Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities

[Dax777]

By the way, I am not British, and have no particular love for Britain, it's Royals ( an archaic system that needs to end), it's Colonial conquest (as I am partly from one of the Countries it colonized,) despise its Commonwealth nonsense, and finally what I deem the general uppity nature of the British (Sure, I recognize this is mostly my stereotype, and probably only accurately represents the minority Aristocrat types and not the majority of common people.)


But, I am more interested in what's demonstrably true, than I am what's ideologically popular. And in so far as there are many ills one can ascribe to the empire lust of the Brits in years gone by, none of those truths changes the facts about the march to abolish Slavery.

 

[Dax777]

But given what an intrinsic part of human history it is, it's strange that so many people would object to it being taught in schools. A syllabus about the slave trade would include William Wilberforce as much as anything else. But it seems to me that some people would only like William Wilberforce taught and not the few hundred years leading up to it.

In fact, there seems to be a problem in school history teaching more generally of teaching glorious moments out of context. I still couldn't really tell you what the Spanish armada was about, but I can tell you that we kicked their arses and even give a rough outline of the battle tactics used. History lessons are supposed to teach history, not national pride.

I suppose you are right. I generally have no objections to teaching slavery.

Here is a summary of how to correctly treat slavery:

There was a terrible act the whole world participated in called slavery. Where some people forcefully owned other people. Great Britain also partook in this terrible act. But due to the actiins of some of our great Citizens, we were able to lead the efforts to stop that practice.

Tomorrow, we will continue with one of the stories of one of the men who led that movement to end the terrible practice of slavery.


All true. All factual. You agree? Also feel free to add other important elements that Should be included.

 

[BobKowalski]

But, I am more interested in what's demonstrably true, than I am what's ideologically popular. And in so far as there are many ills one can ascribe to the empire lust of the Brits in years gone by, none of those truths changes the facts about the march to abolish Slavery.

Hilarious.

I take it your mourning period is over following Trump getting the boot.

 

[Dax777]

Hilarious.

I take it your mourning period is over following Trump getting the boot.

Yes.

 

[1.618034]

By the way, I am not British, and have no particular love for Britain, it's Royals ( an archaic system that needs to end), it's Colonial conquest (as I am partly from one of the Countries it colonized,) despise its Commonwealth nonsense, and finally what I deem the general uppity nature of the British (Sure, I recognize this is mostly my stereotype, and probably only accurately represents the minority Aristocrat types and not the majority of common people.)


But, I am more interested in what's demonstrably true, than I am what's ideologically popular. And in so far as there are many ills one can ascribe to the empire lust of the Brits in years gone by, none of those truths changes the facts about the march to abolish Slavery.

Uppity is an interesting choice of adjective.

You should look up what it means because I'm not sure it's what you think it is.

I did and it seems it "was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn't know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don't..."

The English language is great, innit?

uppity

;-)

 

[Dax777]

Uppity is an interesting choice of adjective.

You should look up what it means because I'm not sure it's what you think it is.

I did and it seems it "was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn't know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don't..."

The English language is great, innit?

uppity

;-)

Nah, it's exactly what I think it means. Arrogant and self important. Which was my impression of Brits as a kid.

That White Americans from the Antebellum South also used it to refer to freed blacks is an historical note. And doesn't change the meaning of the word nor it's etymology or use.

By the way, they ( Southern Whites) were suggesting the free slaves were acting arrogantly and self importantly. Which was ironic, seeing as they were the ones acting as such.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Making up for it now aren’t you bud?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I suppose you are right. I generally have no objections to teaching slavery.

Here is a summary of how to correctly treat slavery:

There was a terrible act the whole world participated in called slavery. Where some people forcefully owned other people. Great Britain also partook in this terrible act. But due to the actiins of some of our great Citizens, we were able to lead the efforts to stop that practice.

Tomorrow, we will continue with one of the stories of one of the men who led that movement to end the terrible practice of slavery.


All true. All factual. You agree? Also feel free to add other important elements that Should be included.

refreshing post and an honest take on it, unlike so many on here.

 

[BobKowalski]

I suppose you are right. I generally have no objections to teaching slavery.

Here is a summary of how to correctly treat slavery:

There was a terrible act the whole world participated in called slavery. Where some people forcefully owned other people. Great Britain also partook in this terrible act. But due to the actiins of some of our great Citizens, we were able to lead the efforts to stop that practice.

Tomorrow, we will continue with one of the stories of one of the men who led that movement to end the terrible practice of slavery.


All true. All factual. You agree? Also feel free to add other important elements that Should be included.

That’s mighty white of you.

 

[KPXBLN]

It's true that slavery is a transhistorical phenomenon. There's quite a lot of very serious scholarship on the subject : this report from a conference at Yale a couple of years ago gives a sense of the depth and subtlety with which some people treat the subject. In and of itself though, the fact that many human societies have developed various forms of enslaved and coercive labour is a rather facile and superficial observation. Unlike the ancient greeks, Ottomans, or whoever, the slavery of the early modern and modern Atlantic world, perpertrated by white Europeans and north Americans, was absolutely fundamental to the development of capitalism and the making of the modern world. Its effects are still visible to this day too, something else which is not true of other historical slave systems. If we actually want to understand the modern world - I mean, if that's actually our goal, rather than something else - we absolutely have to focus on Atlantic slavery. Anyone who is interested in this subject could start by browsing the database here which details the recipients of the millions - in todays money, billions - of pounds with which the British government compensated slaveowners in 1833.