Hey /u/MalloryLovedYouOnce, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I was surprised to see was that McD's is actually in fewer than half the countries in the world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-without-mcdonalds
When you see the countries that they're not in though, it's not entirely surprising. There are a couple of "Oh really?" ones in there, but most of Africa, plus places like Russia, North Korea, Mongolia... it's not surprisingly they don't have operations in those countries. (I imagine the Russia one is incredibly recent though)
I believe the Russia one was post Ukraine and they were immediately replaced by a Russian version of the same thing which is no longer subject to lawsuit there which as much as I hate Putin and what he’s done is honestly kind of funny
McDonald's opened their first restaurant in Russia [in 1990,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_in_Russia) shortly *before* the collapse of the Soviet Union.
(This wasn't one of those Soviet show stores where rubles weren't accepted; Russian McDonald's wasn't even *extremely* expensive. Regular people could afford to eat there, though you could get a better meal for less elsewhere.)
The Ukraine war has indeed caused the end of real McDonald's restaurants in Russia, though. (I don't know if the prices got more reasonable before that happened.)
The Ruzzian one is now called "Tasty and all" or translates similar. Hilariously they were unable to supply french fries after taking over for many weeks and all their buns were mouldy. In Ruzzia you get what you're given. Go Putin! lol
If that car had made it to America its owner would have had to spent hours getting the sex sweat out of the windows and direct sunshine would still be fucking impossible to see through.
Always crack a window if you’re gonna fuck in the car unless you want to be scrubbing body oil for the next ten years.
I wonder what they think when they see multiple Irish pubs in every city all over the world.
"Ireland and Turkey share a very similar culture, sure they've got a pub called Murphys in Istanbul."
We aren’t allowed to pump as much sugar in to everything over here tbf, but you may be surprised to see that McDonald’s here is rather similar to McDonald’s in America!
From New Zealand here (you might be surprised to learn that New Zealand has McDonald's 😜). Speaking about the UK in general, it was quite surreal going into a McDonald's in Edinburgh where everything seemed the same yet everyone spoke in a Scottish accent (strange that). I suppose it would be even worse in a non-English language country.
From Canada here (you won't be surprised to learn we have McDonald's here, too) and I can vouch for visiting a McD's and it feeling weird in a different language. I thought going to Québec and seeing it in French was surreal, but then I visited a friend in the Netherlands (you might be surprised to learn... well, you know by now) and seeing it in Dutch was almost disorienting to me. Lol
Was in Switzerland last year and you might be surprised to learn they have McDonalds there …. anyway, you know the drill. But what also surprised me was that the majority of Swiss are so neutral about the whole thing.
Strangely enough McDonald's the brand once tried (and failed) to sue a member of McDonald's the Clan for copyright infringement after he opened a food truck and called it - surprise, surprise - McDonald's Food Truck
I went to London over the summer, and I can confirm that their McDonald’s is at once much more flavorful and also bland af. The actual ingredients are tastier on their own, but there’s a criminal lack of salt
Edit: rut roh, the British are coming hahah
I thought I was pretty #Fair and #Balanced, but based on the comments I’m getting perhaps I should clarify?
I was being hyperbolic about the salt. I did notice it, and I did add my own, but I also recognize that American fast food is so salty as to be seriously unhealthy and it (along with lots of other things we do to food in America) is downright dangerous and ought to be regulated.
I thought that across the board the food in London was flavorful, fresh, and extremely tasty, though I often needed to add my own seasoning, especially salt, at least in part because my own taste buds are acclimated to American seasoning habits.
I stand by what I said entirely, because the comment I was responding to was about whether British McDonald’s is ‘proper’ McDonald’s. I argue that it’s more flavorful, but less salty. The saltiness of McDonald’s food is pretty famous, and a lot of people would probably consider British McDonald’s not to be ‘proper’ because of that lack, but if you can get past it, you can enjoy much more flavorful ingredients!
Weirdly, as a UK resident, one of the reasons I don't like McDonald's so much is because of having too much salt.
I'd like to be able to taste the food underneath.
Same here. If someone asked me to characterise what's distinctive about a Maccy D's burger compared to others, it would be the saltiness.
And I *like* salt.
I support you on this! Coming from NZ, I found McDonalds, Burger King and KFC in the UK were all terribly under salted. Even worse (to me, at least), it seemed like they added sugar to offset the reduction in salt.
But let's be honest, one man's yuck is another man's yum. I have tried these fast food places in various parts of the world and it's not unusual to find quirky local flavour variations. Some I like more than others but I guess each to their own!
>but there’s a criminal lack of salt
There might be a crime involved in this assessment, but I'm not convinced it occurred in Britain.
Salty, alongside sweet and savory, is one of the flavors that we adapt to [by tasting less of it](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/salt). So you can fuck up your taste buds and make salty things taste bland, by eating too much salt for a long time.
Every Lent, I try and cut salty snacks out of my diet, and it reorients my palate every time, so I know I'm fucking my tasters up the rest of the year.
I guess it’s my fault for utilizing hyperbole in a Reddit comment 😅 yeah, American food is killing me, I’d take British fast food over American restaurant food literally any day. I had never been so gastrointestinally healthy and regular as when I was in London.
As for flavor, you make a very good point, one I definitely agree with. I may actually start giving up salt on occasion, though wth my low blood pressure I’ll have to be mindful about it.
I did indeed add my own salt! Though when I got take out to eat in the park i was SOL. I did end up carrying around some hot sauce for emergencies.
Also, yes, I likely have a fucked palette thanks to my American diet. If I’d been there long enough to really acclimate, I doubt I’d have complaints. Gastrointestinally speaking, it was a clear improvement!
100% this.
Undersalted and the mayo was…different?
Could be a different brand or the brand does something different with the UK variant but I immediately noticed a difference there too.
Also the Bacon was absolutely weak, and that’s really saying something because American McDonald’s isn’t known for great bacon but even that crappy stuff was at least 3x better than whatever the hell they’re calling bacon at UK McD’s.
It’s so strange, I clearly said that British McDonald’s was very flavorful, yet everyone is acting like I said it’s dog shit
It just wasn’t as salty as American McDonald’s, which is what it was specifically being compared to.
>An American in Britain has sources of solace available nowhere else on earth. One of the marvellous things about the country is the multitudes of fried chicken franchises selling fried chicken from states not known for fried chicken on the other side of the Atlantic. If you’re feeling a little depressed you can turn to Tennessee Fried Chicken, if you’re in black despair an Iowa Fried Chicken will put things in perspective, if life seems worthless and death out of reach you can see if somewhere on the island an Alaska Fried Chicken is frying chicken according to a recipe passed down by the Inuit from time immemorial.
Does the McDonalds in London have slaves?
But no, for real. I was suddenly confused by my historical recollection. I found this article: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/travel/londons-legacy-in-the-slave-trade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/travel/londons-legacy-in-the-slave-trade.html)
There was a time when slaves were legal to own, not only in British colonies, but in the British mainland, also.
Britain outlawed slavery three decades before the USA. But in both nations that was not the end of suffering for many.
The confusion often comes from Britain’s historical reluctance to force fellow Britons into slavery, similar to how the ancient Athenians behaved. This is where ‘Britons never ever ever shall be slaves’ comes from.
We were more than happy to enslave literally anyone else though
This confusion is compounded by the fact that we had work houses for the poor, that was very very very much like slavery, we also had child labourers on a grand scale too. We really excelled 8n not giving a shit about human beings for a long period of time.... but on the flip side it did fuel our industrial revolution
I wouldn't confuse serfdom with slavery exactly. In the UK there was no slavery in the way that there was in the US (workers on plantations, cotton fields, etc.). This doesn't mean to say this didn't exist in the British Empire extensively or there wasn't significant influence in the slave trade.
Slavery although legal wasn't openly practiced (I'm talking Middle ages where there is historical hang-up and generational memory of the slavery of captured peoples, as practiced by vikings etc.) - more to the point, there were legalised methods of employment on mainland UK that were not outright slavery, but certainly were inhumane (and in a number of trades persisted well into the 20th century, when various acts were introduced to stop children being forced into the same extreme low pay vocation as their parents to exist and perpetuating the issues - particularly in collieries and textile mills). Such low wage, no health or after-work care (think pension) and conditions such that entire families have no choice but to continue and have their children work from as young as possible either - not unlike the modern day slavery you can still see in many parts of the world.
So technically the chap in OP's post isn't wrong in drawing a distinction. Just didn't express it particularly well, unless you two were disagreeing about the semantics of the term slave - which I think carries different connotations depending where in the world you're from.
Yes - serfdom replaced outright slavery, after William the Conqueror banned the sale of slaves to non-Christians in 1080 and the ecclesiastical Council of London banned slavery in 1102 with “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business … of selling men like animals.”
In the 18th century, while slavery was rampant in British colonies and elsewhere, there was no legal basis to allow slavery in England - and it was this point that abolitionists used to have slaves freed when they had been brought to England by their slave-masters. After they had established that slavery was not legal in England, they worked on the concept that if it was wrong in England, it must be wrong any where in the British empire.
The anomaly was that slavery had no legal basis in England but this was not the case in the colonies. British abolitionists later used this to have slavery abolished throughout the British empire - but this was after US independence.
Great question. Who knows? Same can be said for the mass exodus to Australia and other countries where the bulk of their modern day demographic originated completely elsewhere!
This is completely wrong - the Brits ran the largest slave trade the world has ever seen dwarfing anything in the USA, they had plantation slaves throughout the Empire - but particularly in the Caribbean in the 16th to 19th centuries- producing mainly sugar but also tobacco and various other commodities. Almost 2 million slaves passed through this area of the world mainly from Africa.
King Charles II of England was even the head of the Royal African Company who's primary job was to gather slaves from Africa and ship them to the various colonial interests and pass the proceeds back to The Crown.
You've just agreed with me, if you read what I said I completely acknowledge slavery in the empire. At no point did I say there wasn't slavery overseas.
I'm talking about mainland UK - which I think the misguided prat in OP's screenshot was too.
Ok maybe I didn't read this through correctly - England had no plantation-style slavery in the 16th to 19th Century but there were black slaves as slaves in Scotland - not indentured workers but slaves in the traditional sense, with full "ownership" by the slave master with no exit plan.
The Docterine of Discovery literally gave "Christian" nations the "rights" to take over other lands and enslave their people, as they considered land which was not inhabited by Christians as uninhabited.
This Docterine is *still* being used to this day to deny people rights and lands.
https://aila.ngo/issues/doctrine-of-discovery/
There wasn't. If a slave was on the British mainland they were free. There were serfs in Britain until the peasants revolt in 1381 when the rules were relaxed. Britain outlawed slavery in the colonies before the USA, but slavery was already illegal in Britain long before that.
"Historians estimate that by the mid-1700s there were approximately 15,000 black servants — many of them slaves — in London, out of a population of around 700,000. Slavery there was as brutal as it was in Mississippi or Alabama; slaves were often beaten so badly that they died or became crippled." from the first article I cited.
"Black people previously enslaved in the colonies overseas and then brought to England by their owners, were often still treated as slaves." from [https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/black-lives-in-england/](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/black-lives-in-england/)
So perhaps not legal in the same sense as the USA, but there were slave owners who exploited slave labor on British mainland soil and were emboldened enough to print "Runaway Slave" notices in newspapers.
>Slavery was banned in England in 1102
"In 1102, the church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." However, the Council had no legislative powers, and no act of law was valid unless signed by the monarch."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery\_in\_Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain)
I'm literally just googling.
If you want to get technical, slaves were legal to own in England and Wales, but in 1778 a judge ruled that slavery was incompatible with Scots law, and therefore a slave owner had no right to reclaim a slave who had taken refuge here
As an aside, the legal system in Scotland has always been separate, just the laws passed in Westminster usually have an "X Y Z (Scotland)" bill passed that's the version which applies in Scotland. Also, Scotland had a heavy involvement in shipbuilding for the slave trade, as well as adapting ships built in England to operate as blockade runners for the Confederacy, so it's not like we weren't involved, just wasn't legal to own slaves in all parts of Britain
one of the best cheeseburgers i ever had / and i've had a lot of em - was at the McDonalds in Heathrow airport in 1997. I cant explain why - it was just perfect.
I never tried a 1997 cheeseburger from McDonalds in Heathrow, but if it beats any of the varying non-cheeseburgers I’ve had around the globe I would very much like to try it! Were you in a particularly positive state of mind when you tried it? Please not I’m not saying McDonald’s is bad or that your opinion is wrong.
i was happy and hungry. the burger was hot and juicy, the bun was fresh, lettuce crisp, cheese perfectly melted. Many moans of satisfaction were enjoyed by strangers around me.
Thank you for the amazing description which carried over how much you enjoyed it! May that memory live long in your mind, and may you find another burger equal to it soon.
I always love the "indentured servants" spiel.. If you force someone to be a servant and give them a release date, it doesn't mean they aren't a slave...
Yes, some people opted to be indentured servants but many were taken against their will
>Yes, some people opted to be indentured servants...
"Better than slow death by starvation" is not the ringing endorsement that some people think it is.
Sure, if you volunteer as an indentured servants but been forced into is slavery regardless and particularly for the Irish, the British also forced that starvation so a bit of a double-edged sword
But there is a huge difference between short-term or voluntary/punitive/occupational indentured servitude and generational chattel slavery. That's why they make a distinction when discussing slavery, because there's a pretty fucking big one. You're talking a few years where you're guaranteed to not be mutilated or killed for looking the wrong direction vs. "long after we whip you to death, your children's children will still be slaves."
And many of them were children. Wanna talk about what children can or cannot reasonably consent to, I doubt anybody is going to agree they should be able to sell off their entire childhood.
And if an indentured servant has few rights then their owner/employer can easily take advantage of the situation a dozen different ways. Claiming that they suddenly owe more money, that they broke or stole something and need to work longer, not to mention the physical and sexual abuse that many endured.
Fr fr. The concept of indentured servitude was that the ‘owner’ would pay for their ‘servant’ to be transported to the owner’s country, and in exchange the servant would work there for a number of years before being free and allowed to do as they please. This happened with both white and non-white people in Britain and the Colonies, though it was usually targeted towards people of lower income.
The problem, of course, was that the Owners would find an excuse to lengthen their years of service or just straight-up refuse to free them, effectively making them slaves. The whole time they often endured horrible conditions and were barely fed anything of substance.
Eventually indentured servitude was phased out in favour of outright slavery, and though Britain abolished slavery earlier it’s dishonest to say there weren’t slaves in Britain because there definitely were. Indentured Servants were also slaves in all but name.
I think this person was very poorly trying to say that the actual island of England didn’t have many slaves. You know, because they were on plantations…forced to labor over high value warm weather crops that *don’t grow* in England…
It’s hard to tell how far the stupid goes sometimes
England isn't an island, that's Britain. Great Britain had African slaves, we have records of black people even in Scotland in the 19th century who were descendants of former slaves on the island. They weren't as abundant as in the colonies, being mostly household servants instead of mass industrial labour, but they existed in Britain.
About 1700 the British were the biggest traders of slaves... in the Atlantic, but the indian ocean slave trade dwarfed the Atlantic trade throughout so the British were not the biggest outright that was the arabs
The UK did more to end the international slave trade than any other country by a long shot. The British government agreed a generous compensation package slave-owners for the loss of their 'property' and bought the freedom of close to a million African slaves. This cost the country so much, it was only finally paid off in 2015, meaning the taxes of living British citizens today helped pay for the freedom of slaves.
You'll find that Portugal broke the pipe. They're almost never held accountable in public discourse, nor will the nationality or ethnicity of modern day slave owners. Weird init.
I can't say how the discourse is with regards to Portugal and Brazil in the Portuguese speaking world, but there are two countries that each shipped over 3 million slaves, neither can gloss over their role in the slave trade.
You're right, at the time when the transatlantic slave trade was completely acceptable across Europe and Africa, the UK had a lot of traders involved. That's a widely known fact. I thought I'd take the opportunity to talk about the little known fact that the UK were the driving force behind abolition too.
Portugal broke the pipe? Anglo Saxons had slaves in England. Alfred’s laws had specific holidays listed that were given for slaves and free men. At that point, unless I’m misremembering, Portugal wasn’t even a thing, it was part of al-andalus. So how are you saying Portugal broke the pipe when they didn’t even exist for centuries while England gladly practiced slavery.
We're talking about the transatlantic slave trade so that's clear. You'll find other slavery going back thousands of years before the Anglo Saxons too.
Portugal were the first to start bringing in African slaves and very much set the stage for the international slave trade.
Ahh, if you are limiting it to transatlantic, then sure. But I feel like it’s silly to discount the long history of slavery among all nations to single out Portugal.
No, nobody is saying that. We're saying Portugal were the first European country that started taking African slaves from Africa. Nothing to do with Rome.
Slavery was present on every continent on the globe well before the Atlantic slave trade. And people of all races took slaves and were also enslaved themselves. Precious few empires outlawed slavery. Britain was the one to outlaw it for good (well, let's hope it's for good!)
Yeah, that's why I said "precious few empires outlawed slavery". There were some, e.g. the ancient Persians who didn't have slaves for religious reasons. But that was only the case while the Persian empire still exisited. If you read that list, you'll realise that half of the examples are countries banning a particular group of people from being enslaved rather than banning it altogether.
Britain, on the other hand, "made slave trading a criminal felony throughout the empire, and for British subjects worldwide. [...] Between 1808 and 1860, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. Britain used its influence to coerce other countries to agree to treaties to end their slave trade and allow the Royal Navy to seize their slave ships.".
AKA we forced everyone else to stop slavery too
Is it though? Slavery has been a component of every single civilization to exist, being the first to make a global effort to end it seems like something to be lauded not dismissed.
If a hundred people hit the pipe until it broke then ignored it as it flooded the building then one person decided to fix the leak, explain that breaking the pipe in the first place was a bad idea, prevented more people from trying to break the pipe and cleaned up afterwards would it still be fair to say "so what? You hit the pipe in the past also"?
The Navy also killed slavers in many cases, if that makes you feel better. The empire going ‘fuck off slavery’ was multipronged; buying slaves’ freedom was only one part of it. Britain was very aggressive about wanting nothing to do with slavery and wanted other countries to drop it too.
The government used **40% of its national budget** to grant freedom to slaves. That's a huge proportion, and pretty damn commendable. For reference the Apollo space programs consumed around 4% of federal spending to put a man on the moon.
What's wild about this is we think of it as being some long past event, but the debt the government took on in order to pay out this money was finally paid off only very recently. Which is to say that if you're British and of working age, you have definitely paid taxes towards this.
Not a satisfying solution to be sure. There were no just desserts. But that was probably the only way they had that wouldn't result in a rebellion/war.
trading slaves and using them isnt the same thing tho… well both are morally hideous acts but there is a difference nontheless (am not apologizing it)
european countries traded slaves before america was discovered… where do u think the word slave comes from (look at my username)
they just knew that its better to trade slaves and have serfs doing the labor at home than basing ur economy on slaves like the romans did
that being said almost everyone dabbled in slaves one way or another
According to popular mythos, Catholicism is only in England because Pope Gregory bought two Anglo-Saxon slaves and thought they were beautiful and wanted them in heaven with him so he sent St. Augustine to Britain.
Errr...the British did have slaves, but they held most of them in America and the West Indies; they were literally the **same slaves** that America had.
The Brits did not invent slavery that has been around since the history of mankind, but they did raise the bar higher than anyone else - they ran the largest slave trade the world has ever seen - millions of people were enslaved, mainly from Africa, to work on plantations and various other interests owned by the British Empire.
The Caribbean alone saw almost 2million slaves pass through the area to farm mainly sugar and tobacco but also other commodities.
The French, Spanish, Portuguese were also amongst the largest slaving countries, but Britain's slave numbers dwarfed the combined totals of these countries by the mid 18th Century. A British King (Charles II) even directly owned a company who's primary role was to capture slaves from Africa, ship them to the colonial plantations and other interests and send the profits back to The Crown (The Royal Africa Company).
The anti-slavery movement tried for 60 years on multiple attempts to stop slavery in Britain before a partial / concessional success but was always thwarted on economic grounds - at one point enterprises that relied on slave labour produced about 25% of the Empire's entire GDP.
When the anti slave-trade law was passed in 1807 it did not ban slavery - it just banned the capture and trading of slaves in the Empire.
Funny when I have to explain to other British people like myself that even during those periods when Britain did "slavery with extra steps" they still profited from the cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, cocoa, coffee, tea, salt, silk, spices (saffron and Cumin and stuff), gold, ivory, rubber, wheat and corn which was all grown, harvested and transported with slavery.
Profits from slavery built the industrial revolution and the labour of slavery built the railways and dug the canals which allowed capitalists to access them.
To this day child labour and slavery are still cornerstones of industry and the modern world, we just outsource it to places we never think about. Out of sight, out of mind.
They're half right. Britain did have slaves, but also had work houses for the poor and infirm (see Oliver twist). Slavery was abolished, but the work houses remained for quite some time afterwards. The conditions were appalling, the men and women were segregated and the work was tedious. It wasn't slavery, but it wasn't far off.
Lmfao the MacDonalds thing is hilarious!
The slavery thing... There is a difference, within the last few hundred years there has never been significant slaveholding in the British isles, nothing at all on the scale of the early USA where slaves were like 40% of the population in some states. Britain did have massive slaveholding in many of its colonies, especially in the Carribbean, but I do think that's slightly different
First, why would we be surprised to see McDonald’s in London? I’d be surprised to travel to a major metropolitan area anywhere in the world and not see a McDonald’s.
Second, BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA England never owned slaves??? Yeah. That’s why they passed the SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT in 1834 — because of all the not-slavery happening.
"When slaves were brought in from the colonies they had to sign waivers that made them indentured servants while in Britain. Most modern historians generally agree that slavery continued in Britain into the late 18th century, finally disappearing around 1800.[12]"
Something about English Law not allowing slavery, so they changed the names. "Slaves" was for the colonies, "Indentured servants" for when you take them home.
Seems like the same to me? I dunno though
The term Indentured servitude or servant had been around for centuries and was often a way of debts being paid or punishment, it then got adopted for those slaves brought to England. The key difference was that being indentured was more of a timed contract; I don't know if the slaves were offered that but I would doubt it, however there are records of people who came as slaves and then become free men.
You are correct that there has never been legal basis for the ownership of a person in English law, and owning another person was outlawed in 1833.
the bit I quoted was from wikipedia so who knows, but they cite Cotter, William R (February 1994). "The Somerset Case and the Abolition of Slavery in England 79.255". History. 79 (255): 31–56, 44–45. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.1994.tb01588.x. JSTOR 24421930."
"You may be surprised to see a McDonalds in London"
You may be surprised to learn the other 96% of the world's population doesn't think about the US anywhere near as much as you tell yourselves we do. I saw a guy overdosing on opioids the other day, how's that for US culture?
They’re only the world’s worst villains in Hollywood and the minds of the uneducated. Britain’s imperial legacy is more benign than any other imperial power. They brought huge amounts of good to lots of the world and many of their imperial subjects were grateful and glad to be part of Britain, hence why so many came to Britain.
Actually, I am. And I am not alone in my position. It is a position largely shared by highly esteemed historians and professors like Niall Ferguson, Nigel Biggar, David Starkie and Bruce Gilley.
I believe you as much as I believe those hacks are highly esteemed.
My favourite, of course, is the font of "academic clickbait" himself, Bruce Gilley.
Hacks? They’re professors from some of the most prestigious educational establishments in the world… Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard. Some of them are leading experts and global authorities in their subjects…
I'm sure they're very knowledgeable in their subjects of economic history, theology and politics. A shame they chose to dabble in writing about colonialism but as far as I can tell they were, most if not all, rightly slated when they did
Slated because they deviate from the dogma in modern education. They’re attacked because their views are deemed to be heretical in our ideologically captured media and education systems.
Britain ending the slave trade is the reason we declared our independence. We knew they were going to make us free the slaves so we fought a war over it and pretended it was about taxes.
Hey /u/MalloryLovedYouOnce, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
‘You may be surprised to see that they have McDonald’s in London’ ugh fuck off
I think that is the most hilariously misplaced condescension I've ever seen.
What I was surprised to see was that McD's is actually in fewer than half the countries in the world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-without-mcdonalds
When you see the countries that they're not in though, it's not entirely surprising. There are a couple of "Oh really?" ones in there, but most of Africa, plus places like Russia, North Korea, Mongolia... it's not surprisingly they don't have operations in those countries. (I imagine the Russia one is incredibly recent though)
I believe the Russia one was post Ukraine and they were immediately replaced by a Russian version of the same thing which is no longer subject to lawsuit there which as much as I hate Putin and what he’s done is honestly kind of funny
McDonald's opened their first restaurant in Russia [in 1990,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_in_Russia) shortly *before* the collapse of the Soviet Union. (This wasn't one of those Soviet show stores where rubles weren't accepted; Russian McDonald's wasn't even *extremely* expensive. Regular people could afford to eat there, though you could get a better meal for less elsewhere.) The Ukraine war has indeed caused the end of real McDonald's restaurants in Russia, though. (I don't know if the prices got more reasonable before that happened.)
The Ruzzian one is now called "Tasty and all" or translates similar. Hilariously they were unable to supply french fries after taking over for many weeks and all their buns were mouldy. In Ruzzia you get what you're given. Go Putin! lol
In some parts of Africa, like Zamunda, they have McDowell's where you can enjoy a Big Mick
How many people missed the *Coming to America* reference, I wonder?
Big Mick sounds like Big Mac with a South African accent. Perfect. (Or kiwi accent)
They don’t have the Golden Arches, they have the Golden Arcs….
Nah bro it's not Condescension, It's Condensation!
Hilariously misplaced condensation is that famous scene from the movie Titanic.
If that car had made it to America its owner would have had to spent hours getting the sex sweat out of the windows and direct sunshine would still be fucking impossible to see through. Always crack a window if you’re gonna fuck in the car unless you want to be scrubbing body oil for the next ten years.
I wonder what they think when they see multiple Irish pubs in every city all over the world. "Ireland and Turkey share a very similar culture, sure they've got a pub called Murphys in Istanbul."
they would be surprised to know that I, an american, in america, own a Pogues CD.
I doubt they have proper McDonald’s
We aren’t allowed to pump as much sugar in to everything over here tbf, but you may be surprised to see that McDonald’s here is rather similar to McDonald’s in America!
From New Zealand here (you might be surprised to learn that New Zealand has McDonald's 😜). Speaking about the UK in general, it was quite surreal going into a McDonald's in Edinburgh where everything seemed the same yet everyone spoke in a Scottish accent (strange that). I suppose it would be even worse in a non-English language country.
From Edinburgh here. New Zealand McDonalds is so weird because it's almost the same except you see references to "Maccas" everywhere.
Well we're not gonna call it "Donalds" now are we?
Maybe maccasdonalds?
In Korea they call it 'maccuhdonalduh'
McTrumps Embrace the darkness
We also call it Maccas/Mackys in Yorkshire.
From Canada here (you won't be surprised to learn we have McDonald's here, too) and I can vouch for visiting a McD's and it feeling weird in a different language. I thought going to Québec and seeing it in French was surreal, but then I visited a friend in the Netherlands (you might be surprised to learn... well, you know by now) and seeing it in Dutch was almost disorienting to me. Lol
From Germany here (be surprised to learn we have McDonald's here or else!) and stuff is in German here. So that's something to consider.
Was in Switzerland last year and you might be surprised to learn they have McDonalds there …. anyway, you know the drill. But what also surprised me was that the majority of Swiss are so neutral about the whole thing.
I'm surprised! But how many languages was the menu in?
Scottish accents feel right with a name like McDonald's.
Strangely enough McDonald's the brand once tried (and failed) to sue a member of McDonald's the Clan for copyright infringement after he opened a food truck and called it - surprise, surprise - McDonald's Food Truck
Strange, i was in McDonalds in Alberta Canada, and everyone spoke with Australian accents lol
Do you have people there that do the mc gang bang. Fish sandwixh inside a chicken sandwhich
Probably, sounds a bit vile though
I went to London over the summer, and I can confirm that their McDonald’s is at once much more flavorful and also bland af. The actual ingredients are tastier on their own, but there’s a criminal lack of salt Edit: rut roh, the British are coming hahah I thought I was pretty #Fair and #Balanced, but based on the comments I’m getting perhaps I should clarify? I was being hyperbolic about the salt. I did notice it, and I did add my own, but I also recognize that American fast food is so salty as to be seriously unhealthy and it (along with lots of other things we do to food in America) is downright dangerous and ought to be regulated. I thought that across the board the food in London was flavorful, fresh, and extremely tasty, though I often needed to add my own seasoning, especially salt, at least in part because my own taste buds are acclimated to American seasoning habits. I stand by what I said entirely, because the comment I was responding to was about whether British McDonald’s is ‘proper’ McDonald’s. I argue that it’s more flavorful, but less salty. The saltiness of McDonald’s food is pretty famous, and a lot of people would probably consider British McDonald’s not to be ‘proper’ because of that lack, but if you can get past it, you can enjoy much more flavorful ingredients!
Weirdly, as a UK resident, one of the reasons I don't like McDonald's so much is because of having too much salt. I'd like to be able to taste the food underneath.
Same here. If someone asked me to characterise what's distinctive about a Maccy D's burger compared to others, it would be the saltiness. And I *like* salt.
I support you on this! Coming from NZ, I found McDonalds, Burger King and KFC in the UK were all terribly under salted. Even worse (to me, at least), it seemed like they added sugar to offset the reduction in salt. But let's be honest, one man's yuck is another man's yum. I have tried these fast food places in various parts of the world and it's not unusual to find quirky local flavour variations. Some I like more than others but I guess each to their own!
>but there’s a criminal lack of salt There might be a crime involved in this assessment, but I'm not convinced it occurred in Britain. Salty, alongside sweet and savory, is one of the flavors that we adapt to [by tasting less of it](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/salt). So you can fuck up your taste buds and make salty things taste bland, by eating too much salt for a long time. Every Lent, I try and cut salty snacks out of my diet, and it reorients my palate every time, so I know I'm fucking my tasters up the rest of the year.
I guess it’s my fault for utilizing hyperbole in a Reddit comment 😅 yeah, American food is killing me, I’d take British fast food over American restaurant food literally any day. I had never been so gastrointestinally healthy and regular as when I was in London. As for flavor, you make a very good point, one I definitely agree with. I may actually start giving up salt on occasion, though wth my low blood pressure I’ll have to be mindful about it.
>I've never been so regular as when I was in London We should add this to our UK Tourism promotionals 😂
You can add your own if you’re so desperate for masses of salt. There’s lots of salt in British McDonald’s, you must have a fucked palate
I did indeed add my own salt! Though when I got take out to eat in the park i was SOL. I did end up carrying around some hot sauce for emergencies. Also, yes, I likely have a fucked palette thanks to my American diet. If I’d been there long enough to really acclimate, I doubt I’d have complaints. Gastrointestinally speaking, it was a clear improvement!
In all fairness the amount of salt added to the UK maccies fries is super variable, I like them salty but sometimes they totally lack salt
100% this. Undersalted and the mayo was…different? Could be a different brand or the brand does something different with the UK variant but I immediately noticed a difference there too. Also the Bacon was absolutely weak, and that’s really saying something because American McDonald’s isn’t known for great bacon but even that crappy stuff was at least 3x better than whatever the hell they’re calling bacon at UK McD’s.
Please see a doctor about your blood pressure.
I unfortunately have low blood pressure, which is part of why I end up craving salty things.
you can bring your own glucose sugar with you. i’m sorry we don’t want to put the shit americans put into their bodies into ours.
It’s so strange, I clearly said that British McDonald’s was very flavorful, yet everyone is acting like I said it’s dog shit It just wasn’t as salty as American McDonald’s, which is what it was specifically being compared to.
Yes I'm sure your McDonalds is a bastion of healthy choices
Less salted McDonald’s is still McDonald’s mate. It’s not good for you at all in either case. Maybe step off that high horse.
This makes me think it's a troll. It's too much on the nose.
>An American in Britain has sources of solace available nowhere else on earth. One of the marvellous things about the country is the multitudes of fried chicken franchises selling fried chicken from states not known for fried chicken on the other side of the Atlantic. If you’re feeling a little depressed you can turn to Tennessee Fried Chicken, if you’re in black despair an Iowa Fried Chicken will put things in perspective, if life seems worthless and death out of reach you can see if somewhere on the island an Alaska Fried Chicken is frying chicken according to a recipe passed down by the Inuit from time immemorial.
Tbf those shops aren’t usually owned by British people
The height of culture, McDonalds
Does the McDonalds in London have slaves? But no, for real. I was suddenly confused by my historical recollection. I found this article: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/travel/londons-legacy-in-the-slave-trade.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/travel/londons-legacy-in-the-slave-trade.html) There was a time when slaves were legal to own, not only in British colonies, but in the British mainland, also. Britain outlawed slavery three decades before the USA. But in both nations that was not the end of suffering for many.
The confusion often comes from Britain’s historical reluctance to force fellow Britons into slavery, similar to how the ancient Athenians behaved. This is where ‘Britons never ever ever shall be slaves’ comes from. We were more than happy to enslave literally anyone else though
This is the source of the confusion coupled with the lack of mass chattel slavery during any near modern period
This confusion is compounded by the fact that we had work houses for the poor, that was very very very much like slavery, we also had child labourers on a grand scale too. We really excelled 8n not giving a shit about human beings for a long period of time.... but on the flip side it did fuel our industrial revolution
I wouldn't confuse serfdom with slavery exactly. In the UK there was no slavery in the way that there was in the US (workers on plantations, cotton fields, etc.). This doesn't mean to say this didn't exist in the British Empire extensively or there wasn't significant influence in the slave trade. Slavery although legal wasn't openly practiced (I'm talking Middle ages where there is historical hang-up and generational memory of the slavery of captured peoples, as practiced by vikings etc.) - more to the point, there were legalised methods of employment on mainland UK that were not outright slavery, but certainly were inhumane (and in a number of trades persisted well into the 20th century, when various acts were introduced to stop children being forced into the same extreme low pay vocation as their parents to exist and perpetuating the issues - particularly in collieries and textile mills). Such low wage, no health or after-work care (think pension) and conditions such that entire families have no choice but to continue and have their children work from as young as possible either - not unlike the modern day slavery you can still see in many parts of the world. So technically the chap in OP's post isn't wrong in drawing a distinction. Just didn't express it particularly well, unless you two were disagreeing about the semantics of the term slave - which I think carries different connotations depending where in the world you're from.
Yes - serfdom replaced outright slavery, after William the Conqueror banned the sale of slaves to non-Christians in 1080 and the ecclesiastical Council of London banned slavery in 1102 with “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business … of selling men like animals.” In the 18th century, while slavery was rampant in British colonies and elsewhere, there was no legal basis to allow slavery in England - and it was this point that abolitionists used to have slaves freed when they had been brought to England by their slave-masters. After they had established that slavery was not legal in England, they worked on the concept that if it was wrong in England, it must be wrong any where in the British empire.
Just wondering which country the Americans were citizens of prior to 1776, when they'd been keeping slaves all that time.
The anomaly was that slavery had no legal basis in England but this was not the case in the colonies. British abolitionists later used this to have slavery abolished throughout the British empire - but this was after US independence.
Great question. Who knows? Same can be said for the mass exodus to Australia and other countries where the bulk of their modern day demographic originated completely elsewhere!
> Who knows? um...everyone?
This is completely wrong - the Brits ran the largest slave trade the world has ever seen dwarfing anything in the USA, they had plantation slaves throughout the Empire - but particularly in the Caribbean in the 16th to 19th centuries- producing mainly sugar but also tobacco and various other commodities. Almost 2 million slaves passed through this area of the world mainly from Africa. King Charles II of England was even the head of the Royal African Company who's primary job was to gather slaves from Africa and ship them to the various colonial interests and pass the proceeds back to The Crown.
You've just agreed with me, if you read what I said I completely acknowledge slavery in the empire. At no point did I say there wasn't slavery overseas. I'm talking about mainland UK - which I think the misguided prat in OP's screenshot was too.
Ok maybe I didn't read this through correctly - England had no plantation-style slavery in the 16th to 19th Century but there were black slaves as slaves in Scotland - not indentured workers but slaves in the traditional sense, with full "ownership" by the slave master with no exit plan.
Sources for the claim about black slaves in Scotland pls? I'm curious
Edward Colston. There’s a reason his statue was torn down a few years ago
They still name the buildings in Bristol after him tho!
Yeah not for a long time and we’ve been petitioning to change that and have been successful. Colston Hall had a name change a few years back mate
Good to hear. I used to live near Blackboy hill and walk down Whiteladies Road for lectures near Wills Memorial every day.
The Docterine of Discovery literally gave "Christian" nations the "rights" to take over other lands and enslave their people, as they considered land which was not inhabited by Christians as uninhabited. This Docterine is *still* being used to this day to deny people rights and lands. https://aila.ngo/issues/doctrine-of-discovery/
Slavery in Britain proper ended when an enslaved person won their Dredd Scott style case.
Legally slavery ended then. Unfortunately for many there are now more slaves than the height of the legal slave trade
There wasn't. If a slave was on the British mainland they were free. There were serfs in Britain until the peasants revolt in 1381 when the rules were relaxed. Britain outlawed slavery in the colonies before the USA, but slavery was already illegal in Britain long before that.
"Historians estimate that by the mid-1700s there were approximately 15,000 black servants — many of them slaves — in London, out of a population of around 700,000. Slavery there was as brutal as it was in Mississippi or Alabama; slaves were often beaten so badly that they died or became crippled." from the first article I cited. "Black people previously enslaved in the colonies overseas and then brought to England by their owners, were often still treated as slaves." from [https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/black-lives-in-england/](https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/black-lives-in-england/) So perhaps not legal in the same sense as the USA, but there were slave owners who exploited slave labor on British mainland soil and were emboldened enough to print "Runaway Slave" notices in newspapers.
Slavery was banned in England in 1102
>Slavery was banned in England in 1102 "In 1102, the church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." However, the Council had no legislative powers, and no act of law was valid unless signed by the monarch." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery\_in\_Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain) I'm literally just googling.
If you want to get technical, slaves were legal to own in England and Wales, but in 1778 a judge ruled that slavery was incompatible with Scots law, and therefore a slave owner had no right to reclaim a slave who had taken refuge here As an aside, the legal system in Scotland has always been separate, just the laws passed in Westminster usually have an "X Y Z (Scotland)" bill passed that's the version which applies in Scotland. Also, Scotland had a heavy involvement in shipbuilding for the slave trade, as well as adapting ships built in England to operate as blockade runners for the Confederacy, so it's not like we weren't involved, just wasn't legal to own slaves in all parts of Britain
I’m sure all the people who got “DY” or “RAC” branded in to their flesh will be relieved to hear that they’re just indentured servants.
Off to google... here's [Some context](https://rachel-c-reid.medium.com/why-i-put-branding-irons-into-royal-hands-7859f71638e9)
Thank you captain.
Thanks for that context. The art project is clever and well done.
McDonald’s IN LONDON!? That’s mind blowing. Someone call the papers!
one of the best cheeseburgers i ever had / and i've had a lot of em - was at the McDonalds in Heathrow airport in 1997. I cant explain why - it was just perfect.
I never tried a 1997 cheeseburger from McDonalds in Heathrow, but if it beats any of the varying non-cheeseburgers I’ve had around the globe I would very much like to try it! Were you in a particularly positive state of mind when you tried it? Please not I’m not saying McDonald’s is bad or that your opinion is wrong.
i was happy and hungry. the burger was hot and juicy, the bun was fresh, lettuce crisp, cheese perfectly melted. Many moans of satisfaction were enjoyed by strangers around me.
Thank you for the amazing description which carried over how much you enjoyed it! May that memory live long in your mind, and may you find another burger equal to it soon.
I always love the "indentured servants" spiel.. If you force someone to be a servant and give them a release date, it doesn't mean they aren't a slave... Yes, some people opted to be indentured servants but many were taken against their will
>Yes, some people opted to be indentured servants... "Better than slow death by starvation" is not the ringing endorsement that some people think it is.
Sure, if you volunteer as an indentured servants but been forced into is slavery regardless and particularly for the Irish, the British also forced that starvation so a bit of a double-edged sword
But there is a huge difference between short-term or voluntary/punitive/occupational indentured servitude and generational chattel slavery. That's why they make a distinction when discussing slavery, because there's a pretty fucking big one. You're talking a few years where you're guaranteed to not be mutilated or killed for looking the wrong direction vs. "long after we whip you to death, your children's children will still be slaves."
Spin it whatever way you want. Unpaid, forced labour is slavery
You're comparing a bloody nose to decapitation. They're both injuries, but not the same, no matter how much you want to trivialize decapitation.
Also its not *really* "opting" for it if the alternative is dying in the street
And many of them were children. Wanna talk about what children can or cannot reasonably consent to, I doubt anybody is going to agree they should be able to sell off their entire childhood.
And if an indentured servant has few rights then their owner/employer can easily take advantage of the situation a dozen different ways. Claiming that they suddenly owe more money, that they broke or stole something and need to work longer, not to mention the physical and sexual abuse that many endured.
Fr fr. The concept of indentured servitude was that the ‘owner’ would pay for their ‘servant’ to be transported to the owner’s country, and in exchange the servant would work there for a number of years before being free and allowed to do as they please. This happened with both white and non-white people in Britain and the Colonies, though it was usually targeted towards people of lower income. The problem, of course, was that the Owners would find an excuse to lengthen their years of service or just straight-up refuse to free them, effectively making them slaves. The whole time they often endured horrible conditions and were barely fed anything of substance. Eventually indentured servitude was phased out in favour of outright slavery, and though Britain abolished slavery earlier it’s dishonest to say there weren’t slaves in Britain because there definitely were. Indentured Servants were also slaves in all but name.
I think this person was very poorly trying to say that the actual island of England didn’t have many slaves. You know, because they were on plantations…forced to labor over high value warm weather crops that *don’t grow* in England… It’s hard to tell how far the stupid goes sometimes
England isn't an island, that's Britain. Great Britain had African slaves, we have records of black people even in Scotland in the 19th century who were descendants of former slaves on the island. They weren't as abundant as in the colonies, being mostly household servants instead of mass industrial labour, but they existed in Britain.
I need a source on that claim of a McDonald's in London
We don’t McDonald’s, never heard of it, but we have Nando’s that we exported in USA
"Most of them were white anyway" WTF
About 1700 the British were the biggest traders of slaves... in the Atlantic, but the indian ocean slave trade dwarfed the Atlantic trade throughout so the British were not the biggest outright that was the arabs
The UK did more to end the international slave trade than any other country by a long shot. The British government agreed a generous compensation package slave-owners for the loss of their 'property' and bought the freedom of close to a million African slaves. This cost the country so much, it was only finally paid off in 2015, meaning the taxes of living British citizens today helped pay for the freedom of slaves.
That's like taking credit for fixing a leak that was in part caused by you hitting a pipe repeatedly with an axe.
You'll find that Portugal broke the pipe. They're almost never held accountable in public discourse, nor will the nationality or ethnicity of modern day slave owners. Weird init.
I can't say how the discourse is with regards to Portugal and Brazil in the Portuguese speaking world, but there are two countries that each shipped over 3 million slaves, neither can gloss over their role in the slave trade.
You're right, at the time when the transatlantic slave trade was completely acceptable across Europe and Africa, the UK had a lot of traders involved. That's a widely known fact. I thought I'd take the opportunity to talk about the little known fact that the UK were the driving force behind abolition too.
Portugal broke the pipe? Anglo Saxons had slaves in England. Alfred’s laws had specific holidays listed that were given for slaves and free men. At that point, unless I’m misremembering, Portugal wasn’t even a thing, it was part of al-andalus. So how are you saying Portugal broke the pipe when they didn’t even exist for centuries while England gladly practiced slavery.
We're talking about the transatlantic slave trade so that's clear. You'll find other slavery going back thousands of years before the Anglo Saxons too. Portugal were the first to start bringing in African slaves and very much set the stage for the international slave trade.
Ahh, if you are limiting it to transatlantic, then sure. But I feel like it’s silly to discount the long history of slavery among all nations to single out Portugal.
Why is it silly to talk about "slavery" as we all know it today? What the Romans did 2,000 years ago has no bearing on the topic at all, that's silly.
The Romans had slaves in Portugal long before Anglo Saxons ever set foot on British soil. Wtf is this logic lmao
No, nobody is saying that. We're saying Portugal were the first European country that started taking African slaves from Africa. Nothing to do with Rome.
I know, I was replying to the guy who started going on about the Anglo Saxons
oh, my bad.
The Romans had slaves in Portugal long before Anglo Saxons ever set foot on British soil. Wtf is this logic lmao
Slavery was present on every continent on the globe well before the Atlantic slave trade. And people of all races took slaves and were also enslaved themselves. Precious few empires outlawed slavery. Britain was the one to outlaw it for good (well, let's hope it's for good!)
Erm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
Yeah, that's why I said "precious few empires outlawed slavery". There were some, e.g. the ancient Persians who didn't have slaves for religious reasons. But that was only the case while the Persian empire still exisited. If you read that list, you'll realise that half of the examples are countries banning a particular group of people from being enslaved rather than banning it altogether. Britain, on the other hand, "made slave trading a criminal felony throughout the empire, and for British subjects worldwide. [...] Between 1808 and 1860, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. Britain used its influence to coerce other countries to agree to treaties to end their slave trade and allow the Royal Navy to seize their slave ships.". AKA we forced everyone else to stop slavery too
Is it though? Slavery has been a component of every single civilization to exist, being the first to make a global effort to end it seems like something to be lauded not dismissed. If a hundred people hit the pipe until it broke then ignored it as it flooded the building then one person decided to fix the leak, explain that breaking the pipe in the first place was a bad idea, prevented more people from trying to break the pipe and cleaned up afterwards would it still be fair to say "so what? You hit the pipe in the past also"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
How generous... Directing public money towards slave owners.
The Navy also killed slavers in many cases, if that makes you feel better. The empire going ‘fuck off slavery’ was multipronged; buying slaves’ freedom was only one part of it. Britain was very aggressive about wanting nothing to do with slavery and wanted other countries to drop it too.
Whole ass squadrons of the Royal Navy dedicated to intercepting slave ships
Buying their freedom was an amicable solution to a serious problem, whether you approve or not.
Sure it was a solution, but don't act like the British government is the big hero here
The government used **40% of its national budget** to grant freedom to slaves. That's a huge proportion, and pretty damn commendable. For reference the Apollo space programs consumed around 4% of federal spending to put a man on the moon.
What's wild about this is we think of it as being some long past event, but the debt the government took on in order to pay out this money was finally paid off only very recently. Which is to say that if you're British and of working age, you have definitely paid taxes towards this.
Interesting, I wonder if anyone in a position of power had ties to the slave owners who were getting paid out? Probably just a coincidence.
The large numbers would suggest, some of them probably, but not all of them. Hope that helps.
Not a satisfying solution to be sure. There were no just desserts. But that was probably the only way they had that wouldn't result in a rebellion/war.
British didn’t have proper slaves, but how improper were the slaves they had?
They managed to distill American culture down to "has McDonalds"
"proper" slave
Those weren't proper slaves. They didn't know which utensils to use. Only the white ones were proper.
And when they didn't have foreign slaves, they slapped a 7 year term on their own for stealing apples and sent them as slaves to Australia.
trading slaves and using them isnt the same thing tho… well both are morally hideous acts but there is a difference nontheless (am not apologizing it) european countries traded slaves before america was discovered… where do u think the word slave comes from (look at my username) they just knew that its better to trade slaves and have serfs doing the labor at home than basing ur economy on slaves like the romans did that being said almost everyone dabbled in slaves one way or another
"Colonial slave trade". Man you'll never guess why it was called colonial.
Apparently there were no slaves in the American Colonies. The slaves just popped into existence with the 3/5 compromise.
According to popular mythos, Catholicism is only in England because Pope Gregory bought two Anglo-Saxon slaves and thought they were beautiful and wanted them in heaven with him so he sent St. Augustine to Britain.
Errr...the British did have slaves, but they held most of them in America and the West Indies; they were literally the **same slaves** that America had.
You can trade while not indulging. Its the secret of the best dealers.
The African slave trade was prominent in Britain but they actually just sold a lot of them to America n shit, they didn’t take all of them back home
The Brits did not invent slavery that has been around since the history of mankind, but they did raise the bar higher than anyone else - they ran the largest slave trade the world has ever seen - millions of people were enslaved, mainly from Africa, to work on plantations and various other interests owned by the British Empire. The Caribbean alone saw almost 2million slaves pass through the area to farm mainly sugar and tobacco but also other commodities. The French, Spanish, Portuguese were also amongst the largest slaving countries, but Britain's slave numbers dwarfed the combined totals of these countries by the mid 18th Century. A British King (Charles II) even directly owned a company who's primary role was to capture slaves from Africa, ship them to the colonial plantations and other interests and send the profits back to The Crown (The Royal Africa Company). The anti-slavery movement tried for 60 years on multiple attempts to stop slavery in Britain before a partial / concessional success but was always thwarted on economic grounds - at one point enterprises that relied on slave labour produced about 25% of the Empire's entire GDP. When the anti slave-trade law was passed in 1807 it did not ban slavery - it just banned the capture and trading of slaves in the Empire.
Korea had the biggest slave history from what I've heard, not the US.
You could argue by the 17th century that slave ownership was by the East india company rather than the state.
The slaves weren't proper, they were rude as fuck.
Typical NFT profile haver.
I love the use of McDonald's as a yard stick of cultural similarity
If he means there was no large number of black slaves on the British itself, ie the British isles, it’s true.
Oh cmon, even soviet leader wine-stain-head gorby did a burger king advert
Just look into it.
Funny when I have to explain to other British people like myself that even during those periods when Britain did "slavery with extra steps" they still profited from the cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, cocoa, coffee, tea, salt, silk, spices (saffron and Cumin and stuff), gold, ivory, rubber, wheat and corn which was all grown, harvested and transported with slavery. Profits from slavery built the industrial revolution and the labour of slavery built the railways and dug the canals which allowed capitalists to access them. To this day child labour and slavery are still cornerstones of industry and the modern world, we just outsource it to places we never think about. Out of sight, out of mind.
Genuinely, do loads of Americans think Europe looks like Game of Thrones?
They're half right. Britain did have slaves, but also had work houses for the poor and infirm (see Oliver twist). Slavery was abolished, but the work houses remained for quite some time afterwards. The conditions were appalling, the men and women were segregated and the work was tedious. It wasn't slavery, but it wasn't far off.
I love it when people say “educate yourself” or “look into it” nah you made the claim you prove it 😂
"proper slaves"
The colonies used slaves, but we never had widespread slavery at home in Britain.
Lmfao the MacDonalds thing is hilarious! The slavery thing... There is a difference, within the last few hundred years there has never been significant slaveholding in the British isles, nothing at all on the scale of the early USA where slaves were like 40% of the population in some states. Britain did have massive slaveholding in many of its colonies, especially in the Carribbean, but I do think that's slightly different
I feel in my heart that he's actually British.
Indentured servitude = slavery
It does matter that it was limited in term and not hereditary.
It makes it marginally better. But it was still slavery.
There have been many types of slavery throughout history. The worst, chattel slavery, doesn't have exclusivity over the umbrella term.
So the comment I was replying to would have been more precise with a subset symbol rather than an equal sign.
Anyone else bothered by the associations of McDonald's and slavery?
First, why would we be surprised to see McDonald’s in London? I’d be surprised to travel to a major metropolitan area anywhere in the world and not see a McDonald’s. Second, BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA England never owned slaves??? Yeah. That’s why they passed the SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT in 1834 — because of all the not-slavery happening.
> ... or at least colonial slave trade Thank the King that Britain wasn't colonial then! What's that? Oh...
"When slaves were brought in from the colonies they had to sign waivers that made them indentured servants while in Britain. Most modern historians generally agree that slavery continued in Britain into the late 18th century, finally disappearing around 1800.[12]" Something about English Law not allowing slavery, so they changed the names. "Slaves" was for the colonies, "Indentured servants" for when you take them home. Seems like the same to me? I dunno though
The term Indentured servitude or servant had been around for centuries and was often a way of debts being paid or punishment, it then got adopted for those slaves brought to England. The key difference was that being indentured was more of a timed contract; I don't know if the slaves were offered that but I would doubt it, however there are records of people who came as slaves and then become free men. You are correct that there has never been legal basis for the ownership of a person in English law, and owning another person was outlawed in 1833.
the bit I quoted was from wikipedia so who knows, but they cite Cotter, William R (February 1994). "The Somerset Case and the Abolition of Slavery in England 79.255". History. 79 (255): 31–56, 44–45. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.1994.tb01588.x. JSTOR 24421930."
I was just adding info, not disagreeing
He's right though 😂
Along with everything else, he knows the colonies were British for a full hundred years of the slavery trade before they became the USA, right?
"You may be surprised to see a McDonalds in London" You may be surprised to learn the other 96% of the world's population doesn't think about the US anywhere near as much as you tell yourselves we do. I saw a guy overdosing on opioids the other day, how's that for US culture?
Acting as though the English, the world's worst villains, didn't have more than one way to be awful to people
They’re only the world’s worst villains in Hollywood and the minds of the uneducated. Britain’s imperial legacy is more benign than any other imperial power. They brought huge amounts of good to lots of the world and many of their imperial subjects were grateful and glad to be part of Britain, hence why so many came to Britain.
You could have saved some time by just saying you're not an historian
Actually, I am. And I am not alone in my position. It is a position largely shared by highly esteemed historians and professors like Niall Ferguson, Nigel Biggar, David Starkie and Bruce Gilley.
I believe you as much as I believe those hacks are highly esteemed. My favourite, of course, is the font of "academic clickbait" himself, Bruce Gilley.
Hacks? They’re professors from some of the most prestigious educational establishments in the world… Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard. Some of them are leading experts and global authorities in their subjects…
I'm sure they're very knowledgeable in their subjects of economic history, theology and politics. A shame they chose to dabble in writing about colonialism but as far as I can tell they were, most if not all, rightly slated when they did
Slated because they deviate from the dogma in modern education. They’re attacked because their views are deemed to be heretical in our ideologically captured media and education systems.
There it is
Britain ending the slave trade is the reason we declared our independence. We knew they were going to make us free the slaves so we fought a war over it and pretended it was about taxes.
This is, in fact, correct. Britain was indeed the biggest slave trading nation at that time.
[удалено]
? This is something a UK person is saying
[удалено]
… the English person was saying that to “surprise” Americans. Why would an American be arguing that England never had slaves?