Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities

[1.618034]

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.

The only irony in this post are the first two sentences.

The third sentence shows how much you've progressed.

The fourth is dismissive of facts.

The fifth should be a sub clause and is again dismissive of facts. The word was first coined in the 1880s. Remind me of the historical context of those times, especially in the US...

It's not a word you'd hear much in the Motherland tbh, which is why I looked it up. It jarred and I only realised why when I researched it. The fact it makes you look foolish and triggered is just a Brucie Bonus.

The fifth shows you still don't understand what "uppity" or "ironic" means, but you're a yank, so maybe the latter is to be expected...? ;-)

How can slave owners be uppity? The are up, hence its use as an insult, to those whose should know their station in life. There's no irony there, just entitlement.

 

[domalino]

Half way through and overriding impression is that the report authors claim one thing then cite stats or reports that seem to contradict their claims.

It's quite interesting reading this comment (from the day it was released) now we know that number 10 rewrote the report and it was in fact not what the authors said.

 

[domalino]

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 haven't seen anyone object to teaching slavery in schools.

People seem to be (deliberately IMO) confusing "teaching slavery" and the criticism of this part of the report where number 10 uses an argument that was last brought up 200 years ago by slavers to justify slavery -

There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.​

​

ie. there were positive parts of the slavery experience for African people.

We do teach kids about slavery already, at least I was taught about it circa 2005/6 in history, what people are opposed to is idea that there's a positive side to slavery we should be teaching our kids so they're more proud of Britain's role in it.

 

[Vic]

I've learned not to ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to mistake. I'd take it that your misreading was due to mistake and not malice or mischief.

Or better yet, perhaps I was unclear. So let me restate and explain the paragraph to remove all doubt.

"And then went ahead ( wrongly at the time but for the right reasons) and at great cost both in terms of human and financial, to impose this new found belief on the rest of the world."

"Wrongly" in the above paragraph is speaking to England's use of its military might to impose its view and will on the rest of the world.

I take it You'd agree that we today frown at any Country who tries to tell the rest of the world exactly how to live, yes? Hence the "wrongly," part.

"But for the right reason." That reason being to end the practice of slavery the world over, and especially at the time the more recent practice of transatlantic slave trading. Again, an act of aggression to end slavery was wrong but 'for the right reason.'

Hope that clears it up for you. Lete know if you have any other questions.

The argument seems to have moved on but, for the record, I did misunderstand.

I still don't get the "wrongly" in the context. I wouldn't frown on any country trying to do the right thing.

 

[Dax777]

The argument seems to have moved on but, for the record, I did misunderstand.

I still don't get the "wrongly" in the context. I wouldn't frown on any country trying to do the right thing.

Using your military might to impose your will and beliefs on others is inherently wrong. Hence the wrongly.

That they were 'trying to do the right thing' is only a position that's true in light of today's sensibilities..

Let me give you a similar example for our own time. Suppose a radical Vegan government takes over the United States and China, and they both decide they'll impose their new belief that eating animals is evil and humans shouldn't participate in it. Would that be right? As you can see, the answer to that question will depend on whether you are a vegan/vegetarian vs a meat eater. So far about 80% of humans belong to the latter group.

For most people in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas this would be wrong. Yet, as I often tell my meat eating friends, it's almost Certain that 100 years from today, humans who eat meat would be thought of as barbaric and evil.

But this certainly not true of the view of humans who live today.

 

[Dax777]

The only irony in this post are the first two sentences.

The third sentence shows how much you've progressed.

The fourth is dismissive of facts.

The fifth should be a sub clause and is again dismissive of facts. The word was first coined in the 1880s. Remind me of the historical context of those times, especially in the US...

It's not a word you'd hear much in the Motherland tbh, which is why I looked it up. It jarred and I only realised why when I researched it. The fact it makes you look foolish and triggered is just a Brucie Bonus.

The fifth shows you still don't understand what "uppity" or "ironic" means, but you're a yank, so maybe the latter is to be expected...? ;-)

How can slave owners be uppity? The are up, hence its use as an insult, to those whose should know their station in life. There's no irony there, just entitlement.

1. Let's start here: I'm.not a yank. Yes, I'm an American Citizen. Coz I've been here a long time. Lagos born, Arusha raised to Nigerian Father and Brazilian mom from Bahia. My sense of Brits being Uppity didn't come from America. I thought that was obvious.

Its partly why I get a chuckle out of Bob's not too subtle insinuations that I'm a racist White guy from Alabama. For what it's worth, that's mighty uppity of him. I'd leave up to you to decide if the same applies to you.

2. Yes, you don't hear uppity much in the Motherland coz uppity is an derivative of Uppish. Which is the word that was more common prior to migrating to the new world.The word wasn't 'coined' in the 1880s. Just the earliest recorded use in writing was from then. But that's neither here nor there.

4. I said it was Ironic that Southern Whites used it. You retort with "how can slave owners be uppity? They are up." Again, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether there is irony here in light of your jab at American's supposed lack of... Knowledge?

You can have the last word on Uppity. But do us both a solid. Don't be presumptuous :)

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Using your military might to impose your will and beliefs on others is inherently wrong. Hence the wrongly.

That they were 'trying to do the right thing' is only a position that's true in light of today's sensibilities..

I don't buy it though. Sure, when Britain took over a place, they imposed their values and laws on the colony, but that doesn't mean that that was the motivation from taking it over in the first place. That was certainly the propaganda used to justify it back home, of course. Specifically, we need to civilize these people and spread Christianity to them, and it might even have been the reason for some of the individuals involved. But what it was actually about was trade links and economic power. The colonization of India and much of south-east Asia for example, was due to economic competition with Dutch and Portuguese trading companies. The East India Company supported an armed rebellion in India in exchange for exclusive trading rights with the new (not British) rulers and every action up until the 100 years later that Victoria formally became empress were to maintain and expand control over trade, not to improve the lives of Indian people (which may have been a bi-product in some cases, sure).

Nowadays, we have a similar things, where America justify their wars by claiming that they're fighting to maintain democracy, when in reality all they're really interested in is installing regimes that their friendly to them and their allies and hostile to their enemies, to solidify their political power.

 

[Dax777]

I don't buy it though. Sure, when Britain took over a place, they imposed their values and laws on the colony, but that doesn't mean that that was the motivation from taking it over in the first place. That was certainly the propaganda used to justify it back home, of course. Specifically, we need to civilize these people and spread Christianity to them, and it might even have been the reason for some of the individuals involved. But what it was actually about was trade links and economic power. The colonization of India and much of south-east Asia for example, was due to economic competition with Dutch and Portuguese trading companies. The East India Company supported an armed rebellion in India in exchange for exclusive trading rights with the new (not British) rulers and every action up until the 100 years later that Victoria formally became empress were to maintain and expand control over trade, not to improve the lives of Indian people (which may have been a bi-product in some cases, sure).

Nowadays, we have a similar things, where America justify their wars by claiming that they're fighting to maintain democracy, when in reality all they're really interested in is installing regimes that their friendly to them and their allies and hostile to their enemies, to solidify their political power.

I think you may have conflated 2 different points of mine here. And that's partly my fault as I've responded to multiple points on this thread.

1. The post you quoted was me paraphrasing Vic's position in response to an earlier phrase of mine in a prior post. In which I said the use of Military might to frustrate the continuation of slave trading was "wrong for the right reasons." I.e , wrong to impose British will by force, albeit for the right cause of ending slavery.

2. But I think your overall point is that you disagree with my original postulation that the reason why they attempted to end slavery was altruistic. I.e. Being anti the horrific consequences of slavery.

Am I correct in that assumption? If so I can respond to that. But I agree with your conclusions regarding the British Colonization Enterprise, and the self congratulatory nature of their 'civilizing' intent.Thats not a point I've ever opposed and I agree it was about expansion and economic advantage.

 

[Vic]

Using your military might to impose your will and beliefs on others is inherently wrong. Hence the wrongly.

....

Well, that's the justification gone for declaring war on Germany in September 1939 (or December 1941, delete as appropriate).

Whether to use force to go to help an oppressed people has been a "moral case" argument for centuries.

(Pure motives may be a different matter.)

But also gone are all the UN peacekeeping forces. And NATO.

Why have police? To impose your beliefs about honesty on criminals who don't share those beliefs?

Why have law?

(I think we've strayed here beyond the bit about the slave trade that I misunderstood.)

 

[bluejon]

Again, there are 2 distinct points here:

1. The significantly more important point, Britain (and by that I mean it's Citizens and by extension it's government) were the ones who first pushed and and succeeded in ending of practice of slave trading. This point is paramount and undisputed.

2. As to your point regarding why it was stopped: this is of significantly less importance. And doesn't warrant as much musing as we've already dedicated to it. And I'm about to continue to in the following paragraphs. But in respect to your exchange, I will.

Again, your claims as to why (i.e. It was about Spain) is still wrong. The overwhelming evidence that we have about this period, from the setup of the Antislavery Quakers, the Abolitionists Anglicans, the Testonites, the writings of Clarkson, Ramsey, Pitt, and Middleton. The establishment of Slave Abolishment Societies, the Campaign of the Sons of Africa, the Books of Equiano and Cugoano, the Clapham Sect e.t.c., the establishment of similar Societies in Spain, Italy, Portugal and France. The lobbying of Government etc...

We know way too much about the period and the original writing of those who were present and their reasoning that it would take an ignoring of the know evidence to conclude that a want and will to end the suffering of humans in bondage wasn't the underlying principle of the movement.

But to engage your international point, in so far as there were any significant reaction to external forces that helped, it wasn't Spain but France. As Britain was engaged in hostilities with France. And soon there after the Abolitionists ( Including Wilberforce) But more specifically Stephen concocted a plan to put forth a bill to stop British Citizens from participating in supplying slave to foreign colonies Britain was at war with.

In essence making participating in Slave trade and act of treachery against the Kingdom. The economic gains of Spain, France or any other Nation was, if existent at all, of minute importance.

So, no. An opposition to the horrors of human bondage was by far the flagship reason for ending slave trade.

point one is easy to dispute as we didn't have universal suffrage back then, so the voice of the citizens didn't amount to jack shit. number 2 is very important, why someone does something is their motivation for it. your second to last point, the economic gains of other countries not being important, is odd considering it was 100% in britain's interest to ensure her primacy in the world at that time and the best way to do that is to make things difficult for your rivals.

anyway.......