I mean teaching about history in the same way you would teach about WW2 and the holocaust. The reasons for it, what happened, how it was ended. The same as any other historical topic. Do you think the transatlantic slave trade and Britain's role in it should be included in the history syllabus for British school kids? Or perhaps a better question, do you have any particular objection to it being included?I don't think it's "such an important and intrinsic part of human history". You used the age old trick of using the word "intrinsic" adding "important" and then attributing both to me so that you could make an argument out of it.
When you say "teaching slavery" I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean teaching about history in the same way you would teach about WW2 and the holocaust. The reasons for it, what happened, how it was ended. The same as any other historical topic. Do you think the transatlantic slave trade and Britain's role in it should be included in the history syllabus for British school kids? Or perhaps a better question, do you have any particular objection to it being included?
I mean teaching about history in the same way you would teach about WW2 and the holocaust. The reasons for it, what happened, how it was ended. The same as any other historical topic. Do you think the transatlantic slave trade and Britain's role in it should be included in the history syllabus for British school kids? Or perhaps a better question, do you have any particular objection to it being included?
Remind us. What were the right reasons for slavery?Slavery us part of human history. From Africa to the Middle East, to Europe and Asia, and hen on to the new world. Almost every known culture to man partook in the practice of slavery.
What is Unique about slavery is not that it was practiced. As almost every culture in every continent that had the power to subdue a smaller group. Did so and enslaved the smaller or vanquished nation.
What was unique about Slavery, was the group of people who first thought it unacceptable to enslave other humans. 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.
I'd let y'all guess who those people were.
I'd say cheap labour but Boris and his pals might get ideas.Remind us. What were the right reasons for slavery?
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.Remind us. What were the right reasons for slavery?
You do know the main reason they stopped the atlantic slave trade was to screw over Spain? A small number of people no doubt had altruistic ideals, but it was mostly to bugger up Spain's exploitation of the americas and to increase the power of the british empire.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.
Your take is incorrect. But even if we assumed it was right, it won't change a thing. The conclusion, that they went ahead and forced the end of the practice of trading slaves around the world is still the same. And that was the right todo. Regardless of whatever is the new popular claims of why they did it.You do know the main reason they stopped the atlantic slave trade was to screw over Spain? A small number of people no doubt had altruistic ideals, but it was mostly to bugger up Spain's exploitation of the americas and to increase the power of the british empire.
It was about Spain mate. The only way WIlberforce was able to get the aristocracy on side was because they'd farmed the crap out of their plantations in Jamaica etc to the point where the yield on the land had fallen away, hence they no longer had use for all the slaves. This meant the output from the non-battered soil in Spanish owned territories would swamp the sugar market and give the Spanish a massive advantage. Funny that suddenly lots of people had a change in heart and decided slavery was bad. There were a few who did it for 'the right reasons', but it was about power and domination, as per usual.Your take is incorrect. But even if we assumed it was right, it won't change a thing. The conclusion, that they went ahead and forced the end of the practice of trading slaves around the world is still the same. And that was the right todo. Regardless of whatever is the new popular claims of why they did it.
But be rest assured, it wasn't primarily about screwing Spain.
Again, there are 2 distinct points here:It was about Spain mate. The only way WIlberforce was able to get the aristocracy on side was because they'd farmed the crap out of their plantations in Jamaica etc to the point where the yield on the land had fallen away, hence they no longer had use for all the slaves. This meant the output from the non-battered soil in Spanish owned territories would swamp the sugar market and give the Spanish a massive advantage. Funny that suddenly lots of people had a change in heart and decided slavery was bad. There were a few who did it for 'the right reasons', but it was about power and domination, as per usual.
I suppose you are right. I generally have no objections to teaching slavery.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.
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.
Yes.Hilarious.
I take it your mourning period is over following Trump getting the boot.
Uppity is an interesting choice of adjective.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.
Nah, it's exactly what I think it means. Arrogant and self important. Which was my impression of Brits as a kid.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
;-)
refreshing post and an honest take on it, unlike so many on here.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.
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.