Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities

[I'm With Stupid]

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?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

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?

Bearing in mind that the end of slavery by the UK involved the largest ever transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the richest people in England it should be taught.

 

[Newman Noggs]

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?

Not at all. What I would say, though, is that slavery is a vast subject and school history is necessarily reductionist, more so the younger the student. Providing the teaching isn't infantilised and unbalanced to the point of inducing an unmerited sense of guilt (or pride) in the current generation, it's fine by me.

 

[Vic]

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.

Remind us. What were the right reasons for slavery?

 

[East Level 2]

Remind us. What were the right reasons for slavery?

I'd say cheap labour but Boris and his pals might get ideas.

 

[Dax777]

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.

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.

 

[bluejon]

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.

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.

 

[Dax777]

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.

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.

 

[bluejon]

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.

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.

 

[Dax777]

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.

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.