age would be forced to observe slave beatings, she noted that the girls could retain at least partial identification, as females, with the victim. "But the boy must learn to identify with the beater," she said. "If he doesn't, then he's not fully a man. So that makes the ability to inflict violence an integral part of one's manhood."
Do we not continue to reap these consequences? This week, at a high school in Troutdale, Ore., a 15-year-old boy "opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle and also was carrying a semi-automatic pistol that he did not use, as well as a knife and nine loaded ammunition magazines capable of holding several hundred rounds," according to Reuters.
Ho hum. This insanity is on the increase, as everyone knows. It's an imitation of militarism, but there's more to it than that. We've barely begun to acknowledge, let alone heal, the profound brokenness of human culture. We're still lost in the Age of Exploration.
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
"I had to protect my life and my family... my truck was shot three times," said the vehicle's driver.
A family in San Bernardino, California is in shock after masked federal agents opened fire on their truck.
As NBC Los Angeles reported, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents on Saturday morning surrounded the family's truck and demanded that its passengers exit the vehicle.
A video of the incident filmed from inside the truck showed the passengers asked the agents to provide identification, which they declined to do.
An agent was then heard demanding that the father, who had been driving the truck, get out of the vehicle. Seconds later, the agent started smashing the car's windows in an attempt to get inside the vehicle.
The father then hit the gas to try to escape, after which several shots could be heard as agents opened fire. Local news station KTLA reported that, after the father successfully fled the scene, he called local police and asked for help because "masked men" had opened fire on his truck.
Looks like, for the first time I'm aware of, masked agents opened fire today, in San Bernardino. Sources posted below: pic.twitter.com/eE1GMglECg
— Eric Levai (@ericlevai) August 17, 2025
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defended the agents' actions in a statement to NBC Los Angeles.
"In the course of the incident the suspect drove his car at the officers and struck two CBP officers with his vehicle," they said. "Because of the subjects forcing a CBP officer to discharge his firearm in self-defense."
But the father, who only wished to be identified as "Francisco," pointed out that the agents refused to identify themselves and presented no warrants to justify the search of his truck.
"I had to protect my life and my family," he explained to NBC Los Angeles. "My truck was shot three times."
His son-in-law, who only wished to be identified as "Martin," was similarly critical of the agents' actions.
"Its just upsetting that it happened to us," he said. "I am glad my brother is okay, Pop is okay, but it's just not cool that [immigration enforcement officials are] able to do something like that."
According to KTLA, federal agents surrounded the family's house later that afternoon and demanded that the father come out so that he could be arrested. He refused, and agents eventually departed from the neighborhood without detaining him.
Local advocacy group Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice said on its Instagram page that it was "mobilizing to provide legal support" for the family.