Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities

Dax777 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobKowalski said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dax777 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Vic said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
1.618034 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 :)
 
Last edited:
Dax777 said:
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..
Click to expand...
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'm With Stupid said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dax777 said:
Using your military might to impose your will and beliefs on others is inherently wrong. Hence the wrongly.

....
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Dax777 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.......
 
Last edited:
bluejon said:
point one is easy to dispute as we didn't have universal suffrage back then,
Click to expand...
By Citizens I'm referring to those who made Antislavery a decade long campaign. The Quakers, Abolitionists Anglicans, Testonites, Sons of Africa, the Middleton, Clarkson etc. In short the people who backed and pushed Wilberforce to put forth bills in parliament and then they campaigned for in the streets and public squares and brought the issue to the forefront.

bluejon said:
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.......
Click to expand...
I understand your underlying point and I don't deny it generally. However, I'm saying the known and published writings from the time period strongly support's the belief that a sense of horror at the effects of slave trading was the driving force behind the push to end slave trading.

That subterfuge was deployed by some of those Antislavery proponents to convince others to join the cause doesn't change the underlying fact of why the push began and what sustained it.. Rather it speaks to the ingenuity of the Abolitionists of the time.

This is a simple and well known principle. If you want someone else to do something you want, your best bet for success is to show how what you want also is in their interest. But this doesn't change the reason why you want it done. It was your idea,they just joined because you convinced them it was in their self interest 'also.'

To later claim the 'also' part was the driving force or reason behind the action, strikes me as a misunderstanding of what, in my opinion, is meant by driving force.

Anyway, my sense is that we are discussing different aspects of the same phenomena and continue to talk past each other. So I'd let it rest.
 
KPXBLN said:
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.
Click to expand...


Not only compensated them for the value of the slave but allowed them to retain ownership for a further five years so that they could be worked to death.

All paid for by the taxpayer.... (bit of a precursor to the National Trust.... but thats for another thread)
 
Dax777 said:
It's highly appreciated. But you should also make us aware of the pertinent point we ought to derive from the link in relation to the preceding discussion(s).
Click to expand...
Just the rather simple observation that the British weren't the first to end slavery, or the first to realise it was wrong.
 
KPXBLN said:
Just the rather simple observation that the British weren't the first to end slavery, or the first to realise it was wrong.
Click to expand...
I thought that might be your point. 2 points.

1. Revolting against being enslaved ( noble and courageous as that is) isn't quite the same thing as objecting to the practice of slavery by others on others. The former is an act of survival, while the latter is a bit more than that.



2. As you probably well know, after the revolt and the ousting of the French, the practice of forced unpaid labor continued in Haiti. So one can argue, it wasn't slavery per see that they were against, but rather the enslavement by a foreign minority.

Even today in Haiti they still practice Restavek. I.e forced unpaid labor by young adults to the rich. Frankly it just semantics that it isn't called slavery. As it has almost all the same features. As did the practices immediately after the revolt.

So no... Haiti's revolt was for independence from a foreign minority. But the new leaders continued a practice that bore a striking resemblance to the exact practice that preceded the revolt.

If you consider that a realization that slavery is wrong, I won't object. But I struggle to see it that way.
 
Dax777 said:
I thought that might be your point. 2 points.

1. Revolting against being enslaved ( noble and courageous as that is) isn't quite the same thing as objecting to the practice of slavery by others on others. The former is an act of survival, while the latter is a bit more than that.



2. As you probably well know, after the revolt and the ousting of the French, the practice of forced unpaid labor continued in Haiti. So one can argue, it wasn't slavery per see that they were against, but rather the enslavement by a foreign minority.

Even today in Haiti they still practice Restavek. I.e forced unpaid labor by young adults to the rich. Frankly it just semantics that it isn't called slavery. As it has almost all the same features. As did the practices immediately after the revolt.

So no... Haiti's revolt was for independence from a foreign minority. But the new leaders continued a practice that bore a striking resemblance to the exact practice that preceded the revolt.

If you consider that a realization that slavery is wrong, I won't object. But I struggle to see it that way.
Click to expand...
As I wrote in an earlier post which you seem to have ignored, some people treat the trans historical nature of coercive labour systems as a subject for well-informed, subtle scholarship. You seem to be interested in it mainly as a bottomless well of excuses for the uniquely significant - in terms of its decisive role in the making of the modern world - form of chattel slavery developed and practiced by Europeans and north Americans in the early modern period. I'm not interested in playing your game.
 
KPXBLN said:
As I wrote in an earlier post which you seem to have ignored, some people treat the trans historical nature of coercive labour systems as a subject for well-informed, subtle scholarship.
Click to expand...
I ignored it for 2 reeasons. It didn't touch on any point I had made previously on the thread. And to object to what was wrong or more importantly purposely unclear about your post would have veered the thread even further away from it's original point... Which at this point it has.

Second, I sensed a discussion of history and complexities of slavery wasnt the point of this thread and could if the internet warrants, stand as a topic of it's on a different thread. And engaging nyour take on it ( objectionable as it was) would be better done on a separate thread.
It was also sufficiently clear that the intended goal of your post was to focus on slavery that implicates White Europeans and Americans to the exclusion of others.

It did strike me that some ( surely less intelligent than you of course) might argue that the key to understanding the history and effects of slavery ought to involve examining all it's permutations, effects and histories the world over before coming to some apriori conclusion about which ones affected what systems. But hey, to each his own.

KPXBLN said:
You seem to be interested in it mainly as a bottomless well of excuses for the uniquely significant - in terms of its decisive role in the making of the modern world - form of chattel slavery developed and practiced by Europeans and north Americans in the early modern period. I'm not interested in playing your game.
Click to expand...
Playing my games? Lol. Talk about projection. Look, I could tell you really weren't interested in the topic of Slavery and it's history. Your use of undefined terms and generalized ideas made that clear. Basic questions like:

What form of chattel slavery was developed and practiced by European and Americans? What were the unique features that made them distinct and worth separating from all other forms of slavery? Did any other group practice such Slavery?

What do you define as the modern world? Around what time did it start by your definition.15th , 16th, 17, 18 19th Century? Also the same for pre mordern world? And what were the distinct differences between the practices of these 2 times?

What are the unique relationships to capitalism that leads you to conclude that one ought to strictly focus on the history of White Slavers, but more importantly ignore all the others, if one wants to understand the mordern world?

While we are at it, what kind of slavery did the Ottomans engage in that makes it facile and superficial to focus on it?

These are just a few of the basic questions your post begged.

Like I said, i gnored it as slavery wasn't the point of this thread and I sensed you weren't genuinely interested in the topic anyway. It was clear you were rather more interested in scoring ideological points.

I guess. I'll make this my last thread diverting post.

Carry on...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top