Heidi Graw wrote:
> http://www.sailors.org/pdf/history1-2.pdf
>
> What got me interested in reading more about Yankee Hell ships is a
book
> written by Sterling Hayden "Voyage."  It describes the brutality
inflicted
> on men by their ship's masters, mates and ship-owners...those being
*men.*
> In response to this brutality, seamen attempted to unionize.
>
> It is pretty much a class issue:  the rich man competing with other
rich men
> to impress one another plus any ladies within their ranks.  All of
this, of
> course, by exploiting and brutalizing the poor man.
>
> What comes to my mind is the Yankee attitude regarding the Southern
Reb's
> slave ships.  The Yankee wasn't too keen on Johnny Reb making a
profit off
> slaves imported from Africa.  Yet,  Yankee Doodle felt perfectly
justified
> in treating seamen like slaves, often shanghaiing them into
involuntary
> servitude.

Involuntary impressment was never allowed in America. It was one of
the reasons for the War of 1812. Life was not easy on 19th century
sailing ships but American crews were the best paid in the world.
Even when the first real US Naval vessels were built in the
1790s(The large frigates of the Constitution class) they were served by
well paid volunteers.


>
> So, now what have we got today?  Men being shanghaied into sharing
their
> worldly goods with ex-spouses and her brood (some of which aren't
even his.)
> And who are the ones doing the shanghaiing?


Guys trying to give women what they want. Duh..

If we look at the political
> scene, we find the majority of them being *men*.  Some would have us
believe
> these men are merely the "front" for behind-the-scenes power plays by
the
> women folk.  Yet, even if that were the case, *men* for the most part
wield
> the *actual* power.  They could ignore the women's wishes.  Yet, it
is
> influential *men* choosing *not to.*


I get it. If laws are harmful to men and advantageous to women it is
because men want it to be that way. It must suck to be oppressed.


>
> It still comes down to powerful and influential men exploiting less
powerful
> and less influential men.  The rich man imposing his will on the poor
and/or
> middle class men.


In the 19th century, most women in the English speaking world were
quite adamant about being protected within the home. Therefore, men did
everything on the outside - good and bad.
Southern belles were not noticeably anti-slavery. Slavery ended in
the US when it did because several hundred thousand young men stood up
and fought and died on the union side.
>
> Anyway, just some musings of mine.  ;-)
>
> Heidi



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/21/05 10:29:01 PM ---