DAY OF AFFIRMATION

Robert F. Kennedy
University of Capetown
Capetown, South Africa
June 6, 1966

Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Vice Chancellor, Professor Robertson, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Daniel, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I come here this evening because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which was once the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer, of course, to the United States of America.

But I am glad to come here, and my wife and I and all of our party are glad to come here to South Africa, and we are glad to come here to Capetown. I am already greatly enjoying my visit here. I am making an effort to meet and exchange views with people of all walks of life, and all segments of South African opinion – including those who represent the views of the government. Today I am glad to meet with the National Union of South African Students. For a decade, NUSAS has stood and worked for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – principles which embody the collective hopes of men of good will around the globe.

Your work, at home and in international student affairs, has brought great credit to yourselves and your country. I know the National Student Association in the United States feels a particularly close relationship with this organization. And I wish to thank especially Mr. Ian Robertson, who first extended this invitation on behalf of NUSAS, I wish to thank him for his kindness to me in inviting me. I am very sorry that he can not be with us here this evening. I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet and speak with him earlier this evening, and I presented him with a copy of Profiles in Courage, which was a book written by President John Kennedy and was signed to him by President Kennedy's widow, Mrs. John Kennedy.

This is a Day of Affirmation – a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom.

At the heart of that western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states, exist for that person's benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any western society.

The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest; the right to recall governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic – to society – to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage and our children's future.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard – to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Everything that makes man's lives worthwhile – family, work, education, a place to rear one's children and a place to rest one's head – all this depends on the decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people, and I mean all of its people. Therefore, the essential humanity of man can be protected and preserved only where the government must answer – not just to the wealthy; not just to those of a particular religion, not just to those of a particular race; but to all of the people.

And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people: so that there may be no interference with the right to worship, but also no interference with the security of the home; no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties on an ordinary citizen by officials high or low; no restriction on the freedom of men to seek education or to seek work or opportunity of any kind, so that each man may become all that he is capable of becoming.

These are the sacred rights of western society. These were the essential differences between us and Nazi Germany as they were between Athens and Persia.

They are the essences of our differences with communism today. I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and over the family, and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime. The way of opposition to communism, however, is not to imitate its dictatorship, but to enlarge individual human freedom. There are those in every land who would label as "communist" every threat to their privilege. But may I say to you , as I have seen on my travels in all sections of the world, reform is not communism. And the denial of freedom, in whatever name, only strengthens the very communism it claims to oppose.

Many nations have set forth their own definitions and declarations of these principles. And there have often been wide and tragic gaps between promise and performance, ideal and reality. Yet the great ideals have constantly recalled us to our own duties. And – with painful slowness – we in the United States have extended and enlarged the meaning and the practice of freedom to all of our people.

For two centuries, my own country has struggled to overcome the self-imposed handicap of prejudice and discrimination based on nationality, on social class or race – discrimination profoundly repugnant to the theory and to the command of our Constitution. Even as my father grew up in Boston, Massachusetts, signs told him that "No Irish Need Apply". Two generations later, President Kennedy became the first Irish Catholic, and the first Catholic, to head the nation; but how many men of ability had, before 1961, been denied the opportunity to contribute to the nation's progress because they were Catholic, or because they were of Irish extraction? How many sons of Italian or Jewish or Polish parents slumbered in the slums – untaught, unlearned, their potential lost forever to our nation and to the human race? Even today, what price will we pay before we have assured full opportunity to millions of Negro Americans?

In the last five years we have done more to assure equality to our Negro citizens and to help the deprived, both white and black, than in the hundred years before that time. But much, much more remains to be done.

For there are millions of Negroes untrained for the simplest of jobs, and thousands every day denied their full and equal rights under the law; and the violence of the disinherited, the insulted and the injured, looms over the streets of Harlem and of Watts and Southside Chicago.

But a Negro American trains as an astronaut, one of mankind's first explorers into outer space; another is the chief barrister of the United States government, and dozens sit on the benches of our court; and another, Dr. Martin Luther King, is the second man of African descent to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent efforts for social justice between all of the races.

We have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in education, in employment, in housing; but these laws alone cannot overcome the heritage of centuries – of broken families and stunted children, and poverty and degradation and pain.

So the road toward equality of freedom is not easy, and great cost and danger march alongside all of us. We are committed to peaceful and non-violent change and that is important for all to understand – though change is unsettling. Still, even in the turbulence of protest and struggle is greater hope for the future, as men learn to claim and achieve for themselves the rights formerly petitioned from others.

And most important of all, all the panoply of government power has been committed to the goal of equality before the law – as we are now committing ourselves to achievement of equal opportunity in fact.

We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people – before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous – although it is; not because the laws of God command it – although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

We recognize that there are problems and obstacles before the fulfillment of these ideals in the United States as we recognize that other nations, in Latin America and in Asia and in Africa have their own political, economic, and social problems, their unique barriers to the elimination of injustices.

In some, there is concern that change will submerge the rights of a minority, particularly where that minority is of a different race than that of the majority. We in the United States believe in the protection of minorities; we recognize the contributions that they can make and the leadership they can provide; and we do not believe that any people – whether majority or minority, or individual human beings – are "expendable" in the cause of theory or policy. We recognize also that justice between men and nations is imperfect, and that humanity sometimes progresses very slowly indeed.

All do not develop in the same manner and at the same pace. Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others, and that is not our intention. What is important however is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all of its people, whatever their race, and the demands of a world of immense and dizzying change that face us all.

In a few hours, the plane that brought me to this country crossed over oceans and countries which have been a crucible of human history. In minutes we traced migrations of men over thousands of years; seconds, the briefest glimpse, and we passed battlefields on which millions of men once struggled and died. We could see no national boundaries, no vast gulfs or high walls dividing people from people; only nature and the works of man - homes and factories and farms – everywhere reflecting man's common effort to enrich his life. Everywhere new technology and communications bring men and nations closer together, the concerns of one inevitably become the concerns of all. And our new closeness is stripping away the false masks, the illusion of differences which is at the root of injustice and hate and war. Only earthbound man still clings to the dark and poisoning superstition that his world is bounded by the nearest hill, his universe ends at river's shore, his common humanity is enclosed in the tight circle of those who share his town or his views and the color of his skin.

It is your job, the task of the young people in this world to strip the last remnants of that ancient, cruel belief from the civilization of man.

Each nation has different obstacles and different goals, shaped by the vagaries of history and of experience. Yet as I talk to young people around the world I am impressed not by the diversity but by the closeness of their goals, their desires, and their concerns and their hope for the future. There is discrimination in New York, the racial inequality of apartheid in South Africa, and serfdom in the mountains of Peru. People starve to death in the streets of India; a former Prime Minister is summarily executed in the Congo; intellectuals go to jail in Russia; and thousands are slaughtered in Indonesia; wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere in the world. These are different evils; but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfections of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, the defectiveness of our sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows; they mark the limit of our ability to use knowledge for the well-being of our fellow human beings throughout the world. And therefore they call upon common qualities of conscience and indignation, a shared determination to wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world.

It is these qualities which make of our youth today the only true international community. More than this I think that we could agree on what kind of a world we want to build. It would be a world of independent nations, moving toward international community, each of which protected and respected the basic human freedoms. It would be a world which demanded of each government that it accept its responsibility to insure social justice. It would be a world of constantly accelerating economic progress – not material welfare as an end in of itself, but as a means to liberate the capacity of every human being to pursue his talents and to pursue his hopes. It would, in short, be a world that we would all be proud to have built.

Just to the North of here are lands of challenge and of opportunity – rich in natural resources, land and minerals and people. Yet they are also lands confronted by the greatest odds – overwhelming ignorance, internal tensions and strife, and great obstacles of climate and geography. Many of these nations, as colonies, were oppressed and were exploited. Yet they have not estranged themselves from the broad traditions of the West; they are hoping and they are gambling their progress and their stability on the chance that we will meet our responsibilities to them, to help them overcome their poverty.

In the world we would like to build, South Africa could play an outstanding role, and a role of leadership in that effort. This country is without question a preeminent repository of the wealth and the knowledge and the skill of the continent. Here are the greater part of Africa's research scientists and steel production, most of its reservoirs of coal and of electric power. Many South Africans have made major contributions to African technical development and world science; the names of some are known wherever men seek to eliminate the ravages of tropical disease and of pestilence. In your faculties and councils, here in this very audience, are hundreds and thousands of men and women who could transform the lives of millions for all time to come.

But the help and leadership of South Africa or of the United States cannot be accepted if we – within our own countries or in our relationships with others – deny individual integrity, human dignity, and the common humanity of man. If we would lead outside our own borders; if we would help those who need our assistance; if we would meet our responsibilities to mankind; we must first, all of us, demolish the borders which history has erected between men within our own nations – barriers of race and religion, social class and ignorance.

Our answer is the world's hope; it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress. This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the life of ease – a man like the Chancellor of this University. It is a revolutionary world that we all live in; and thus, as I have said in Latin America and Asia and in Europe and in my own country, the United States, it is the young people who must take the lead. Thus you, and your young compatriots everywhere have had thrust upon you a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills – against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"If Athens shall appear great to you," said Pericles, "consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty." That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our own time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs – that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities – no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are – if a man of forty can claim the privilege – fellow members of the world's largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. I know at times you must feel very alone with your problems and with your difficulties. But I want to say how impressed I am with what you stand for and for the effort you are making; and I say this not just for myself, but men and women all over the world. And I hope you will often take heart from the knowledge that you are joined with your fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose; that, like the young people of my own country and of every country that I have visited, you are all in many ways more closely united to the brothers of your time than to the older generation in any of these nations; you are determined to build a better future. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

And, he added, "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth and lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

I thank you.

OATH OF HORATII: THE PLEDGE TO CIVIL DUTY

Jacques-Louis David: The Oath of the Horatii

The year is 1784, just five years before the French revolution; King Louis XVI of France wanted a painting that would invoke feelings of Loyalty to himself and the state with the hope to gain more public support. His Minister of Fine Arts, Charles –Claude Flahaut de Le Billaderie, decide to commission Jacques-Louis David for this project. David was a recent recipient of the coveted Prix de Rome, a prize given annually to one advanced art student.

David decided to make oil on canvas painting and in the process express a Roman Legend, told by Livy that took place in the year 669 BCE (7^th Century).

The Roman legend goes that, the City of Rome and the City of Alba were in conflict. The leaders of the two cities decided that instead of having a full scale war that they will each call three men from either side to fight on behalf of their cities and the men who win, will have won the war on behalf of the city. The City of Rome chose the Horatti brothers and the city of Alba chose the Curiatti Brothers.

David’s painting capture the defining moment when the Father of the Horatti Brothers, had summoned them and made them to pledge an oath that they will “conquer or die” for Rome. The painting grips the moment when the father lifting the three swords to be used by the brothers aloft. The father appears to be “filled with joy seeing he had sons so worthy of him.” The three brothers raise their arms courageously saluting their father, their standing posture evoking ideals of selflessness, determination, comradery, heroism and a reassuring position to mean business.

On the far right of the painting, are women and children who appear to be in distress the two women are Sabina and Camilla and a third woman covering the children. The women are in distress because, Camilla has been betrothed to one of the Curiatti brothers, and Sabina a sister to the Curiatti is married to one of the Horattii brothers. In in any event, regardless of the champion, they stand to lose someone they love; either a brother or a husband.

Despite this tight and close family ties through marriage the “Horatii’s father exhorts the sons to fight the Curiatii and they obey, despite the lamentation of the women.”

When the Horattii and Curiatii duel occurs, there is only one man left standing; a Horattii is the sole survivor. When he comes back home he finds Camilla cursing his beloved Rome for making her lose her Curiattii fiancé. The surviving Horattii is angered; he draws his sword and kills Camilla on the spot claiming that she was “putting her sentiments above her duty to Rome.”

When the Painting was exhibited at the Paris Salon in 1785, it immediately became a hit. Everyone was transfixed by the painting. The painting was not only griping but revolutionary as it marked the start of the neoclassical style of painting away from the common Rococo style. The painting cemented David’s reputation as a preeminent painter of the era.  When the French Revolution broke, the painting became the face of the Revolution and the symbol of patriotism and self-sacrifice.

The painting is still in existence to date and if you want to see it you can visit Louvre Museum, Paris and you will have a glimpse of this great work of art.

The painting is still relevant to us today and should be on our forethought at all times. Not in the sense that we should be going to duels to solve our issues or murder anyone who holds an opinion that condemns patriotism or we should agree and accept all decision that have been passed. No one needs to die for his county but everyone must live for humanity.  In an age of intense nepotism, selfishness, and making money at all cost mentality, values such as valor, sacrifice, moral duty, selfless service, loyalty, civil duty are rare.

Horattii brothers placed the interest of their city before their lives; they placed their civil duty over personal interest. They took it as an honor to fight for their city. Today we may not have cities we are fighting against, but we are fighting mindsets of corruption, racism, nepotism, ideas of religion extremism, and mentalities of profits before people. Will you choose to fight all the way through the justice system or would you prefer to bribe the police? Will you choose deforestation  to spoil the environment or to pass a better environment to the future generation? Will you choose to give that employment or contract to your relative or the most suitable candidate or bidder?

Daily we face choices of civil duty over personal interest. Maybe if you have the painting of the Oath of Horattii before you and their noble examples of dedication and sacrifice beforehand; values of loyalty to your country, love to humanity, dreams of a better world will come popping in your mind and you shall make a better choice.

(Picture from wartburg.edu)

THE ZONG CASE (GREGSON V. GILBERT (1783)): MASSACRE IN THE NAME OF PROFITS

The Ship

The Slave  Ship Painting

On the 6^th September, 1781, A ship named the Zong under the command of Luke Collingwood, raised its anchor and set sails, ready to voyage from West Africa through the Atlantic ocean to America where the human Cargo on board will be sold to the Land of slavery. This is the infamous Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (Triangular Trade) where British made goods were brought to Africa in exchange for slaves, the slaves would be shipped to America, where they would be exchanged for slave-grown products such as sugar, tobacco and cotton. The slave-grown goods would then be taken to Britain where they would be exchanged for British made goods and the cycle around the triangle could continue.

The Zong ship was constructed to carry 250 slaves per voyage but due to the selfish urge and greed to make more profits the ship was over the required capacity, with a total of 470 slaves. It was so congested that it was said the slaves had “less room than in a coffin”.  The conditions were so  inhumane and slaves were require to go for their nature calls on themselves.

Due to these unhygienic condition, malnutrition and other factors there was an outbreak of a plague. Crew members and slaves begun to die and a total of sixty slaves and seven white people died. Luke Collingwood was worried that the more slaves died, the more the proceeds from the sale of the human cargo was reduced and the less the commission he will get from the sale.

Collingwood called for a crew meeting and alleged that there was a leakage on the water storage tanks. To ensure sufficient water for the crew and slaves and they are to pick the slaves they perceived sick and dying and throw them alive into the sea.

Trans Atlantic Trade(Triangular Trade)

The reasoning of Collingwood was “if they throw the slaves alive into the sea the insurer will pay” for the loss, but if they died due to natural factors such as sickness on board the ship they will not be  able to make a claim for the loss. To justify his actions he told the crew members that throwing the sick slave will be an act of mercy since “it is less cruel to throw the sick into sea” than letting them suffer to their death on the ship “under the disorder” conditions of the ship. Some crew members objected this move but ultimately Collingwood prevailed.

The Massacre

132 slaves were selected and would be jettisoned out of the ship while chained, therefore deprived any possibility of escaping. On the first day 54 slaves were thrown overboard, on the second day 42 slaves, on the third day 26 slaves, some 10 slaves on knowing what was awaiting them “sprang disdainfully from the  grasp of their  tyrants... and leaping into the sea” preferring to embrace their death with momentary triumph over the tyrants by dying on their own terms.

On reaching Jamaica the remaining slaves were sold.

The ship went to Britain. The owners of the ship made their insurance claim on ground of “necessity” that cargo was “jettisoned to sea to save the remainder” and therefore were eligible for insurance compensation. The Insurer disputed it and refused to settle. The Insurer claimed it was not a necessity. The Insured moved to court. The court ruled in favor of the Insured. The insurer appealed (Gregson V. Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug. KB 232(Zong Case)) to the Chief Justice.

The Case

The case and the incidence of what had happened caught the attention of Olaudah Equiano a famous former slave, who was now an abolitionist. Equiano approached Granville Sharp, an English man and leading campaigner against slave trade. Equiano told him the horrific incidence of the Zong Ship. 

Sharp took great interest in the case and hired a typist who they would go to the court hearings with and the typist typed everything that was said in the court during the hearings. And actually much of historic material of the case is from the typist work. Sharp, though not a lawyer and once confessed to having ‘never opened a law book’, had previously earned prominence as abolitionist in the case of Somerset V. Stewart(1772) where he had assisted a slave, Somerset obtain orders of Habeas corpus and thereafter orders preventing his master, Stewart from forcefully sending him overseas to slavery. The court had ruled in this case that “a slave becomes free the moment he set foot on English territory.” However, the ruling did not end slavery.

During the case arguments of the Zong Case, the attorney of the insured notoriously argued that throwing the slaves overboard was “the same as if assets had been thrown” and that the captain would do this without any scintilla of guilt because it is the most reasonable thing to so and the insurer  are liable to pay.

The insurance attorney argued that on investigation, that there was indeed sufficient water in the ship and “no person in the ship had been put on short water allowance at any moment” and in the second day after throwing slaves overboard “plentiful rain fell” but the captain persisted in throwing 36 slaves overboard the next day. Further on reaching their destination there was still sufficient water in the ship. This was in fact true.

On revelation of these facts it was clear that the captain was defrauding the insurer. That he had placed profits before live. In deed it was an “act of necessity” to to save profits by murder.

Granville Sharp, was keen in attending the hearings with the intention to bring murder charges against the captain and the crew and the ship owners.

Sharp presence in the hearings did not go unnoticed. The attorneys for the insured knowing his intentions of bringing murder charges against their clients violently exclaimed, there is “a person in this court who intend to bring criminal prosecution for murder against the parties, [this] would be madness; the blacks were property.”  To this attorney it was not lives that were lost, it was assets; it was profits.

The attorneys of the insurance company noting Sharp presence stated that the “crew ought to be tried for murder” that “the life of one man is like the life of another man, whatever the complexion is” and deciding who to die to save another cannot be used as a ground for an act of necessity; that as long as there was water in the ship all “men were as much entitled to their [lives] as the captain or any other man whatsoever.”  The attorney informed the court that the court should not look at the case as just as a claim for compensation but it was “for millions of mankind; for the cause of humanity in general.” This was indeed true, slaves were considered as chattels and property. Therefore, slaves could be insured. Therefore , by giving a judgment to consider slaves as humans it would save millions of slaves from being jettisoned from slave ships.

Granville Sharp

Lord Mansfield was the Chief Justice and judge on this appeal.

Lord Mansfield was a celebrated commercial law Lawyer and Judge. He was reluctant to give a definitive judgment on slavery on fear that it would affect the commercial activity, since the English commercial activity was built and relied on slave trade and in fact 80% of Britain’s foreign income was based on slave trade and therefore making a definitive judgment that Slaves were not assets would cause commercial confusion and economic decline, therefore he gave a vague decision  and went on to give the infamous statement that he “had no doubt that the case of the slaves was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard.” In short to him slaves were just chattels who could be dealt with as such to save profits.

But due to the new evidence of availability of water on jettisoning slaves out of the ship the case was returned for retrial. There is no available evidence to indicate if the retrial ever took place.

The Zong Aftermath

Granville Sharp intention to bring murder charges never took off but he documented the Zong Incident, wrote letters to leaders and readers and newspaper outlets who reported the incident. The public became aware about this incidence and “the circumstances of the most inhuman murder” in the pretense of necessity and it incidence caused a lot of annoyance to the public. “It opened the eyes of the British public to the selfish cruelty of the slave trade more than any other.” In giving the case publicity, Sharp would pose the question “[why] were the heart so hard and the head so inaccessible that did not instantly take part against such a state of things, in a country of which the enlightened laws and impartial justice were acknowledged as the boast of human wisdom and pattern of human freedom?”…. people felt challenge and compelled to take action and give justice to slaves.

Sharp gave utmost publicity to the circumstances that had happened. His efforts, research and ideas would influence and be taken up by people such as Thomas Clarkson, who would write an award winning essay on abolition of slavery that would influence William Wilberforce who took “suppression of slave trade” as his calling for life by God.  

Wilberforce made numerous speeches in parliament to convince members to pass an Act to end slavery. It was difficult since most Parliamentarians were active slave traders and owners.  Once in his trying to convince them to change to other forms of business he said “Let not parliament be the only body that is insensible to the principle of National Justice… Let us make reparation to Africa, so far as we can, by establishing a trade upon true commercial principles, and we shall soon find the rectitude of our conduct rewarded by the benefits of a regular and growing commerce.”

Wilberforce would work tirelessly for about 50 years to ensure an Act of Slavery Abolition is passed.  In 1807 parliament passed the Slave Trade Act that ended slave trade and in 1833 while on his death bed he received the news that Parliament had passed the Slavery Abolition Act, 1833 and three days of receiving this news he died.

The abolition of slavery campaign and success in Britain had ripple effect, in America where slavery would also be abolished in 18656. Sharp efforts to end slavery would be recognized in America by prominent personality such John Adams, Dr. Franklin, John Jay who would write letters of congratulations to Sharp. Sharp would receive honorary Doctors of Law degree from University of Cambridge, Massachusetts etc.

The campaign against slavery “proved to be the world’s first grassroots human rights campaign, in which men and women from different social classes and background volunteered to try to end the Injustice suffered by others.” It led to the realization and development of the Universal Human Rights. Where Individual rights are recognized and the recognition that the society and government exists to ensure individual rights and freedoms are protected and guaranteed.

Abolitionist Medallion

There is actually no uniqueness on the Zong Ship incidence, of congesting, throwing slaves overboard and making insurance claim for compensation. That was the norm of treating slaves in those dark days. The uniqueness comes in from its development into the abolition of salve trade.

The thorn of slavery will remain on the humanity flesh for years and should remain there to remind us of our capacity to degrade our fellow humans.

In this 21^st Centrury, more than 230 years after the Zong case, we still see similar incidences; where profits are placed before human, where companies sell poison for food in the name of profits, where environment is destroyed in the name of civilization, where pharmaceutical companies use humans as test tubes to make profitable drugs, where wars are created for economic advantage yet lives are lost, where election violence is the tool for a “democratic” election. And we see the society and goverments at large being blind to these issues.

The society shall never lack its own, Olaudah Equiano, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce etc to point out the injustice in our society and change the normal course of history and curve the arc of humanity to the direction of justice. The government may be blind to many unjust issues in the society like Lord Mansfield was  due to concentration on the commercial and economic implication but the society should never let the likes of Luke Collingwood to walk scot-free at the expense of human life.

The likes of Luke Collingwood are the companies that pollute our environment in the name of profits, they are the corrupt judiciary that takes bribes and forsake justice, they are the  racist that judge people by the complexity of their skin rather than the content of their character, they are the billionaires that see human as a tool to make more billions, they are the human traffickers who see human as tools of labor and illicit pleasure, they are the politicians who sponsor violence in the name of retention of political power and maintenance of status quo. But this likes of Luke Collingwood need to be met by the likes of Sharp who see and seek humanity for everyone, the likes of Wangari Mathai who speak truth to power, the likes of Thomas Sankara who see a better country with gender inclusion, the like of Malala Yousafzai  who see education as a tool to end terrorism, the likes of  Abraham Lincon who will fight for unity in the midst of division, the likes of Martin Luther who led marches to freedom, the likes of Nelson Mandel who will persistently make the long walk to freedom, the likes of you and me who see a better today and tomorrow.

Your voice and action are the much needed effort to make this world a better place. You may never be recognized or celebrated as William Willberforce or Sharp or Nelson Mandela was but as The Solicitor- General would say of Mr. Wilberforce  on passing the Slave Trade Act, that “when [we] look to the man at the head of the French Monarchy( Napoleon), surrounded as he was with all the pomp and power, and all the pride and victory,…when he sat upon his throne, to reach the summit of human ambition and the pinnacle of earthly happiness and when we follow that man into his closet or to his bed and consider the pangs with which his solitude must be torturing to him and his repose banished by the recollection of the blood he had spilled, and the oppression he had committed and when we compare the pangs of remorse, the feelings which must accompany Mr. Wilberforce from [parliament] to his home, after the vote has confirmed the object of his humane and unceasing labours [of passing the Slave Trade Act]; when he should retire into the bosom of his happy and delighted  family, when he should lay himself down on his bed, reflecting on the innumerable, voices that would be raised in every quarter of the world to bless him; how much more pure and perfect felicity must he enjoy in the consciousness of having preserved so many millions of his fellow-creatures, than the man with whom we [have] compared him, on the throne to which he had waded through slaughter and oppression.”

Pictures by: Howell History, Wikipedia, Micahc, 
Reference Material: British Law Report, 

FLAYING JUDGE SISAMNES: WHEN CORRUPT JUDGES WERE PUBLICLY SKINNED ALIVE

"The Flaying of Sisamnes", by Gerard David.

The ‘due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government’ and once that pillar becomes weak the whole structure of governance comes tumbling down. To maintain this pillar, the integrity and independence of the judiciary in administration of justice must be jealously guarded.  This means that the magistrates and judges who are at the center of the administration of justice must be honest and impartial; they must be like caeser’s wife, above suspicion and beyond reproach.

In the 6^th Century BC during the reign of Cambyses II, the King of Persia, as documented by Herodotus, Judge Sisamnes having been bribed gave an unjust verdict in a lawsuit. On being found out, the king ordered for his arrest. He was found guilty of prevarication. He was sentence to be strangled and flayed, and the chair on which he sat when pronouncing the unjust judgment be upholstered with his skin. The sentence was publicly executed.  

The king then named Sisamnes’s son, Otanes, to succeed his father as judge. The son, now as a Judge Otanes, was to perform his duties while sitting on his father’s seat upholster with his father’s skin, and the king recommended him to bear in mind the source of the leather of the seat upon which he would seat to hear evidence, deliberate and administer justice. This must have left a continuous lingering impression and maybe it ensured he set the bar of fairness higher knowing very well the consequences of corruption and lack of fairness.

In the 15^th Century, in the  1480s, the municipal authorities of Bruges wanted paintings in their justice-room. They commissioned David Gerard to make paintings that will inform the authorities of importance of integrity and honesty.  Gerard drew the painting known as “Judgment of Cambyses” which depicts the scenes of the arrest and fraying of Judge Sisamnes. The intention was to represent the scene of flaying of Judge Sisamnes with a sense of coldness and exemplary cruelty and acted as a stern warning to judges in the justice room against the temptation of corruption since, looking at the painting, its moral and horror cannot easily be forgotten.

"The Arrest of Sisamnes", by Gerard David.

A graphic detailed painting of a man being frayed alive hanging on a wall in a public place is by no means a pleasant sight to look at but if we consider the intention then we can perfectly congratulate Gerard for accurately picking the right historical event and depicting it in a painting that remains relevant in all human ages.

The painting perfectly portrays the giving of a judge a dosage of his own medicine. A judge being directly subjected to the pain and agony he subjects others when he dispenses unjust verdicts. A judge passing an unjust verdict may not understand the pain of injustice, as it has been well put by George Martin, that “The [judge] who passes the sentence should swing the sword [but when he] hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.” When the judge sits at the bench he may not understand the consequence of his crooked character. Gerard’s painting speaks a language that maybe the judges understand, a language that tells the judge “imagine this pain being subjected to yourself?”

It portrays a judge being subjected to the pains of injustice which he subjected members of the public by dereliction from his mandate of being fair, just, impartial and honest; a judge being subjected to the cost of forsaking his independence for a bribe; a judge being subjected to the consequence of forsaking his public duty for selfish personal gains.

Of Course, the Painting is not intended for judges alone, but to enable everyone empathize with others who are victims of injustice. It enables a person place himself in the shoe of a victim of an unjust sentence. It enables the public to be angry of the pains of injustice and take action against unjust actions. It gives the public a shared determination to wipe away corrupt judges. It enables the public realize that their action of giving, condoning and accepting bribes is painful and the painting does just that by creating a mental picture of anyone who is corrupt to enter the flesh of the victim of a corrupt judgment and feel the pain of an unjust and unfair action.

The judiciary is a creation of the society, for a judge to give a corrupt verdict a member of the society must have contaminated the independence of the judge. As John Marshall would put it, that “the greatest scourge an angry heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt or a dependent judiciary.” Society creates corrupt judges by either participating, condoning or not placing judges or judgments to account.

 The consequence of lacking an impartial and independent judiciary is that justice can only be bought by the highest bidder. It places a price on justice and creates an impression that laws and facts are not enough to balance the scales of justice unless money is added on the scales. It makes justice worthless and equality before the law is dependent on how mighty the wallet is. It makes humanity leap towards animalist character where might is right. Where as long as you can afford the price of justice you have no obligation to follow the law, you can kill, steal and destroy and remain untouchable. Society turns into a state of nature.

An Independent judiciary entails the passing of judgment based on facts and law and impartial Judges serve as neutral arbiters. Its impartiality enables ‘the rich and poor, the educated an uneducated, the strong and weak to stand without distinction in the leveling light of the constitution and body of law.’ When the justice lacks its impartiality and independence, people in the society lack avenue to report and address their grievances. The legitimacy of the government is eroded because who will observe a law if they know it cannot be enforced or used to protect them. Due to corruption an innocent man goes to jail and a guilty man walks free and  ‘the society will exclaim that it is immaterial to whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of members of the society, there would be an end to all security what so ever. They take law into their hands; they become the police, the prosecutor, the judge and executioner.

The Judgment of Cambyses. Stained glass, by Dirk Vellert,
in the background his skin is upholstered on his son's judgment seat,

removes this legitimacy and predictability and the application of the law is dependent on who is the highest bidder. If someone with a greater price wronged you then you have no voice and the scale of justice will swing towards the one with the mightier wallet. This leads to creation of mafias in the society who can resolve the conflicts and secure the rights that government has neglected to protect and there and then disorder becomes the order of the society.

It can perfectly be said a corrupt judge is a threat to National Security because their unjust verdict has a ripple effect that when placed together with other million ripples created from other  areas of injustice they build a great wave that can sweep down all the Pillars of the society. A corrupt judge deprives people an avenue to peacefully and justly resolve their conflict. If this avenue lacks, people  stop observing the law and governance fails.

There is great truth in the statement of George Washington, the first president of America when he said in his letter to Edmund Randolph that “ impressed with a conviction that the due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government , I have considered the first arrangement of the judicial department as essential to the happiness of our country and to that stability of its political system- hence selection of the fittest character to expound the laws, and dispense justice has been an invariable object of my anxious concern.” (Emphasis mine)

From the foregoing, I believe we share the same convictions and anxious concerns that the fittest characters are the ones who are to dispense justice and that the happiness of our system is determined by them.  And that we can always run to strong tower of justice ‘when constitutional freedoms and liberties are endangered, when expediency threatens justice, when fad menaces principles, and when whim diverts consistency, it is an independent judiciary that strikes the balance and sets all things right. The judiciary must be free to decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.’

Judicial independence is a matter of character. In all our actions may we always keep in the forefront of our minds the painting of “Judgment of Cambyses” knowing very well that the pains of injustice are gruesome and it is upon ourselves to maintain an impartial, accountable and just system. As Pericles would put it, that “If Athens shall appear great to you consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men and by men who learned their duties.” If Justice is to appear great in our society let all men know and do their duty.